Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Years ago I sought to get an understanding of quantum mechanics and I found this documentary:

Nova, quantum mechanics

And it says that "energy is quantized" at 11:40. And to illustrate this point the image on the screen splits into lots of uniform cubes.

This led me to conclude that everything is made of indivisible, uniform pieces. Like any image on this pixelated screen. No only because of they way they showed it but because they said that quantum mechanics governs the things that everything is made of. Also they said energy is quantized and some other sources have said that everything is made of energy. From this I concluded that everything is quantized.

Is this the case?

I found some sources that explain that the energy of light is quantized. Is that what Nova ment or do they mean all energy?

Also, I found some articles that say while light only comes in discrete chunks (quanta), the chunks can have any value depending on the circumstances. The light can't come in values of 1, then 3.5 then 2, only in one number. But depending on the light sources it can come in a steam of 1s, 3.5s 2s or any continuous value etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Omnifarious said:

Years ago I sought to get an understanding of quantum mechanics and I found this documentary:

Nova, quantum mechanics

And it says that "energy is quantized" at 11:40. And to illustrate this point the image on the screen splits into lots of uniform cubes.

This led me to conclude that everything is made of indivisible, uniform pieces. Like any image on this pixelated screen. No only because of they way they showed it but because they said that quantum mechanics governs the things that everything is made of. Also they said energy is quantized and some other sources have said that everything is made of energy. From this I concluded that everything is quantized.

Is this the case?

I found some sources that explain that the energy of light is quantized. Is that what Nova ment or do they mean all energy?

Also, I found some articles that say while light only comes in discrete chunks (quanta), the chunks can have any value depending on the circumstances. The light can't come in values of 1, then 3.5 then 2, only in one number. But depending on the light sources it can come in a steam of 1s, 3.5s 2s or any continuous value etc.

See now you are understanding what I was trying to explain in the other thread(https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/37745-is-there-a-finite-number-of-different-images-we-can-possibly-see/page/3/), Yes everything is quantized(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics)). The only thing that has not been 100% proven to be quantized is gravity because there are issues between General Relativity's Math and Quantum Mechanics's Math but there have been many attempts at producing a theory of Quantum Gravity(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity).

 

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

This maybe of interest;

Quote

 

  • The aim of the causal dynamical triangulations approach is to define nonperturbatively a quantum theory of gravity as the continuum limit of a lattice-regularized model of dynamical geometry. My aim in this paper is to give a concise yet comprehensive, impartial yet personal presentation of the causal dynamical triangulations approach.

 

Introduction

Quote

 

Will the quantum theory of gravity prove to be yet another triumph of the paradigm of the quantum theory of fields?

Any answer to this question—especially one based on current experimental knowledge and even one based on current theoretical knowledge—is extremely premature. Any attempt to construct a quantum theory of gravity as a quantum theory of fields—in light of this paradigm’s spectacular successes—is clearly motivated. Well prior to these successes—indeed, concurrent with the development of quantum electrodynamics, our archetypal quantum theory of fields—were the first such attempts undertaken. Rosenfeld initiated a field-theoretic quantization of linearized general relativity [12], and Bronstein began to address the issues posed by the nonlinearity of general relativity for such a quantization [3].

Quote

Through the work of myriad others, we have since learned that a field-theoretic quantization of general relativity cannot be precisely patterned on that of Maxwellian electrodynamics. As ’t Hooft and Veltman first suggested and Goroff and Sagnotti then demonstrated, quantum general relativity is perturbatively nonrenormalizable [45]. This technical result is by no means the death knell of a field-theoretic quantum theory of gravity. First of all, as Donoghue has stressed, this nonrenormalizability presents no obstruction to the derivation of universal predictions for sufficiently low energy quantum gravitational phenomena [6]. In other words, perturbative quantum general relativity constitutes a consistent effective theory whose predictions any quantum theory of gravity (with general relativity as its classical limit) must reproduce. Unfortunately, at least for experimental investigations, the quantum gravitational phenomena so predicted are exceedingly small effects as the inverse Planck energy sets their typical magnitudes. Potentially, nonpertubative quantum gravitational phenomena might be manifest at energy scales much smaller than the Planck energy

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-015-9972-8

 

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect I don't think VictorMedvil or Write4u should be considered reliable sources or have their writings taken too seriously. 

Write4u has shown he/she cannot tell the difference between scientific fact and personal opinion. And has no trouble passing one off as the other.

VictorMedvil not only makes erroneous and extreme claims about science but uses sources to to back him/her up. Sources which ironically state that these matters are still theoretical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

With all due respect I don't think VictorMedvil or Write4u should be considered reliable sources or have their writings taken too seriously. 

Write4u has shown he/she cannot tell the difference between scientific fact and personal opinion. And has no trouble passing one off as the other.

VictorMedvil not only makes erroneous and extreme claims about science but uses sources to to back him/her up. Sources which ironically state that these matters are still theoretical. 

Theories are the closest thing that science has to laws, there has been mountains of evidence that the theory of general relativity is correct but it is still just a theory. I want to challenge you with something go to https://www.physicsforums.com/ and ask your questions and see what happens. They would just ban you for crackpottery, but this science forums is a bit more relaxed. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it erroneous, you are far from a science expert and haven't learned the things others have, here is a thread I started just for you,(https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-planck-length-the-smallest-length-possible.999993/). It seems the answer is not known so I am leaning toward the fact the universe is not infinite in my opinion, once a theory of quantum gravity is proven there will be a answer just wait for it omnifarious. As I said originally everything has been proven to be quantized besides gravity because the theories of quantum gravity don't have enough evidence to prove them 100% correct such as String Theory or Quantum Loop Gravity.

"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 2:13 AM, Omnifarious said:

Years ago I sought to get an understanding of quantum mechanics and I found this documentary:

Nova, quantum mechanics

And it says that "energy is quantized" at 11:40. And to illustrate this point the image on the screen splits into lots of uniform cubes.

This led me to conclude that everything is made of indivisible, uniform pieces. Like any image on this pixelated screen. No only because of they way they showed it but because they said that quantum mechanics governs the things that everything is made of. Also they said energy is quantized and some other sources have said that everything is made of energy. From this I concluded that everything is quantized.

Is this the case?

I found some sources that explain that the energy of light is quantized. Is that what Nova ment or do they mean all energy?

Also, I found some articles that say while light only comes in discrete chunks (quanta), the chunks can have any value depending on the circumstances. The light can't come in values of 1, then 3.5 then 2, only in one number. But depending on the light sources it can come in a steam of 1s, 3.5s 2s or any continuous value etc.

The empirical knowledge we obtain through the scientific process is quite different from ontological knowledge, which is that obtained through the study of concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality.

The point is, scientific investigation, in itself, does not make determinations about the true nature of reality, whatever that may be.

Even if science was to say that all phenomena can be quantized, that only means that experimental results are consistent with such a model. It certainly does not mean that we know beyond any doubt that all phenomena really do exist in discrete packets, or quanta.

There is an old saying that “the map is not the territory” and that is especially true in quantum physics, which uses models which are very effective as perceptual systems in predicting results of experiments, but are at the same time often very counter intuitive and even weird.

 It helps to remember that no matter how useful and effective such models may be, they are still just models. It may be tempting to assume the models are one and the same as reality, but the true nature of reality may be something that we humans can never quite apprehend, and the best we can ever do is create better and better models.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 4:46 PM, OceanBreeze said:

 It helps to remember that no matter how useful and effective such models may be, they are still just models. It may be tempting to assume the models are one and the same as reality, but the true nature of reality may be something that we humans can never quite apprehend, and the best we can ever do is create better and better models.

I'm not sure if I ever thought about science like that. I suppose I thought it was like a compendium of absolute truths. 

A directory of true of false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Omnifarious said:

I'm not sure if I ever thought about science like that. I suppose I thought it was like a compendium of absolute truths. 

A directory of true of false.

I have to say that you have the wrong idea about science.

Science does not deal in absolutes. The whole scientific process is based upon criticism, open-mindedness and accumulation of new evidence that either supports or refutes hypotheses and theories of the natural universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 11:13 AM, Omnifarious said:

From this I concluded that everything is quantized.

Is this the case?

Instead of always trying to make facts fit the hypothesis, I often reverse the question and try to discover what happens then.

In the case of energy quantization, what would be the result of a purely continuous spacetime?

Quantum Spacetime

Quote

In mathematical physics, the concept of quantum spacetime is a generalization of the usual concept of spacetime in which some variables that ordinarily commute are assumed not to commute and form a different Lie algebra. The choice of that algebra still varies from theory to theory. As a result of this change some variables that are usually continuous may become discrete. Often only such discrete variables are called "quantized"; usage varies.

Quote

The idea of quantum spacetime was proposed in the early days of quantum theory by Heisenberg and Ivanenko as a way to eliminate infinities from quantum field theory. The germ of the idea passed from Heisenberg to Rudolf Peierls, who noted that electrons in a magnetic field can be regarded as moving in a quantum space-time, and to Robert Oppenheimer, who carried it to Hartland Snyder, who published the first concrete example.[1] Snyder's Lie algebra was made simple by C. N. Yang in the same year.

Overview

Quote

Physical spacetime is a quantum spacetime when in quantum mechanics position and momentum variables {\displaystyle x,p}x,p are already noncommutative, obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and are continuous. Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, greater energy is needed to probe smaller distances. Ultimately, according to gravity theory, the probing particles form black holes that destroy what was to be measured. The process cannot be repeated, so it cannot be counted as a measurement. This limited measurability led many to expect that our usual picture of continuous commutative spacetime breaks down at Planck scale distances, if not sooner......more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetime#

 

If we recognize that all matter consists of distinct values (sometimes variable) there is only one possible conclusion, i.e. Quantization and Mathematics would not, could not work in analyzing the mechanics of a smooth continuous spacetime.

But we know they do, therefore........?????

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 6:22 PM, OceanBreeze said:

I have to say that you have the wrong idea about science.

Science does not deal in absolutes. The whole scientific process is based upon criticism, open-mindedness and accumulation of new evidence that either supports or refutes hypotheses and theories of the natural universe.

Actually I thought science is absolutely about absolutes, they are exactly what it deals in. Saying that things are this way or because of this and that's the end of it. That scientists are supposed to be sceptical and reject any kind of paranormal or supernatural explanation without even considering it. That's why I can't imagine how scientists can be religious. 

I remember when I was a child, I saw a cartoon where a scientist says "I don't believe in fairy tales, only in scientific facts. That's what being a scientist is all about." I think that played a part in shaping my understanding of science.

I've long supposed that somewhere out there, there's a panel of scientific minds that decide what is true or false and stamp them accordingly... Phrenology-false, evolution-true, and then they are the ones who authorize putting those truths in books and teaching them in school. I wanted to know what they had stamped this and other things that worry me.

In my experience scientists, or at least scientifically minded people, are anything but open minded. My father was a scientist, he worked in a chemical co's lab, helped to set up laboratories across the country and in his spare time he had a hobby in astronomy and read any of the 4 science magazines he subscribed to. And he is completely inflexible in his beliefs, particularly when it came to science. Some theories he treats as gospel.

I have talked to people about science here and on other sites about all the ideas and theories that bother me. Most, if not all of of them say they are true right away. that these are truths so self evident that they aren't even up for discussion.

And then there are the people who make science documentaries who are always talking about things as if they are proven. On the tv show Nova, in the episode about multiverses, the presenter (I think it was Brian Greene) said...

"Since matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space..."

He doesn't start by saying "Theoretically there is.." "Hypothetically..." or "If it's true that..." No he just geos straight to "Since" like it's proven. And when people talk like that I can't help but assume they know it for a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

Actually I thought science is absolutely about absolutes, they are exactly what it deals in. Saying that things are this way or because of this and that's the end of it. That scientists are supposed to be sceptical and reject any kind of paranormal or supernatural explanation without even considering it. That's why I can't imagine how scientists can be religious. 

I remember when I was a child, I saw a cartoon where a scientist says "I don't believe in fairy tales, only in scientific facts. That's what being a scientist is all about." I think that played a part in shaping my understanding of science.

I've long supposed that somewhere out there, there's a panel of scientific minds that decide what is true or false and stamp them accordingly... Phrenology-false, evolution-true, and then they are the ones who authorize putting those truths in books and teaching them in school. I wanted to know what they had stamped this and other things that worry me.

In my experience scientists, or at least scientifically minded people, are anything but open minded. My father was a scientist, he worked in a chemical co's lab, helped to set up laboratories across the country and in his spare time he had a hobby in astronomy and read any of the 4 science magazines he subscribed to. And he is completely inflexible in his beliefs, particularly when it came to science. Some theories he treats as gospel.

I have talked to people about science here and on other sites about all the ideas and theories that bother me. Most, if not all of of them say they are true right away. that these are truths so self evident that they aren't even up for discussion.

And then there are the people who make science documentaries who are always talking about things as if they are proven. On the tv show Nova, in the episode about multiverses, the presenter (I think it was Brian Greene) said...

"Since matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space..."

He doesn't start by saying "Theoretically there is.." "Hypothetically..." or "If it's true that..." No he just geos straight to "Since" like it's proven. And when people talk like that I can't help but assume they know it for a fact.

s2cLRrD.png

 

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 10:27 AM, Omnifarious said:

 

I have talked to people about science here and on other sites about all the ideas and theories that bother me. Most, if not all of of them say they are true right away. that these are truths so self evident that they aren't even up for discussion.

And then there are the people who make science documentaries who are always talking about things as if they are proven. On the tv show Nova, in the episode about multiverses, the presenter (I think it was Brian Greene) said...

"Since matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space..."

He doesn't start by saying "Theoretically there is.." "Hypothetically..." or "If it's true that..." No he just geos straight to "Since" like it's proven. And when people talk like that I can't help but assume they know it for a fact.

Well, the quote you provided isn’t about a scientific fact at all but it is about a mathematical fact.

For a simple example just consider a 2-D finite space that is 4 square units in area and find out how many different ways you can arrange two 2-D objects, each of which occupies 1 square unit, allowing no overlaps. This can be solved by mathematics alone as 24 = 16 possible arrangements. The statement "Since matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space..." is a mathematically true statement.

That brings up an important point that is relevant to this thread, which is: “Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation” (Richard P. Feynman)

There are any number of mathematical models which are absolutely true, at least as far as the mathematics is concerned, that may have no relevance as far as physical reality is concerned.

Feynman neatly demonstrated this by using an example involving the partial reflection of light by glass of varying thickness. If we assume that the light is either reflected by the front surface of the glass and the back surface of the glass, then by summing Feynman's probability arrows for both paths we can correctly calculate the probability of light reflecting from any thickness of glass.

But, in reality light does not reflect from the surface of glass!

The relevant Feynman quote:

“Thus we can get the correct answer for the probability of partial reflection by imagining (falsely) that all reflection comes from only the front and back surfaces. In this intuitively easy analysis, the 'front surface' and 'back surface' arrows are mathematical constructions that give us the right answer, whereas .... a more accurate representation of what is really going on: partial reflection is the scattering of light by electrons inside the glass” (Richard P. Feynman)

Likewise, models of quantum physics which consider that physical phenomena consist of tiny particles or quanta may be extremely accurate, as far as giving correct answers to experiments, but may not be at all accurate as a true description of physical reality.

Personally, I prefer to reserve my judgement regarding the question of whether or not mathematical models adequately address the relationship between mathematics and physical reality. Other people are free to make their own judgement on this matter but I would be very skeptical of anyone who claims to know the answer with absolute certainty.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

Well, the quote you provided isn’t about a scientific fact at all but it is about a mathematical fact.

For a simple example just consider a 2-D finite space that is 4 square units in area and find out how many different ways you can arrange two 2-D objects, each of which occupies 1 square unit, allowing no overlaps. This can be solved by mathematics alone as 24 = 16 possible arrangements. The statement "Since matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space..." is a mathematically true statement.

That brings up an important point that is relevant to this thread, which is: “Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation” (Richard P. Feynman)

There are any number of mathematical models which are absolutely true, at least as far as the mathematics is concerned, that may have no relevance as far as physical reality is concerned.

Feynman neatly demonstrated this by using an example involving the partial reflection of light by glass of varying thickness. If we assume that the light is either reflected by the front surface of the glass and the back surface of the glass, then by summing Feynman's probability arrows for both paths we can correctly calculate the probability of light reflecting from any thickness of glass.

But, in reality light does not reflect from the surface of glass!

The relevant Feynman quote:

“Thus we can get the correct answer for the probability of partial reflection by imagining (falsely) that all reflection comes from only the front and back surfaces. In this intuitively easy analysis, the 'front surface' and 'back surface' arrows are mathematical constructions that give us the right answer, whereas .... a more accurate representation of what is really going on: partial reflection is the scattering of light by electrons inside the glass” (Richard P. Feynman)

Likewise, models of quantum physics which consider that physical phenomena consist of tiny particles or quanta may be extremely accurate, as far as giving correct answers to experiments, but may not be at all accurate as a true description of physical reality.

Personally, I prefer to reserve my judgement regarding the question of whether or not mathematical models adequately address the relationship between mathematics and physical reality. Other people are free to make their own judgement on this matter but I would be very skeptical of anyone who claims to know the answer with absolute certainty.

 

 

I completely agree with Oceanbreeze here, those are valid points, mathematical models don't always yield something that physically makes sense, however I do think that the idea of quanta makes sense physically just as you can only put so many possible orientations of objects in space, there is a limited amount of matter that can fit into a single unit of space. However black holes kinda break this sort of thinking as dx' = 0 @ V = C, how to fit a volume of matter in a space with the size of 0 is beyond the understanding of physics currently, but Special and General Relativity still claim this according to quantum physics matter/energy should not be able to go smaller than a certain wavelength. So, there are also anomies in physics still this just being a single example of one.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 12:35 PM, OceanBreeze said:

Well, the quote you provided isn’t about a scientific fact at all but it is about a mathematical fact.

 

That is perhaps the WORST thing you could have said to me! It was this theory that started all this obsession for me, all these different questions that I've been asking stem from that!

Years ago my father told me about it because he thought it was interesting. But it was the most horrific, soul crushing, life destroying thing I'd ever heard. It sent me into a spiralling depression I've yet to recover from. And 90% of the people I've asked have said it was true. And that number now includes you.

I thought you were different from the others, that you were that rare combination of being scientifically minded and against this theory. And now you tell me it's mathematically true?! I was hoping you'd give me a reason to doubt it, you were a source of comfort to me because I believed what you said. But now that you are confirming it, I can't help but feel that makes it true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...