Wave Functions

[Jarhyn]

Energy in gasoline is quantized by molecules Energy in an EM wave is quantized by photons. Electrical current is quantized by electrons. Generally the quantization is well below a measurement threshold and we take it as infinity divisible. Quantization of energy is not controversial.

Energy is transferred to the photon when created. If you go by QM energy has a minimum that can be transferred to a photon. So in turn frequency is then quantized.

Which is my point. I'm just trying to ask, if we are to consider a number, what is the tiniest Hartree/planck unit of distance, and how much energy would a photon have if it was wavelength (that), converted to units at macroscale.

I'm guessing that it's a very large, precise number. That's why I posted here. Steve is good at wave function math, it's probably a number that's been discussed with regards to "planck distance", I'm guessing that it's going to be an obscene number (especially if placed in terms of the base charge of an electron and everything was kept in Hartree or Planck).

I don't really care as long as it's in a form that can be converted. It's a fun number. It yields stupid and potentially universe ending questions like "is that a strict limit or is wavelength limited by quantization?"

 

[steve_bank]

To make a point Carver Meade said an electron is a big or small as it needs to be.

Energy assigned to a photon is whatever it needs to be to be consistent with other theories. Energy itself is an arbitrary unit of measure. Making heat, energy

Theory is designed to match measurements and theory. That was the genesis of QM. The characteristics of a photon along with solid state theory describing photodetectors make the models of the input to output of a detect work.

I have not heard of what you are citing. Being more practicale than theoretical I would ask the question as if I move an object what is minimum change in kinetic energy that can be added to an object?

 

[Bomb#20]

It sounds to me like the question might be whether you can have a photon with a wavelength less thank the Plank length.

You can. Every photon has a wavelength less than the Planck length in some inertial reference frame moving in the opposite direction at so close to c that the photon is blue-shifted down to below the Planck length.

Both Special and General Relativity break down at such speeds and do not apply.

At such speeds relative to what frame of reference?

Relative to CMB.

I.e., you're claiming Einstein's Principle of Relativity is just wrong, the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames of reference, and the CMB is a preferred reference frame. Do you have observational evidence for this contention?

(Note that quantum mechanics was made Lorentz-invariant with the emergence of Quantum Field Theory, which means you're not just claiming relativity is wrong, but quantum mechanics as well.)

 

[barbos]

It sounds to me like the question might be whether you can have a photon with a wavelength less thank the Plank length.

You can. Every photon has a wavelength less than the Planck length in some inertial reference frame moving in the opposite direction at so close to c that the photon is blue-shifted down to below the Planck length.

Both Special and General Relativity break down at such speeds and do not apply.

At such speeds relative to what frame of reference?

Relative to CMB.

I.e., you're claiming Einstein's Principle of Relativity is just wrong, the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames of reference, and the CMB is a preferred reference frame. Do you have observational evidence for this contention?

(Note that quantum mechanics was made Lorentz-invariant with the emergence of Quantum Field Theory, which means you're not just claiming relativity is wrong, but quantum mechanics as well.)

Is Newton's law of gravity wrong?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is Newton's law of gravity wrong?

Nah, it just sucks!

 

[bilby]

It sounds to me like the question might be whether you can have a photon with a wavelength less thank the Plank length.

You can. Every photon has a wavelength less than the Planck length in some inertial reference frame moving in the opposite direction at so close to c that the photon is blue-shifted down to below the Planck length.

Both Special and General Relativity break down at such speeds and do not apply.

At such speeds relative to what frame of reference?

Relative to CMB.

I.e., you're claiming Einstein's Principle of Relativity is just wrong, the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames of reference, and the CMB is a preferred reference frame. Do you have observational evidence for this contention?

(Note that quantum mechanics was made Lorentz-invariant with the emergence of Quantum Field Theory, which means you're not just claiming relativity is wrong, but quantum mechanics as well.)

Is Newton's law of gravity wrong?

Where have you been since 1905?

Yes, Newton's law of gravity is wrong.

Not very wrong. But wrong nonetheless.

 

[Bomb#20]

Both Special and General Relativity break down at such speeds and do not apply.

At such speeds relative to what frame of reference?

Relative to CMB.

I.e., you're claiming Einstein's Principle of Relativity is just wrong, the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames of reference, and the CMB is a preferred reference frame. Do you have observational evidence for this contention?

(Note that quantum mechanics was made Lorentz-invariant with the emergence of Quantum Field Theory, which means you're not just claiming relativity is wrong, but quantum mechanics as well.)

Is Newton's law of gravity wrong?

Yes, of course it is. It assumes absolute space and time, which don't exist; it predicts observationally wrong amounts for the precession of Mercury and the bending of starlight; it fails to predict the observed precession of satellite gyroscopes in frame-dragging experiments; and if it were correct then merging neutron stars would not be detectable by gravity wave detectors, and they are.

If your point is that since Newton's law of gravity turned out to be wrong, QM and SR could also turn out to be wrong, yes, of course they could. "Could" plus 73 cents is enough to mail a letter. The question I asked was if you have observational evidence that they are wrong, not that they could be. Do you know of specific observations analogous to the ones for Newton's law that point to Special and General Relativity breaking down at such speeds and not applying?

 

[pood]

Is Newton's law of gravity wrong?

Yes, it’s wrong.

Just like Russia invading Ukraine is wrong.

But you don’t know right from wrong.

 

[barbos]

Where have you been since 1905?

Where have you been since the the end 1980s?

 

[barbos]

Yes, of course it is. It assumes absolute space and time,

Then SR/GR are wrong too, since they assume the same.

 

[barbos]

The question I asked was if you have observational evidence that they are wrong,

Black Holes WERE observed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, of course it is. It assumes absolute space and time,

Then SR/GR are wrong too, since they assume the same.

Show your work.

The question I asked was if you have observational evidence that they are wrong,

Black Holes WERE observed.

QM and relativity predict black holes won't be observed?*

(*Technically, black holes weren't observed; the accretion disks and gravitational lensing and gravity waves they cause were observed. But then, Pluto wasn't observed; the photons it reflects were observed, so let's not split too many hairs.)

 

[barbos]

Show your work.

I have not published any work to show, I merely tell you how things are.

 

[barbos]

QM and relativity predict black holes won't be observed?*

No but neither QM nor relativity can deal with Black holes.
Well, they can't deal with each other either.
All I am saying GR is not the final theory. And that QM is higher one the fundamentality ladder. That's just a fact.

 

[pood]

Yes, of course it is. It assumes absolute space and time,

Then SR/GR are wrong too, since they assume the same.

They do not assume any such thing. They demonstrate the opposite.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Minor nitpick: you mean gravitational waves. Gravity waves are a different phenomenon.

 

[Bomb#20]

Show your work.

I have not published any work to show, I merely tell you how things are.

Sorry, "Show your work." is an idiomatic expression in American English -- it means "Explain how you reached the conclusion you asserted." Why do you believe SR/GR assume absolute space and time? They are quite famous precisely for not assuming them. The failures of space and time to be absolute -- length contraction and time dilation -- are the most well-known predictions relativity makes. Absolute space means the distance between two events is objective: the same for all observers. Absolute time means the delay between two events is objective: the same for all observers. Relativity asserts that these quantities are not objective but are observer-relative; dependent on the velocity of the observer and therefore varying from one observer to another. This is the phenomenon the theory was named "relativity" because of. So the claim that SR/GR assume absolute space and time is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.

QM and relativity predict black holes won't be observed?*

No but neither QM nor relativity can deal with Black holes.

That's another extraordinary claim. Black holes were a prediction of GR, an unexpected solution to Einstein's equations. What reason can you possibly have to believe relativity can't deal with them?

I'm not qualified to have an opinion on whether QM can deal with black holes but if you're right about that it isn't evidence against relativity, which was what you claimed is wrong.

(My unqualified opinion is that if you drop a proton into a black hole, GR implies all three quarks fall to the singularity in short order, meaning the distance between any two becomes zero, meaning the uncertainty in their relative position becomes zero, meaning the uncertainty in their momentums becomes infinite, meaning QM appears to predict the black hole will be observed to fly off in a random direction at a good fraction of the speed of light. So I share your doubts about QM's ability to deal with them. But as I said, unqualified.)

Well, they can't deal with each other either.
All I am saying GR is not the final theory. And that QM is higher one the fundamentality ladder. That's just a fact.

That's a disputed opinion. Penrose is famous for thinking GR is higher and it's QM that will need to be modified, and he's got a Nobel. But all that is beside the point. QM's inability to deal with GR and vice versa aren't germane to the point in dispute -- whether there's a minimum photon wavelength -- because the conclusion that there's no minimum follows from special relativity by itself and doesn't rely on general relativity, and QM is unambiguously able to deal with special relativity.

 

[barbos]

Sorry, "Show your work." is an idiomatic expression in American English

I know

 

[barbos]

Penrose is famous for thinking GR is higher and it's QM that will need to be modified,

General consensus of active researchers is what I said it is. QM is higher and the fact that it needs to be "modified" is inconsequential. You don't seem to understand what "fundamental" really means. I does not mean what you think it means.
It does not mean set it stone and unchangeable.

 

[pood]

QM and relativity predict black holes won't be observed?*

No but neither QM nor relativity can deal with Black holes.
Well, they can't deal with each other either.
All I am saying GR is not the final theory. And that QM is higher one the fundamentality ladder. That's just a fact.

Relativity predicted black holes.

And contrary to what you stated, SR/GR does ot “assume” absolute space and time. SR showed that absolute Newtonian space and time does not exist. Time dilation and length contraction fall out of of the postulates that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and light speed is invariant all such frames. Where in the world did you get the idea that SR/GR “assume” the very thing they disprove?