davidivad

guys, i accept our current theory becaues nobody has proven somthing better.

the current model uses increments of plancks. we all use it.

if you feel that my claim that everything happens in discrete packages, then i set this at quantum mwechanic's knees.

if you use h in calculating things, your math clearly supports my claim.

show me an analog calculation.

ps

better use a string

i propose a comprimise.

i propose that since we must first have one object in order to count, that anything else is inconsequential and will have no REAL bearing upon us.

with one, we solve the problem of infinity and at the same time allow it. you can count forever...

einstein is preserved this way as well as quantum mechanics.

can you understand whare i am coming from?

all things happen in discrete units be it volts or feet or any real thing we put there.

fact is that at the subatomic scale things happen at specific values which are incremental.

yes, you can split up a wave mathmatically but can it be real?

no.

it happens in increments people...

guys, my only point is to show that things happen in observable units.

this is clearly supported by quantum mechanics and is used in such a way.

yes you can count how you like because it is your decision.

but the fact remains that it is acceptable to use plack to figure such things out which is based on discrete packets.

if you go below the macroscopic scale and look, what do you see? everything being shared with discretion.

 

What, you mean like half a mile, half a millimetre or half a Planck length? All equally real.

so half an electron is real...

i will return to my undrug statement that interaction happens at c.

this is because everything is a wave.

then is half a unit real?

this is absolutely true.

however if you do not use multiples of the constant then what do you get?

can you have half an object?

for now i will at least answer the number thing as it is very important.

if you can count to ten you just used discrete units.

 

So stop claiming that you have the answer.

i believe there is a name for that.

lol where did i say i had an answer to what?

not sure if i can manage so many questions at once from different directions.

we are really arguing a silly point.

if any of us had the answer wed have the nobel prize...

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

 

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.

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?

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

are you just arguing to argue?

 

Yes they do.

i think you may have misread what i was saying.

the beams do not affect each other at all.

you percieve the additive of those two beams where they converge only.

i hope this clarifies what i said.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

that is insanely rediculous to have such a problem...

i wonder how many toes a journal can have?

good old double slit...

its just the result of splitting a full wave up. of course you will get a left over...

you are literally seeing the makeup of the particle. a piece of it which is not the full particle.

we all know particles have a wave function and this experiment puts your nose in your butt for lack of better terms.

it will run you in circles.

if you are not looking in increments of a whole particle or wave function, then you get the left overs as they are (not a full particle measurement).

it can seem that the particles in question can bypass time but this is just a consequence of causality.

while we have a chioce in our decisions in life the whole does have direction.

in other words a particle only seems to choose because the outcome happens to be true. there is noone doing the experiment the opther way.

if there was, you would get a different result.

in other words the experiment validates that while our futures can be vaguly forcast, they cannot be known with certainty.

i call this the noise problem of predetermination.

what happens when you take two different colored beams of light and intersect them at 90 degrees.

if you measure at the convergence, then you are taking a single measurement of both waveforms together.

the beams do not stay the same color once they diverge again.

take a lazer pointer and shine it through a flashlight beam onto a wall...

does it change color?

 

There are many reasons why people pursue academic careers. Some because they love teaching, others (me included) because it is pretty much the only job where you can work to satisfy your curiosity about the world and still get paid for it. But what is true that academia is not a 9-5 job where you can do your job and just be satisfied by it. You have to be driven to a point to pursue a career that is risky (low success rate) less monetary rewarding than alternatives and eating much more of your time and brainpower than your other jobs.

If that does not sound attractive to you, you are well advised to look for other jobs.

this is such a good point charony.

it is proof that someone successful in thier field recognizes that successful people have learned to stay in thier uncomfortable zone.

this is a common thread among successful people.

waiting for a reward is a high level process that, in my opinion, is a sign of higher intelligence.

it means you have a good functioning management system in place.

this speaks volumes on the subject at hand.

http://geekologie.com/2014/10/kickstarter-for-a-real-life-magnetic-fie.php

i found it interesting that the magets had to be made out of a specific material type.

i wonder if they are trying to tap the paramagetic properties of a surface.

this is why it is an advancement as it is not a standard electromagnetic set up.

photons can occupy the same space unless they have enough energy together to equal the wavelength of a particle (very generic version of the truth there is more to it).

also, arent photons thier own particle pair?

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...