Jump to content
Science Forums

Is everything quantized?


Omnifarious
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Fenmachsa said:

I don't know this article to post because I didn't understand what you guys were saying. but I'm still willing to share! In some systems, energy is quantized, which means that, in contrast to the classical case, the system can only contain a limited number of energies.

Welcome.

I was posing the question if universal quantized relational values must functions via generic mathematical guiding equations.

If not, then how could the universe function in an orderly manner, if not mathematically based and restrained ?

In your case of "limited" number of values (energies), are we in agreement as to the generic mathematical nature of their interactions?

Edited by write4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 2/18/2021 at 12:13 PM, 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.

As mentioned thus far gravity isn't quantized but this is due primarily to renormalization which essentially means it will diverge into infinities. We do not know the effective cutoffs for example the singularity of a BH. If the graviton is ever discovered then the theory would be readily renormalizable with an effective IR and UV cutoff (QFT)

 All SM particles however are quantified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/18/2021 at 11:13 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 wany to continue on the subject of discrete quantum values and how CDT may answer this interesting phenomenom.

 

Causal dynamical triangulation

Quote

 

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate LollJan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

 

Quote

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

The beauty is that fractals do have discrete values which can be repeated ad infinitum.

 The most basic example can be demonstrated with equilateral triangles, one of the most fundamental closed patterns (hence "triangulation") that has a distinct generic value at all sizes.  But when used in a simple exponential fractal formula.

The Sierpinski TriangleReading time

One of the fractals we saw in the previous chapter was the Sierpinski triangle,  a self-similar fractal, which is named after the Polish mathematician Wacław Sierpiński.It can be created by starting with one large, equilateral triangle, and then repeatedly cutting smaller triangles out of its center.

It consists of an equilateral triangle, with smaller equilateral triangles recursively removed from its remaining area.

sierpinski-triangle.svg

But this is an internal fractal. Watch what happens when the fractal function is executed on the exterior of the triangle.

Then you get a Koch snowflake.

image.png.1bddd6b70a5917b63dedff9786e86563.png

And if you use a fractal for a practical exercise, you get this;

 


 

image.png

Edited by write4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nonsense about 2D quantum foam and time fractals is way off track from my work.

The money is in graviton research, it’s technically multi-dimensional at all scales, 3 of space to define the gravitons which happen Planck scale, one dimension of their change in position and the rate of the jumps as in velocity or time, which is guided by multiple dimensions of the various frame rates  of spherically expanding and weakening gravitational waves. Indeterminacy in particle position is the work done by retrocausal gravitational waves, which push instead of pull and strengthen as their sphere of influence is reduced. The historical codex describes a type of circle which programs such as autocad can’t mathematically get right by simply rotating the y coordinate ad infinitum. One of my instructors observed me explaining it. I’m tired of the break down in communication, everything we already need for the graviton experiment is already accessible to you, those in charge need to bring me into that sector. We’re wasting time.

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

This nonsense about 2D quantum foam and time fractals is way off track from my work.

Are you denying the evidence?  Seems to me the point of the demonstration is that at Quantum scale we enter a 2D fractal world, which sounds entirely reasonable.

Why should gravitons not have fractal properties and/or values? Have you read CDT? 

Edited by write4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, write4u said:

Are you denying the evidence?  Seems to me the point of the demonstration is that at Planck scale we enter a 2D fractal world, which sounds entirely reasonable.

Why should gravitons not have fractal properties and/or values? Have you read CDT? 

Yes.

By fractal do you mean a reduction in dimensions? As we viddy when reducing a triangular pyramid into a triangle? This would be a way to explain non-positions or non-locality in particle physics.

But in the syntax of my work however, there’s a totally different topological and fundamental working component than these scrap models of yours. It goes against logic to assert that the building blocks of matter are somehow less dimensionally complete on an existential basis for mathematical structures that can and do happen. Fractals do not always have pi, not a lot of perfectly curved edges.

My bet is that if I have actually identified, albeit vaguely, the component responsible for levitating the Groom Lake artifact, and am not one of the people (Timothy Greer), who saw this component and he wasn’t even sure if the protons were why it was levitating, he even considered, erroneously, the thin layer of a dense element found in a convergence chamber was an energy source. When they rebuild it substituting antimatter with more readily available energy sources, such as ion batteries, they can’t see looking at the craft what they aren’t doing to make THAT particular component work even if they use x-rays to see inside the convergence chamber or cut into it. If my description of some component that’s been analyzed is right on the money and if my theory were the right one, as so it would seem, then why not inquire about it? It’s like the difference between gunpowder and arrows, one little nationless guild/corporation  stronger than other institutions like a nation or the Vatican, or Apple, or Space X or a bank. That’s why attention is being diverted from the subject. Those who operate the platform in which I interact with through this device are nationalists and I told them they won’t get any answers from me. I will only speak to quality people.

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

But in the syntax of my work however, there’s a totally different topological and fundamental working component than these scrap models of yours. It goes against logic to assert that the building blocks of matter are somehow less dimensionally complete on an existential basis for mathematical structures that can and do happen. Fractals do not always have pi, not a lot of perfectly curved edges.

In a dynamic environment it is a lot to ask for perfect conformation to mathematical guidance.

i.e. a circle is an idealized object that does not exist in the physical world.

 
Quote

 

With apologies to 1990s alt-rock fans, a perfect circle cannot exist outside the realm of mathematics. From subatomic particles to carefully built structures, nothing in the physical world passes the perfect circle test, where every point on the circumference is exactly equidistant from the circle's center.Mar 12, 2015

 

And so it is with every idealization of perfection in a dynamic environment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, write4u said:

In a dynamic environment it is a lot to ask for perfect conformation to mathematical guidance.

i.e. a circle is an idealized object that does not exist in the physical world.

 
And so it is with every idealization of perfection in a dynamic environment.

I guarantee you a black hole is perfectly spherical. The earth isn’t, the sun is smoother than the earth, a neutron star is smoother still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

I guarantee you a black hole is perfectly spherical. The earth isn’t, the sun is smoother than the earth, a neutron star is smoother still.

But that is the "event horizon" of a black hole ,  not the object itself. Moreover theoretically the black hole would have to be perfectly stationary.
Kerr metric with ergosphere

 

Quote

 

As soon as it begins rotating, the black hole is no longer in perfect spherical symmetry. It acquires an ergosphere, which is shaped like a flattened ball. This is the Kerr metric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

By fractal do you mean a reduction in dimensions?

No, I believe the fundamental dimensional fractal is a triangle. Hence the term Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)

Here is the quote from wiki.

Quote

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate LollJan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

IOW spacetime itself is a fractal object. I think that is a very elegant hypothesis and is supported by physical evidence of fractality everywhere we look.

Edited by write4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, write4u said:

But that is the "event horizon" of a black hole ,  not the object itself. Moreover theoretically the black hole would have to be perfectly stationary.
Kerr metric with ergosphere

 

 

The ergosphere is outside of the eh I’m referring to the singularity (planck scale).

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Applying fluid dynamics to the internal structure of a black hole is ridiculous. I’m referring to the ergosphere.

Ridiculous?  That is a rather confident statement. Are you sure?

Kerr metric

The Kerr metric or Kerr geometry describes the geometry of empty spacetime around a rotating uncharged axially symmetric black hole with a quasispherical event horizon. The Kerr metric is an exact solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity; these equations are highly non-linear, which makes exact solutions very difficult to find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, write4u said:

No, I believe the fundamental dimensional fractal is a triangle. Hence the term Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)

Here is the quote from wiki.

IOW spacetime itself is a fractal object. I think that is a very elegant hypothesis and is supported by physical evidence of fractality everywhere we look.

This is getting at the same thing, if the dimensions get to 2 D, like a pyramidal triangle becoming a normal triangle, you can have 3 D objects teleport where space is 2 D. If you think about it, that’s what velocity is, an object traveling from one point to another frame by frame. The only way to deduce speed from such an event is if a secondary object jumps that distance in less time than the first, then you have frequency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, write4u said:

Ridiculous?  That is a rather confident statement. Are you sure?

Kerr metric

The Kerr metric or Kerr geometry describes the geometry of empty spacetime around a rotating uncharged axially symmetric black hole with a quasispherical event horizon. The Kerr metric is an exact solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity; these equations are highly non-linear, which makes exact solutions very difficult to find.

This has nothing nothing to do with the singularity itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Kerr geometry describes the geometry of empty spacetime around a rotating

If gravity coming from the object in question produces pure gravity and nothing else there’s no reason to assume that it would change the angle in which the gravity pulls an object or not if a perfectly spherical source is rotated or not. However if it is moving that could change the angle of gravity working on surrounding objects, and it is moving at the same rate the g-wave is expanding unlike any other stellar object because the black hole is one all the gravitons in the core of a star in one graviton.

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, write4u said:

And the singularity is not subject to external stresses in a dynamic emvironment?

Note that we are talking mathematically idealized measurements which are not functionally necessary in nature.

It’s more along the lines of a black hole either absorbing some incoming energy-matter and flinging the rest ftl in my model. Although the ones it flings can produce thrust, I.e. fast gravity.

Link to comment
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...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...