Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by davidivad

  1. Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values (such as the real numbers) to a relatively small discrete set (such as the integers). this is my usage. i hope that helps you see where i am coming from. other than that you can argue amongst yourselves. i wont feed the flames.
  2. i really am having a hard time with your tone and antics. perhaps if you had a better attitude we could get somewhere. you can clearly cut a finger and get two halves. i will not deny you this so long as you realize a finger is a finger. we can beat around the bush all day about this. everything comes in countable units. you cannot change this fact. if you cannot count at least to one, then you have nothing. the fact is you have to use a number system to do any work at all. perhaps a quick look at GUP or another similar theory may enlighten you on my perspective. maybe seeing that there are more people out there in the community that feel this way will encourage you to ask questions in a way that is not quite as offensive. im sure it is clear to some that i understand the concepts you are stating. im also pretty sure there are no 76% hydrogen atoms or 28% electrons. half the planck length is still half of a whole unit. and no there is nothing smaller at that scale. it is the smallest unit. count to one. that is the smallest unit. right now, we cannot prove or disprove granularity. i choose granularity over a continuous bottomless pit. it makes more sense to me. if you would like to better understand my points, a look at GUP and the likes will give a slight hint. these are newer papers that try to tackle some of our current issues. are they correct, who knows? but the fact that it is getting attention should get yours at least momentarily. this is because we really do not know if it is the bottom or not. nobody has a real answer. either one could be right. as it stands... light's constant is used to measure the planck time. the planck time is the smallest unit of time.
  3. i have never seen someone use half a planck time. why? its already small enough. just being curious what is half a planck time? i imagine putting a one half in front of the h would do the trick... plank units are what is used. this was my point in the other section. you can divide the number of course, but it is still the base unit used.
  4. plank time is not measured in halves. everyone knows that. moved
  5. i would suggest smaller units that will be usefull for describing the smallest part. that is the point. give yourself a hand. that is equal to one hand. one water? easy... use the molecule as a unit... in my opinion, distance and time are effects of interactions in the quantum world. this is not standard and can be debated clearly considering lawrence. while you do not like it, my observation about quantization is literal and true. i gave my definition for it via online definition. this is my usage of the word and what i am concerned with. other use of the word does not invalidate how i used it as it is a clearly supported definition. may i ask what the smallest unit is then?
  6. the idea of planck time is to create units you can work with. i would suggest using the number one as much as possible. the math is easier that way.
  7. i think you break pretty much every rule in the book when it comes to effective communication strange. just incase you ran out of fingers, lets try this one more time. everything is quantized... i am assuming real things here as i do not include imaginary things. if you cannot count at least to one (using discrete units), then you do not have a thing period. this is not rocket science, it is a fact we all deal with on a daily basis. you argued that there are several things unrelated to distance and time which is what the planck unit is for. it is the base unit. every instace you gave is quantizable and must have a unit in which you do work. a unit... is a volt an object? of course not! its a freakin unit of measure man... if you cannot measure it, then you cant crunch the numbers as they would not be there without deciding what units to use. yes, you can count between numbers. yay, i can do that too, but i recognize the fact that a value needs to have a unit of measure (a quantity) to use it. therefore everything must be quantized into useable units. this is what planck lenght is. the smallest unit or quantity of length. why are you arguing this? surely you understand what i say is obviously true. i am not making a toe here... i am saying that you need to quantize before you can do the math. quantize.... give it a number. quantization is not a unicorn. its how you start the process of counting.
  8. yes, im talking about discrete units. i realize that you can spit a unit into infinity forever on a number line. my point, i guess, is that real objects come in discrete quantities. you can have three and a half cows on a farm but then is it really useful in such circumstances? these guys are counting three and a half cows at the farm. i might have answered the lawrence question if i had gotten a shot but got divebombed before i could respond. so i just tried to get as much as i could without writing my own paper. i have no issues with relativity as the two should get married some day. (i think i said this once before). this obviously ruffles feathers.lol especially considering the one thing i did not answer. lawrence invariance fact is none of us have a truly acceptable answer for that. we only have new ideas. therefore i retain my stance on the fact that quantum mechanics is the best bet until then. remember guys, i am only saying that real things have to be countable to be real. this is not a far stretch for some. thier argument: three and a half cows is real. my argument: whats the point in counting three and a half cows if you need whole cows to produce? ... moo
  9. it is meaningless because numbers are quantized and not analog. there is no special meaning for quantized. it means what it implies. that is why it is used. ajb, i see your point. as you show, there are several ways to do this. you prove that it is useful to quantize both. i agree with this even if i think spacetime is an effect. it is useful.
  10. the most basic unit of time is the planck time. this is calculated by the amout of tim it takes for the speed of light to travel one planck length. we cannot even measure change at this scale. however we accept it as such. it IS the smallest unit we have of time and is calculated with c.
  11. Posted by elfmotat on Today, 12:37 AM in Speculations I think you're just getting further confused. Let's say all the information about a system is contained in some time-dependent object, and call it the "state" Ψ(t). If time is discrete, then t1 → t2 → t3 → ..., and there are no values of t between tn-1 and tn. Which means the state of the system changes discretely: Ψ(t1) → Ψ(t2) → Ψ(t3) → ... The consequences of models like this have been worked out, and they fail for the reasons myself and others have mentioned. Quantum spacetime models are a bit different, where the coordinates of spacetime are assumed to be non-commutative: [xμ,xν] ≠ 0. Short answer is we don't know whether or not such models apply to our universe. Most models deal with the Planck scale, which is well beyond what we're currently (or likely ever to be) capable of probing directly. All known data is consistent with the notion that spacetime is continuous at the present. I'll mention one more thing: you've asked us to "prove you wrong" several times in this thread. That's not the way it works. You don't get to assume something is true just because you can't disprove it. That is, by definition, the exact opposite of science. You're the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. #838890 Is time discrete? (split from time does not have a speed) Posted by davidivad on Yesterday, 06:10 PM in Speculations davidivad, on 24 Nov 2014 - 5:17 PM, said: your need to prove me wrong is silly. i dont know how else to say it. so now you agree with me as if i am arguing the opposite point. give me science, not gargon. .... .... things are quantized and that is why we use it. whats the point right... we know that is true.. good enough for me. "hey, pamala anderson is clearly female so planck is wrong. i told you what i was saying and you wanted to bring it beyond scope. i hope you niow realize what you are arguing against. this is a search of "prove * wrong" in this thread. i hope i am clear enough with my logic. sorry, i know well that anything real can be counted. it can therefore be quantized. if you do not have at least one of something you have nothing at all. fact; every single THING can be quantized. action is clearly quantized too. it is the time it takes the speed of light to travel the planck length. the originan question to this thread was does time have a speed. it is calculated as the speed of light across planck length.
  12. you both agree that ratios are not actual numbers. i do too. it is a division operation. a quantity is different than an operation. pi is not 3.14 inches of course... therefore the number you use in conjunction with the ratio IS a real number and is quantized. i did not say every part of an expression is a quantity as there has to be some kind of operation or action performed. ... and what is the quantum of action? i knew h was important... also to note, you can create a custom function o do more than just create a circle. note that quantitiese still have to be used to show the operation. this passes on the ratio to a whole unit. how big is your circle if it is not quantized with a real number? you would have nothing more than a ratio. let me know when you get done writing down pi.
  13. show me a single analog number please! everything you have mentioned has to be calculated in units. no not everything has to do with planck, this is true. yet everything is measured in units which fits the wikipedia definition at least of q quantity. if you cant quantify it by giving it a number how do you calculate it at all? literally (and for a reason) you have to have a quantity to work with. what i am suggesting is actually a very simple idea and what the world is based upon (once again).... quantity. you cannot perform an operation without it.
  14. nonwetheless we must use quantities to do our math. my understanding is that we number the world around us. without quantizing we cannot count. theer has to be a base value in order for you to do math period. this is a consequence of nature we cannot deny. this is the way nature works. discrete values. without them we cannot even point a finger to say.
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization is that better for you ? i know specifics are important. i hoppe this helps.
  16. yes, even formulas are quantized. they contain quantities. i have not seen a real object that isnt quantized and you know this is true because everything has a wave function. seriously, do you understand what i am even saying at all? voltage is clearly measured in volts. you argued that i did not know this... this is not a real object. even volts are measured in increments. measure it without numbers. in order to measure anything you must use units... will you scapegoat again and say that not everything involves planck? e=hv what does this mean to you?
  17. your need to prove me wrong is silly. i dont know how else to say it. so now you agree with me as if i am arguing the opposite point. give me science, not gargon. .... .... things are quantized and that is why we use it. whats the point right... we know that is true.. good enough for me. "hey, pamala anderson is clearly female so planck is wrong. i told you what i was saying and you wanted to bring it beyond scope. i hope you niow realize what you are arguing against.
  18. i will ask again. why is planck wrong and why do we still use it if that is the case. all other bull set aside where it belongs. theer is no point in adding all this other stuff as i am only concerned with the fact that we accept and use planck's constant. we can talk about cows or beer if you want but that deserves another topic.
  19. voltage is in electron volts, velocity is a multibody problem unless you are working with a wave which uses planck energy is quantized do you deny this? lol, black body spectrum... planck...
  20. can you give me the name of an object in the real world that does not fit the term quantized? how do you obtain a value without it. it is used as a constant. plancks constant...
  21. what?... are you saying things are not quantized? this is my point. how do i make it more clear for you. this debate has been over for a long time. why argue it?
  22. what specifically am i making up. i am simply supporting the idea that things are quantised. as per h i did not tell anyone to use h. if i havent made my point clear, i am suggesting that everything is quantized. this is the point i am trying to argue. anything else you are percieving is a read between the lines. we all know that doesnt work per quantum theory.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.