davidivad Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 if time is measureable it must have a base unit which would make planck happy. at this scale, everything moves at the speed of light. massive particles can store energy and then release it. this creates a non continuous effect or "real time". it splits interactions up thus creating the effect of sub luminal velocity. the constant is a constant and will remain a constant constantly... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 if time is measureable it must have a base unit which would make planck happy. Poor old Max is long dead so not sure this matters. And the Planck units - whilst lovely in some ways - are not the be all and end all; they are a convenient natural unit but do not provide a constraint on measurement. If one is tempted to think they are fundamental then consider the Planck Mass (also a base unit like length, time, charge, and temp) which is about the same as a very fine grain of sand at this scale, everything moves at the speed of light. No. The Planck time is just another natural unit for the measurement of time; it is very short - about 10^26 shorter than we can measure at present. We don't really know anything about physics at the Planck length - we need a theory of quantum gravity for that. massive particles can store energy and then release it. this creates a non continuous effect or "real time". Like lifting a weight up against gravity then dropping it? "this creates a non continuous effect or "real time"." I am pretty sure we don't have a real or absolute time. it splits interactions up thus creating the effect of sub luminal velocity. Time has not been shown to be quantised - IIRC both GR and QM treat time as a continuous quantity. At lower than the Planck time the quantum effects will dominate gravity and time will become difficult to understand. Hypothetically time might be quantised - and a favourite position for this is at the Planck Scale the constant is a constant and will remain a constant constantly... http://io9.com/5630715/to-create-water-in-space-you-just-need-starlight Take this article with a huge pinch of salt (and completely ignore the name in the link - it is the right article and nothing to do with water) as it is by no means accepted research and the results tend to be in the eye of the beholder 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Poor old Max is long dead so not sure this matters. And the Planck units - whilst lovely in some ways - are not the be all and end all; they are a convenient natural unit but do not provide a constraint on measurement. If one is tempted to think they are fundamental then consider the Planck Mass (also a base unit like length, time, charge, and temp) which is about the same as a very fine grain of sand No. The Planck time is just another natural unit for the measurement of time; it is very short - about 10^26 shorter than we can measure at present. We don't really know anything about physics at the Planck length - we need a theory of quantum gravity for that. Like lifting a weight up against gravity then dropping it? "this creates a non continuous effect or "real time"." I am pretty sure we don't have a real or absolute time. Time has not been shown to be quantised - IIRC both GR and QM treat time as a continuous quantity. At lower than the Planck time the quantum effects will dominate gravity and time will become difficult to understand. Hypothetically time might be quantised - and a favourite position for this is at the Planck Scale http://io9.com/5630715/to-create-water-in-space-you-just-need-starlight Take this article with a huge pinch of salt (and completely ignore the name in the link - it is the right article and nothing to do with water) as it is by no means accepted research and the results tend to be in the eye of the beholder would i be correct in assuming that h is a consequence of math? i am suggesting that it is derived. i will try to find some supporting evidence for the reason h is a natural consequence. for the moment however it is clear thatr we must consider plank as a constant. for me it is accepted as a constant and relied upon by a huge volume of calculations everything is based upon. if it is not the base, then explain how you would calculate E=hv without it. "The Planck constant is named after Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, who discovered it in 1900, and who coined the term "Quantum". Classical statistical mechanics requires the existence of h (but does not define its value).[2] Planck discovered that physical action could not take on an arbitrary value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the "quantum of action" and now called Planck constant). This inherent granularity is counterintuitive in the everyday world, where it is possible to "make things a little bit hotter" or "move things a little bit faster". This is because the quanta of action are very, very small in comparison to everyday macroscopic human experience. Hence, the granularity of nature appears smooth to us. Thus, on the macroscopic scale, quantum mechanics and classical physics converge at the classical limit. Nevertheless, it is impossible, as Planck discovered, to explain some phenomena without accepting the fact that action is quantized. In many cases, such as for monochromatic light or for atoms, this quantum of action also implies that only certain energy levels are allowed, and values in between are forbidden.[3] In 1923, Louis de Broglie generalized the Planck–Einstein relation by postulating that the Planck constant represents the proportionality between the momentum and the quantum wavelength of not just the photon, but the quantum wavelength of any particle. This was confirmed by experiments soon afterwards." please note that my definition of time considers that an event must have a smallest quantity, and that the world we experience is not the physical world but a measurement of change. Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 would i be correct in assuming that h is a consequence of math? i am suggesting that it is derived. i will try to find some supporting evidence for the reason h is a natural consequence. for the moment however it is clear thatr we must consider plank as a constant. for me it is accepted as a constant and relied upon by a huge volume of calculations everything is based upon. if it is not the base, then explain how you would calculate E=hv without it. What restriction would it put on time, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 explain how you would calculate E=hv without it. That's how we got h. It was noticed that light packets come in discrete energy units. No matter what you do, every photon will have its energy proportional to its frequency. The constant of proportionality was given the letter h. It doesn't really have anything to do with units other than choosing units where h=G=c=1 really simplifies many equations. That doesn't mean the units that come from that are in any way fundamental units which cannot be subdivided. As has been pointed out, the plank mass is many orders of magnitude larger than the mass of even the heaviest atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) i am unsure as to any constraints beyond granularity. whithout it however, electrons would not stay in orbit. That's how we got h. It was noticed that light packets come in discrete energy units. No matter what you do, every photon will have its energy proportional to its frequency. The constant of proportionality was given the letter h. It doesn't really have anything to do with units other than choosing units where h=G=c=1 really simplifies many equations. That doesn't mean the units that come from that are in any way fundamental units which cannot be subdivided. As has been pointed out, the plank mass is many orders of magnitude larger than the mass of even the heaviest atom. therefore it is a consequence. it is in the numbers. the formula itself requires it. the reason plank was such an important guy is because he was the guy that realized mother nature would not support itself without discreet units. quantum mechanics is grounded upon this idea. "quanta" to say that time is not a quantizable structure is to say you do not agree with quantum mechanics is this true? h is the number that works because it is true. fact is physically we are required to use units to calculate period (a consequence of how everything calculatable works) otherwise it would be a variable. Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 to say that time is not a quantizable structure is to say you do not agree with quantum mechanics is this true? AFAIK every known model of discrete spacetime violates Lorentz invariance. So there's good reason to think that what you say is not true. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) AFAIK every known model of discrete spacetime violates Lorentz invariance. So there's good reason to think that what you say is not true. lol, i hear what you are saying... this IS a problem, but we do not have an answer so we must use what works. do you have a better answer accepted by the scientific community? quantum mechanics must now be thrown out the window. dang! that was a lot of work based on the fact that we can only know so much. if you do not agree with quantum mecanics being the current accepted model then what is your theory? yes, we may one day marry the two. Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 quantum mechanics must now be thrown out the window. I never said any such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) a bit colorful eh... if you disagree with the recognized way then you need to have an alternative. i suggest both are right. new math must accomodate this. despite whether or not lawrence agrees, it must be true to some degree as it is at the foundation of our calculations (based on it). it is well known that things are quantized and happen in discrete units. this is the basis of quantum mechanics. if you say that time is not discrete this has disaterous implications to the existence of our world. lawrence be darned. if his math does not agree with the physical world we need better math. Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 a bit colorful eh... if you disagree with the recognized way then you need to have an alternative. i suggest both are right. new math must accomodate this. despite whether or not lawrence agrees, it must be true to some degree as it is at the foundation of our calculations (based on it). it is well known that things are quantized and happen in discrete units. this is the basis of quantum mechanics. if you say that time is not discrete this has disaterous implications to the existence of our world. lawrence be darned. if his math does not agree with the physical world we need better math. I said that spacetime probably isn't discrete, not that quantum mechanics is wrong. Just because some things are quantized doesn't mean everything needs to be, and indeed not everything in quantum mechanics is discrete. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) spacetime is an idea. it is a virtual stage in which we can make calculations none the less. this violates no rules. spacetime is a relationship you see. it is relative. quantum mechanics is not. this is not a conflict. everything real happens in discrete units. kind of like math itself.... you must interact with other things in discrete units because it must be measured. Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) spacetime is an idea. it is a virtual stage in which we can make calculations none the less. this violates no rules. spacetime is a relationship you see. This is just nonsense philosophy. it is relative. quantum mechanics is not. Quantum field theory is a relativistic theory, and it's been around for a while. everything real happens in discrete units. A baseless assertion. It may be true, it may not be true, but you have no right to claim it's true just because it tickles you philosophically. everything real happens in discrete units. kind of like math itself.... Except not everything in math is about discrete quantities. Have you ever heard of calculus? you must interact with other things in discrete units because it must be measured. What? Why? Edited November 24, 2014 by elfmotat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 are you just arguing to argue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 are you just arguing to argue? You're making claims. I'm pointing out why they're flawed. Are you making up nonsense just to make up nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) are you just arguing to argue? No, he is saving me having to do it. Edited November 24, 2014 by Strange 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) but you have no argument given. if i am incorrect why exactly is it incorrect? you simply disagreed. can you prove the phlogiston of your percieved spacetime? and calculus does not use numbers which are discrete units... hmmm also, he seems to imply that we have already figured out how to combine quantum mechanics with relativity as THIS was the scope of the conversation Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 if i am incorrect why exactly is it incorrect? Because relativity requires space and time to be continuous. There is no evidence that space and time are quantized. Apart from that, pretty much everything you said was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) then how can you know it exists without being able to directly measure it? interesting how everything in an experiment as such is relational toWHO or what? not spacetime itself does it have a wave function? then how can it be real? Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 then how can you know it exists without being able to directly measure it? What? Know what exists? Why can't it be measured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) but you have no argument given. if i am incorrect why exactly is it incorrect? you simply disagreed. Are you serious? I thought I made my points rather clearly. All known models with discretized spacetime suffer from the same problem: lack of Lorentz invariance. That's a good reason to suspect that there's a problem with the idea. With regard to your other claims, you simply asserted things with no evidence or reasoning behind them. It's not my job to prove a negative. I'm not the one making stuff up, you are. It's your job to show that your claims are accurate. then how can you know it exists without being able to directly measure it? interesting how everything in an experiment as such is relational toWHO or what? not spacetime itself How can you know what exists? Spacetime? Define "exists." All known experimental data confirms the predictions about the behavior of spacetime as modeled by general relativity. As far as I'm concerned, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Edited November 24, 2014 by elfmotat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 Are you serious? I thought I made my points rather clearly. All known models with discretized spacetime suffer from the same problem: lack of Lorentz invariance. That's a good reason to suspect that there's a problem with the idea. With regard to your other claims, you simply asserted things with no evidence or reasoning behind them. It's not my job to prove a negative. I'm not the one making stuff up, you are. It's your job to show that your claims are accurate. How can you know what exists? Spacetime? Define "exists." All known experimental data confirms the predictions about the behavior of spacetime as modeled by general relativity. As far as I'm concerned, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... i take the challenge... i said spacetime is not real but an effectwe percieve. trying to quantize it is claerly not effective. this has been disproven (there is no ether). we must rely on measurements we can make which just so happen to be relational. we must make a container. i define real as measureable. this must be calculated with math which is unitary and is solved in discrete packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 i said spacetime is not real ...i define real as measureable. By that definition, space-time is real. this must be calculated with math which is unitary and is solved in discrete packages. Why must it be discrete? Math isn't, so there is no requirement for measurements to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) you do not use a fixed location in space but the relations of the objects in your experiment. discrete... packages... 1,2,3... math is not analog Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 i said spacetime is not real but an effectwe percieve. i define real as measureable. Did you intentionally ignore the part where I said, "all known experimental data confirms the predictions about the behavior of spacetime as modeled by general relativity"? trying to quantize it is claerly not effective. this has been disproven (there is no ether). Quantum gravity has absolutely nothing to do with ether. we must rely on measurements we can make which just so happen to be relational. we must make a container. What is a "container?" this must be calculated with math which is unitary and is solved in discrete packages. Not all math is unitary, and not all math is discrete. You're making stuff up that is trivially false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now