Jump to content
Science Forums

Is muscle movement quantized or continuous?


Recommended Posts

Based on my knowledge, my chain of reasoning works like this...

When you want to move a muscle your brain sends an electrical nervous impulse along the chain of nerve cells to the muscle you want to move.

A nervous impulse is nothing other then a jolt of electricity, the voltage is uniform and the only difference is the rate the jolts are sent, resulting in faster movement.

When a muscle is hit by electricity it's reaction is to contract, this is what creates movement.

Given all this, is our movement continuous or quantized? Let's say one jolt moves my finger 1 degree, another jolt would move it another degree. Would that not make it impossible to move my finger 1.5 degrees? To me it stands to reason that while you could shut off the power to your finger at any time, making it theoretically continuous, there must be a minimum amount of frequency by the impulses needed to cause any movement.

If this is true then the movement of our bodies is the microscopic snapping through possible positions. And therefore there must be a finite number of possible positions our bodies can take. Like a knob that can only click it's way through the pre-determined positions on a dial.

Is all this true? Do nervous impulses work like I think they do? Are there things about nervous impulses or muscles we don't know? Are we capable of only positioning ourselves in this quantized way? Has anyone proven any of the things I have said? Please consider you answer carefully.

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

Please consider you answer carefully.

I might if I thought you could ask good questions. In other words, one could move their finger 1.2654719879044635 and how would you begin to ask the question of whether or not an electrical impulse would move the finger only .79044635 degrees, or or only .65471987904 less? Or change it's degree of movement from 1 degree to 1 8836572 degrees? And then to 2.97357 degrees? Unless you are saying that electrical impulses are all the same so body parts jerk to and from positions. Read up in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

1 hour ago, Omnifarious said:

Do nervous impulses work like I think they do?

No.

1 hour ago, Omnifarious said:

Are there things about nervous impulses or muscles we don't know?

 Kind of a rhetorical question. One only knows something if it isn't unknown. There may be research scientists who re running experiments that WE don't know about.

1 hour ago, Omnifarious said:

Are we capable of only positioning ourselves in this quantized way?

Does it really matter? Besides, you're saying "quantized way" as if it's a fact. You first set up questions and then create you own conclusion by producing a fact based on your questions yet to be answered? That is unacceptable.

1 hour ago, Omnifarious said:

Has anyone proven any of the things I have said?

How would YOU find out. Have YOU done an indepth scientific investigation of the literature? I do for the fields that I am interested in as I think most here do. I doubt professional ballet dancers would have issues with their fluidity. Although it's possible they would question it if they ever saw this thread.....or laugh and go on dancing.

Edited by Evolute
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 6:24 PM, Evolute said:

 

Does it really matter? Besides, you're saying "quantized way" as if it's a fact. You first set up questions and then create you own conclusion by producing a fact based on your questions yet to be answered? That is unacceptable.

 

It matters because it's connected to my issues regarding the possible infinitude of art from my other discussions. If our movement is limited like this then so is our ability to create in the physical world. You mentioned the movements of our eyes compensate for our photoreceptors. I also thought of that but if muscle movement is quantised then so is eye movement right?

And how is putting forth my hypothesis and then asking what people think of it unacceptable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 11:40 AM, Omnifarious said:

If this is true then the movement of our bodies is the microscopic snapping through possible positions.

Why do you even care? You have more than one "if this is true". You seem to think so

On 2/20/2021 at 11:40 AM, Omnifarious said:

Are we capable of only positioning ourselves in this quantized way?

You are assuming that it is and so you are basing your whole argument on that assumption "Based on my your) knowledge, my (your) chain of reasoning". You don't know if it is a quantized way. You're making the leap from inorganic action to organic action and assuming limitations to organic movement based on atomic fluctuations. I gave  you a link to Chaos Theory in the other thread. ALL of you concerns could be addressed there if you haven't gone there already. Why did you even begin this second thread if the topic relates to the other one? These aren't separate issues.

But let's say you're right here about "jerky" movement and even "jerky" eye movement. Whose to say that everything isn't relative in that the microscopic temporal stutter of body and eye aren't concurrent? It would mean that organic motion in the real world actually looks infinitely smooth since, for want of a better word, the quantum "blanks" in body and eye motion occur at the same time? Eye motion coincides with body motion so that both "jerk" through time simultaneously. If everything is locked into a sort of quantum rhythm then everything flows long nicely. Like a digital movie. Kind of like AC current at 60 Hz not flickering light bulbs although when touching a prong in an outlet one can feel the current alternating.

On 2/20/2021 at 11:40 AM, Omnifarious said:

Like a knob that can only click it's way through the pre-determined positions on a dial.

 This isn't like robotics. It is the elasticity of our cells that smooth out our movements. What you are getting at might be true if we were made up of completely inorganic material. Besides, you are only using what we can measure at the quantum level as the basis for your your reasoning. The microcosm could get infinitely smaller and smaller even as the macrocosm gets infinitely bigger and bigger. Of course science has, so far given quantum sizes a cut off point but it's never stopped science from going after ever smaller particles. It's only our ability to measure that limits us. Always has been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all governed by Newtonian physics(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics) and can still be calculated easily using the laws of motion. The amount of force produced by the muscle does a predictable amount of movement of the arm or leg or whatever, the combination of billions of muscle fibers contracting or expanding using chemical energy from the mitochondria in the form of ATP created by the mitochondria supplied by blood in the form of complex organic molecules such as sugar or carbohydrates along with oxygen. There is nothing special about the organic body it still is governed by physics in a predictable way.

 

Cycle of Chemicals In Life

i0-Eoc-ZFSB69-FHTYjb-H7-Cc-A-b.jpg

 

 

processes-production-ATP-glycolysis-tric

 

 

Muscle Movement Process

calcium-and-myosin-in-muscle-contraction

 

Newtonian Physics of kicking a ball

 

Physics-Sb-Bb-Kick.png

CNX-UPhysics-04-03-Soccer.jpg

 

I thought I would explain it in pictures to make you understand, which all could be explained in math but you wouldn't understand that and as pictures say 1000 words much longer, but basically in the simplest form, (Chemical Energy Of Total ATP Used) = (1/2)(Mass of foot) (Velocity of foot)^2  and  (Chemical Energy Of Total ATP Used) - (Kinetic Energy of foot) = 0

Edited by VictorMedvil
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...