# Thread: Is motion quantative? Does reality have a framerate?

1. I hope I used the right words. But I was thinking, if everything is discrete, does that everything include space itself? So that what we think of movement is more akin to the illusion of movement created by a framerate? Or of a series of pixels on a screen.

So that if you looked close enough instead of particles flowing through space, would they seem to be just teleporting from one discrete unit of space to the next?

2.

3. Originally Posted by Humility
I hope I used the right words. But I was thinking, if everything is discrete, does that everything include space itself? So that what we think of movement is more akin to the illusion of movement created by a framerate? Or of a series of pixels on a screen.

So that if you looked close enough instead of particles flowing through space, would they seem to be just teleporting from one discrete unit of space to the next?
Impossible to tell.

Probably both yes and no. When looked on close enough, it will most likely be probabilities, or some kind of ripple and grade of energy pressure on spacetime. And this explanation of me kind of sucks.

Is space a number of boxes that are either full or empty, when looked closely enough, like pixels on a computer screen? Possibly, but impossible to tell. As we cannot observe any of this.

Most people will give a blatant no to this proposition or hypothesis, but i have to admit, it is possible, albeit not plausible.

4. Originally Posted by Zwolver
s.

Is space a number of boxes that are either full or empty, when looked closely enough, like pixels on a computer screen? Possibly, but impossible to tell. As we cannot observe any of this.
Impossible in principle or at the present (technlogical) state of play?

It has always seemed to me that ,if we "zoom in " close enough on any interaction that the very act of observing will destabilize that interaction (the observer merges with the observed)

And so I feel that we can only observe any ongoing scenario from a certain distance.

This seems related to the uncertainty principle but I understand that it is a different effect (actually I have not studied the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and so I can't really say)

5. So in other words neither science or mathematics has,reached the point where it can deal with things much smaller than a particle like space.

6. Originally Posted by Humility
So in other words neither science or mathematics has,reached the point where it can deal with things much smaller than a particle like space.
I doubt that the phrase "a particle like space" has any meaning in Physics or in English.

I expect the right term may be "a volume like space" (but my interest in physics is entirely amateur and so don't attach too much to what I say-although you can take it from me that there is very much still to learn)

7. Originally Posted by Humility
I hope I used the right words. But I was thinking, if everything is discrete, does that everything include space itself? So that what we think of movement is more akin to the illusion of movement created by a framerate? Or of a series of pixels on a screen.

So that if you looked close enough instead of particles flowing through space, would they seem to be just teleporting from one discrete unit of space to the next?
You seem to start out speaking about movement in general terms. When you say, look "close enough” do you mean for example closing in on the movement of a large scale object such as an arrow? If so, shouldn’t we make a distinction between the motion of that conglomerate vs. the motion of any of its sub-atomic constituents? In other words, isn’t there a point during this “closing in” where the movement under scrutiny is no longer that of the arrow?

8. The observer effect, that's the one where the act of observing effects the observed, is when to observe you have to hit something really small with something really big, and you have to hit it really hard. So yeah, it's gonna effect the observation. Nothing to do with Heisenberg uncertainty or quantum mechanics.

When what you're measuring is smaller than what you're using to measure the measurement is gonna be uncertain. The treatment (the model) for that situation is to use probability distributions. That's where you make a lot of measurements. None of them are the same. You make a probability distribution of the field of measurements. We know we've made enough measurements when the probability distribution forms a bell curve. We put the curve in a box, and we know the truth is somewhere in the box. We treat the box as the the quantity, as the measured whole. It's sloppy, it's balky, It's complicated, it's magical, it's incompatible with smooth classical or GR physics, even quantum physicists don't like it. But it is a model for dealing with the situation.

But it's not the only model. Enter string/m theory which fits, and explains why the measurements can only be probabilisticly treated. It also fits gravity into the physics in a describable way. But whether it's true, whether the physics is smooth or quantized, can't be discerned from probabilistic measures. But from the model we might get predictions that can be confirmed that can't be predicted by quantum mechanics or classical physics. Its model of gravity is what's being looked at most closely right now.

9. Planck Time is the smallest measurable unit of time. However we assume time is continuous beneath that.

10. Originally Posted by NoCoPilot
However we assume time is continuous beneath that.
Quantum mechanics doesn't always assume that. However you must remember that the EPR conjecture says quantum theory, GR, and SR are incomplete unless you assume absolute determinism.

11. Originally Posted by NoCoPilot
Planck Time is the smallest measurable unit of time. However we assume time is continuous beneath that.
I understand there is a hypothesis (not, as yet, a theory?) the Planck length is the smallest measurable unit of length/distance.
If this is considered to be the case it appears to follow that space is not continuous, but breaks up into the state referred to as "quantum foam".
I do speak as a layperson!

12. Originally Posted by Halliday
[If this is considered to be the case it appears to follow that space is not continuous, but breaks up into the state referred to as "quantum foam".
When you get to the level of quantum fields, nothing makes sense to us laymen.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement