Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Juma]

If you accept Milikan, the voltghe on a cap is dtermined by number of electrons. The charge on a cap can only change 1 electron at a time. You seem to be rejecting quntization of charge. Make up your mind, which is it? Current is elctrons per second as I stated.

But current is measuring the speed of the charge. You can have as low current as you want by moving that single electron very, very, very slowly...

Good question. Take an unconnected piece of copper wire. At a cross section thermal electrons are moving back and forth across it. The net charge crossing is zero. Thermal electrons are created by heat. Electrons move around being created and absorbed powered by heat. They are moving randomly any which way.

Place a voltage across the wire and a force in Newtons per meter appears across the wire creating a net drift of electrons through the wire. An electron does not enter the wire and appear at the other end. At any spot on a cross section electrons may be going one way or another, but there is a net drift in one direction and that is current. Current is coulombs per second.

The drift velocity is actually relatively slow .

https://study.com/academy/lesson/drift-velocity-electron-mobility-definitions-formula.html

Current is measured in different ways. The most common is to place a small precision resistance in series with the current and measure the voltage across it. From Ohm's Law Current = voltage/resistance.

Another is to measure the magnetic field with a transformer around the wire, AC current only. A third is using the Hall Effect.

Cant you just agree that you where wrong?
ITS NOT A FUCKING QUESTION! ITS NOT UP TO DEBATE! iT IS WHAT IT IS!
Just move a charge slow enough and you get as low current you want.
Yee man..

 

[Bomb#20]

Well bomb, the quantization of charge is earblished and part of working theories.

I used to have a copy of Miililkan's book The Elecyton detailing his oil drop experiments, his experimental setup, and data from the early 20th century. The first demo of quantization of charge. There were competing theories to explain electric current, one being a kind of a fluid. The electron won out.

Qunatization of charge is black and white textbook. It is like arguing that a piece of steel is not comprised of discrete atoms.

Back circa 1900 xray diffraction of crystal structure materials showed a refular pattern of nodes separated by relatively large interatomic spacing. The fact that solid was an illusion actually caused some philisophical rumblings.

Dude, what the bejesus is wrong with you? Why do you consult your inner muse to decide what other people's claims are? Why don't you read what people say to you and respond to that? Which part of "Quantized charge, continuous current." don't you understand?

I did not disagree with Millikan. I did not disagree with established working theories. I did not disagree with any black and white textbook. I said charge is quantized!!! You are irrationally jumping from the correct premise that charge is quantized to the incorrect conclusion that current is quantized, and then, when people inevitably point out that you're wrong, you are deceiving yourself into believing that they denied that charge is quantized. Stop doing that. You are behaving like a South Park underpants gnome.

Step 1. Charge is quantized.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Current is quantized.

We ask "What's Step 2?" You answer "Step 1 is charge is quantized."

If you accept Milikan, the voltghe on a cap is dtermined by number of electrons.

I accept Millikan, and no, it bloody well is not. The voltage is determined by number of electrons DIVIDED BY CAPACITANCE. Which part of "farad = coulomb / volt" don't you understand? You can change the voltage on a capacitor without changing the number of electrons, just by changing the capacitance. Don't you know they make variable capacitors that you can change the voltage on just by squeezing them? You can squeeze two plates together by a continuously varying amount and thereby get a continuously varying voltage, without ever adding or removing an electron.

The charge on a cap can only change 1 electron at a time. You seem to be rejecting quntization of charge. Make up your mind, which is it?

No, I don't seem to be rejecting quantization of charge. That's a complete figment of your imagination, underpants gnome. I have told you over and over that charge is quantized. Every time I tell you current or capacitance or your mother's fat ass isn't quantized, you accuse me of saying charge isn't quantized. Why do you do that? Are you deliberately trolling people here?

Current is elctrons per second as I stated.

Duh! And one electron per two seconds is a current of half an electron per second. If you think that's impossible merely because you can't have half an electron, think better. A current of one electron per second is a current of 1/1000 of an electron per millisecond. Do you think that's impossible too because you can't have 1/1000 of an electron? Or do you think there's something magical about one second that makes the universe give a rat's ass whether we measure time in seconds or milliseconds?

 

[untermensche]

Knowledge is, roughly, "justified true belief". People know things are real; therefore people believe things are real, and people are justified in believing things are real, and things are real.

If something can be observed in some way, which includes all forms of detection, or it's effects can be observed in some way, it is LABELED "real".

"Real" is just a human label.

It is nothing more.

Relativity and quantum mechanics both assert that space is infinitely divisible.

?

Neither can assert anything.

And quantum mechanics says the world is quantized.

Those sentences contradict each other. You understand that "say" and "assert" mean the same thing, don't you? Please try to apply logic to your own claims.

So what is it?

Do those human constructs talk to humans or not?

You initially claimed they can talk and say things to us. You claimed they can "assert" things.

Can they?

Quantum mechanics says some things in the world are quantized and others aren't.

So Quantum mechanics talks to us and tells us things?

The model is just something used to make a prediction. That is all it is. It is not a description of "reality". It is just a way to predict what "reality" will do. Nothing more.

Relativity says that if we make certain assumptions and use certain formula's we can make predictions. That is all it does.

That's an unfalsifiability engine.

?

That is a bizarre response.

The models are not descriptions of what reality is.

They are abstract depictions of how reality moves.

We have no clue what reality is.

We can only examine it so far.

And what we have is a bunch of equations. Not an understanding of what is behind them.

 

[steve_bank]

Good question. Take an unconnected piece of copper wire. At a cross section thermal electrons are moving back and forth across it. The net charge crossing is zero. Thermal electrons are created by heat. Electrons move around being created and absorbed powered by heat. They are moving randomly any which way.

Place a voltage across the wire and a force in Newtons per meter appears across the wire creating a net drift of electrons through the wire. An electron does not enter the wire and appear at the other end. At any spot on a cross section electrons may be going one way or another, but there is a net drift in one direction and that is current. Current is coulombs per second.

The drift velocity is actually relatively slow .

https://study.com/academy/lesson/drift-velocity-electron-mobility-definitions-formula.html

Current is measured in different ways. The most common is to place a small precision resistance in series with the current and measure the voltage across it. From Ohm's Law Current = voltage/resistance.

Another is to measure the magnetic field with a transformer around the wire, AC current only. A third is using the Hall Effect.

Cant you just agree that you where wrong?
ITS NOT A FUCKING QUESTION! ITS NOT UP TO DEBATE! iT IS WHAT IT IS!
Just move a charge slow enough and you get as low current you want.
Yee man..

Don't have a clue what you are ranting about or what you you mean by 'slow current'. You asked what current is and I gave you the textbook answer, with a link. You mentioned drift which is the cirrect term, There are three classes conductor, semiconductor, and insulator. In conductors and semiconductors drift velocity is prportion to electron mobility. Higher mobility faster movement.

Get out the books or online references, work out an equation that yields velocity including mobility and electrostatic potential difference, then make your arguments.With y books at hand and better eyesight it would take me about 2 days.

You are arguing generalities, quote theory to get my attention.

Read an electromagnetics text, then argue with me.

 

[steve_bank]

If you accept Milikan, the voltghe on a cap is dtermined by number of electrons.

I accept Millikan, and no, it bloody well is not. The voltage is determined by number of electrons DIVIDED BY CAPACITANCE. Which part of "farad = coulomb / volt" don't you understand? You can change the voltage on a capacitor without changing the number of electrons, just by changing the capacitance. Don't you know they make variable capacitors that you can change the voltage on just by squeezing them? You can squeeze two plates together by a continuously varying amount and thereby get a continuously varying voltage, without ever adding or removing an electron.

The charge on a cap can only change 1 electron at a time. You seem to be rejecting quntization of charge. Make up your mind, which is it?

No, I don't seem to be rejecting quantization of charge. That's a complete figment of your imagination, underpants gnome. I have told you over and over that charge is quantized. Every time I tell you current or capacitance or your mother's fat ass isn't quantized, you accuse me of saying charge isn't quantized. Why do you do that? Are you deliberately trolling people here?

Current is elctrons per second as I stated.

Duh! And one electron per two seconds is a current of half an electron per second. If you think that's impossible merely because you can't have half an electron, think better. A current of one electron per second is a current of 1/1000 of an electron per millisecond. Do you think that's impossible too because you can't have 1/1000 of an electron? Or do you think there's something magical about one second that makes the universe give a rat's ass whether we measure time in seconds or milliseconds?

You rejected that voltage can only change one electron at a time. I referenced that a cap voltage can only change one electron at a time, and you objected. Do agree or disagree that voltage on a cap can only change one electron at a time, and if not why with specific theory to back it up? If the answer is no you are off in pseudoscience. Your response is jibber jabber nonsense.

Web searches do not equate to comprehension.

Again 1 coulomb = 6.24 x 10^18 electrons
1 amp = 1 coulomb per second
1 electron = 1/6.24 x 10^18 amps

It is as simple as that. Such a condition could not be measured.

You have the imagination, If you focused it with theory and discipline you might be able to do something with it.

 

[Juma]

Good question. Take an unconnected piece of copper wire. At a cross section thermal electrons are moving back and forth across it. The net charge crossing is zero. Thermal electrons are created by heat. Electrons move around being created and absorbed powered by heat. They are moving randomly any which way.

Place a voltage across the wire and a force in Newtons per meter appears across the wire creating a net drift of electrons through the wire. An electron does not enter the wire and appear at the other end. At any spot on a cross section electrons may be going one way or another, but there is a net drift in one direction and that is current. Current is coulombs per second.

The drift velocity is actually relatively slow .

https://study.com/academy/lesson/drift-velocity-electron-mobility-definitions-formula.html

Current is measured in different ways. The most common is to place a small precision resistance in series with the current and measure the voltage across it. From Ohm's Law Current = voltage/resistance.

Another is to measure the magnetic field with a transformer around the wire, AC current only. A third is using the Hall Effect.

Cant you just agree that you where wrong?
ITS NOT A FUCKING QUESTION! ITS NOT UP TO DEBATE! iT IS WHAT IT IS!
Just move a charge slow enough and you get as low current you want.
Yee man..

Don't have a clue what you are ranting about or what you you mean by 'slow current'. You asked what current is and I gave you the textbook answer, with a link. You mentioned drift which is the cirrect term, There are three classes conductor, semiconductor, and insulator. In conductors and semiconductors drift velocity is prportion to electron mobility. Higher mobility faster movement.

Get out the books or online references, work out an equation that yields velocity including mobility and electrostatic potential difference, then make your arguments.With y books at hand and better eyesight it would take me about 2 days.

You are arguing generalities, quote theory to get my attention.

Read an electromagnetics text, then argue with me.

WTF? You must have some sort of reading deficiency. I didnt ask what current is!
(I have Master of science in technical engineering.)
electrical current is the amount of flow of charge and measured in Ampere.
Assuming we have a flow of charged particles the resulting current can change in two ways: either the amount of charge changes or the speed of the charged particles changes.

Since the speed of particles isnt quanticized it then follow that current is not quanticized.

 

[steve_bank]

Don't have a clue what you are ranting about or what you you mean by 'slow current'. You asked what current is and I gave you the textbook answer, with a link. You mentioned drift which is the cirrect term, There are three classes conductor, semiconductor, and insulator. In conductors and semiconductors drift velocity is prportion to electron mobility. Higher mobility faster movement.

Get out the books or online references, work out an equation that yields velocity including mobility and electrostatic potential difference, then make your arguments.With y books at hand and better eyesight it would take me about 2 days.

You are arguing generalities, quote theory to get my attention.

Read an electromagnetics text, then argue with me.

WTF? I didnt ask what current is! I have Master of science in technical engineering.
electrical current is the amount of flow of charge and measured in Ampere.
Assuming we have a flow of charged particles the resulting current can change in two ways: either the amount of charge changes or the speed of the charged particles changes.

Since the speed of particles isnt quanticized it then follow that current is not quaticized.

I have dealt with 'authority by credentials' a number of times. It impresses me not..

From QM velocity is quantized at the particle level. Energy can only be transferred in discrete steps.



Current is not quantized because of variable velocity or some such thing? Write an equation that takes into account all variables that makes your point. If I worked at it all day it would be a few days work for me. When challenged or I needed to make a point equations subject to review were the response . That was my work environment.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First quote of some untermensche:

People do not believe things are real. They know it.

If you can observe it in some way it is real. There is no more to that.

Second quote of the same:

If something can be observed in some way, which includes all forms of detection, or it's effects can be observed in some way, it is LABELED "real".

"Real" is just a human label.

It is nothing more.

So, if "real" is no more than a human label as you say according to the second quote, what does it mean to say that people know things are real, as you say according to the first quote.

And if "real" was just a label, as you claimed here, wouldn't that be true of just about every word we use? Including the word "know". And if words are just labels, what could they possibly mean?

And so, does it mean anything to claim as you do here that a word is "just a label"?


Funnily, I just walked by an "artistic" installation here in Paris this afternoon. So true...

Show

We should distrust words...

So true.

https://www.parisladouce.com/2017/07/paris-il-faut-se-mefier-des-mots-une.html

EB

 

[Bomb#20]

You rejected that voltage can only change one electron at a time.

"Electron" is not a unit of voltage.

I referenced that a cap voltage can only change one electron at a time, and you objected. Do agree or disagree that voltage on a cap can only change one electron at a time, and if not why with specific theory to back it up?

I already told you. The theory backing me up is that voltage on a capacitor is number of electrons divided by capacitance. Go look it up if you don't believe me. If you charge a 1pF capacitor to 1 V, and then you don't change the number of electrons but you increase the capacitor's capacitance by 0.000000001 pF, you'll reduce the voltage by 0.000000001 V, which is a smaller change than you'd get if you removed 1 electron. And you can increase a variable capacitor's capacitance by moving the plates closer together, by squeezing it.

If you respond to this by yet again accusing me of saying charge isn't quantized, we're done. I have better things to do than try to educate people who refuse to learn.

Again 1 coulomb = 6.24 x 10^18 electrons
1 amp = 1 coulomb per second
1 electron = 1/6.24 x 10^18 amps

Wrong. Read your own first equation. 1 electron = 1/6.24 x 10^18 ***COULOMBS***. Not amps. COULOMBS.

1 amp = 1 coulomb per second

Therefore 1/6.24 x 10^18 amp = 1 electron PER SECOND. Not 1 electron. 1 electron PER SECOND.

 

[untermensche]

So, if "real" is no more than a human label as you say according to the second quote, what does it mean to say that people know things are real, as you say according to the first quote.

Alright, I'll spoon feed you.

When a person says something is real it means they can observe it or detect it some way or observe it's effects in some way.

So if they observe something or detect it or observe it's effects they know it is real.

Because that is what real means.

 

[Bomb#20]

And, no, you won't get out by saying that time is also quantized, and the speed of light is what you get when an entity moves one space quant per time quant. Quite the opposite: This would seem to imply that the only possible velocities are integer fractions of the speed of light!

...
Even that argument is overkill. If there really are quants of spacetime, they are almost certainly laid out in an amorphous glass rather than in a regular crystal structure; otherwise there would be observable macroscopic anisotropies.

Only if the three dimensions of space we perceive are actually all there is to it. If space has an infinite number of dimensions, every possible direction in our 3-d-space could correspond an axis of the crystal layout along one of those dimensions. Or maybe not, haven't worked this through.

An intriguing notion that I have no idea how to evaluate, so I'll wait for you to work it through.

At any rate, I doubt this is where untermensche wants to be going, so for the purpose of discussing the empirical implications of his proposal, we'll ignore this implementation and assume you're right and space quants or nodes would be arranged in an amorphous, glass-like fashion.

There's still at least several huge problems with this, as far as I can see:

1) Preservation of momentum would be violated. A particle with non-zero mass moving at below c would remain motionless at one space quant before moving on again, whatever the mechanism by which it is determined when and where it moves on. (This could probably be solved by saying preservation of momentum is not a constant, intrinsic speed but a constant, intrinsic probability of making the next jump per time quant. But I somehow doubt that's a solution untermensche would find preferrable, what with all that "it's counterintuitive to me, therefore it can't be".)

Hey, I'm not trying to justify untermensche's thought processes; I just thought your "you'd have to step from quant to quant infinitely fast" argument was pretty flimsy. A constant intrinsic probability works fine for me. Besides, in a glass-like spacetime, motionlessness doesn't exist. Movement would work by an active quant activating a neighboring quant that's off at some random angle to it, later along the time dimension and displaced in some direction along one of the spacial dimensions. Movement at .1 c would mean ten steps forward and nine steps back on average, rather than one step forward and nine wait states.

2) Macroscopic objects moving through space would have the relative positions and distances of their constituent particles constantly shifting as they adapt to the changing base structure of space. This constant kneading should lead to a measurable heating of any object moving through a vacuum at high velocities, even without it being accelerated. Alternatively, such an object would slow down over time. Both effects should be well within the range of what we can observe.

Not seeing why. Their so-called "constituent particles" are all waves. Do sound waves decay faster in glass than in quartz? (I don't know -- I googled acoustic attenuation coefficients and found about a thousand pages telling we what an acoustic attenuation coefficient is and none telling me what the numbers are for a thousand substances. )

3) Non-composite particles should move in essentially random directions. I'll illustrate with a model below. Ignoring the differences in size, all ".", "o", and "°" are just points in the grid of a glass-like discrete space.

o   °  .   o  °   o  °
   °  o  .   °  .  °   o  
°  o ° o  °   o  ° .  o

How would a particle moving from A to B know to which of the two Cs to continue it's journey to? (Assuming even that a particle that has come to a full stop and accelerates again ex nihilo would know to keep its general direction.) How would it, once at either of the Cs, know to steer back towards D to maintain its general direction rather than continue to either of the Xs?

o   °  X   o  °   o  °
   °  C  D   °  .  °   o  
°  A B C  X   o  ° .  o

This is not a problem for macroscopic objects consisting of thousands or millions individual particles and occupying thousands or millions of space quants at a time -- the effects are expected to cancel each other out. I don't see an easy way out for non-composite particles though.

I'm looking forward to untermensche demonstrating that the electron and photon are composed of thousands or millions of smaller particles!

But it doesn't need to be demonstrated, merely hypothesized. I don't see anything intrinsically implausible about the universe being filled with a gas of attoparticles moving randomly far below the sensitivity of our tools, and an electron and photon being waves of billions of the things, moving systematically because of the law of large numbers. The point of the exercise isn't to disprove the Standard Model, just to come up with a viable alternative to it.

4) I'm not even sure discrete space quants are compatible with the relativistic conception of space. I rather think they aren't.

Agreed. To my mind, Lorentz invariance is the hardest obstacle to finding a workable discrete spacetime theory.

 

[steve_bank]

"Electron" is not a unit of voltage.


I already told you. The theory backing me up is that voltage on a capacitor is number of electrons divided by capacitance. Go look it up if you don't believe me. If you charge a 1pF capacitor to 1 V, and then you don't change the number of electrons but you increase the capacitor's capacitance by 0.000000001 pF, you'll reduce the voltage by 0.000000001 V, which is a smaller change than you'd get if you removed 1 electron. And you can increase a variable capacitor's capacitance by moving the plates closer together, by squeezing it.

If you respond to this by yet again accusing me of saying charge isn't quantized, we're done. I have better things to do than try to educate people who refuse to learn.

Again 1 coulomb = 6.24 x 10^18 electrons
1 amp = 1 coulomb per second
1 electron = 1/6.24 x 10^18 amps

Wrong. Read your own first equation. 1 electron = 1/6.24 x 10^18 ***COULOMBS***. Not amps. COULOMBS.

1 amp = 1 coulomb per second

Therefore 1/6.24 x 10^18 amp = 1 electron PER SECOND. Not 1 electron. 1 electron PER SECOND.

You asseted before and now that charge on a capcitor can change by less than elctron and it can not. You are treating variables as continous infinite reals as we do usually. You can get fractional results results mathemeticaly that are not relected iat the quantum level. Voltage is not continuous. Capacitance is not continuous at the quantum level. A dielectric in a capacitor can only change one molecule at a tume.

In daily electronics we treat all variables as reals infinitly divisible. The quntum effects rarely manifest. In relity volage can only change in discrete steps.

You are using Newtonian variables to argue quantum mechanics.

The half electron change you infer is physically impossible if you accept quntization, you can not have it both ways.

 

[untermensche]

....Hey, I'm not trying to justify untermensche's thought processes; I just thought your "you'd have to step from quant to quant infinitely fast" argument was pretty flimsy....

Every claim of a real infinity becomes flimsy when you actually look at it.

As far as movement of objects. We don't know what objects are and we don't know what space is.

We're not going to say anything about infinity with that flimsiness.

 

[steve_bank]

juma some food for thought for you.

Consider a triode vacuum tube mimis the grid. Electrons flow between anode and cathode. At a cross section in the tube the mean nunmber of electrins crossing will be constant. Over time the number will vary about the mean. Current in the electron srteam is coulombs per second, amps. Current is quantized. We call it continuous or direct current because fr all practical purposes except for small quantum effects the current does not vary. Continuous current does not erfer to not being quantized.

In a conducter it is different. An electron does nty enter one end of a wire at a velocity and exit the wire at the other end at the same velocity. Current, as said in the link, in a conductor is more like an aggrefate of electrons moving along the wire, it not the velocity of a single free electron. As with bomb I thing you are using a Newtonian perspective to describe quantum events. You can not apply Newtonian velocity to electron current.

Drift velocity is only a small part. If I connect a voltage source across a 1 meter copper wire and the voltage changes from 0 to 10 vols in a few nanoseconds how long does it take for the change in current to propagate across the wire? If it is drift velocity hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity

The drift velocity deals with the average velocity of a particle, such as an electron, due to an electric field. In general, an electron will propagate randomly in a conductor at the Fermi velocity.[5] Free electrons in a conductor follow a random path. Without the presence of an electric field, the electrons have no net velocity. When a DC voltage is applied, the electron drift velocity will increase in speed proportionally to the strength of the electric field. The drift velocity is on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field (over a distance of a few micrometers – see example calculation).

 

[Jokodo]

Only if the three dimensions of space we perceive are actually all there is to it. If space has an infinite number of dimensions, every possible direction in our 3-d-space could correspond an axis of the crystal layout along one of those dimensions. Or maybe not, haven't worked this through.

An intriguing notion that I have no idea how to evaluate, so I'll wait for you to work it through.

At any rate, I doubt this is where untermensche wants to be going, so for the purpose of discussing the empirical implications of his proposal, we'll ignore this implementation and assume you're right and space quants or nodes would be arranged in an amorphous, glass-like fashion.

There's still at least several huge problems with this, as far as I can see:

1) Preservation of momentum would be violated. A particle with non-zero mass moving at below c would remain motionless at one space quant before moving on again, whatever the mechanism by which it is determined when and where it moves on. (This could probably be solved by saying preservation of momentum is not a constant, intrinsic speed but a constant, intrinsic probability of making the next jump per time quant. But I somehow doubt that's a solution untermensche would find preferrable, what with all that "it's counterintuitive to me, therefore it can't be".)

Hey, I'm not trying to justify untermensche's thought processes; I just thought your "you'd have to step from quant to quant infinitely fast" argument was pretty flimsy. A constant intrinsic probability works fine for me. Besides, in a glass-like spacetime, motionlessness doesn't exist. Movement would work by an active quant activating a neighboring quant that's off at some random angle to it, later along the time dimension and displaced in some direction along one of the spacial dimensions. Movement at .1 c would mean ten steps forward and nine steps back on average, rather than one step forward and nine wait states.

2) Macroscopic objects moving through space would have the relative positions and distances of their constituent particles constantly shifting as they adapt to the changing base structure of space. This constant kneading should lead to a measurable heating of any object moving through a vacuum at high velocities, even without it being accelerated. Alternatively, such an object would slow down over time. Both effects should be well within the range of what we can observe.

Not seeing why. Their so-called "constituent particles" are all waves. Do sound waves decay faster in glass than in quartz? (I don't know -- I googled acoustic attenuation coefficients and found about a thousand pages telling we what an acoustic attenuation coefficient is and none telling me what the numbers are for a thousand substances. )

But saying their constituent particles are all waves just opens another can of worms: Wave speeds in any medium are constant. It doesn't matter how hard or softly you hit your end of a steel rod, the wave will travel through it at roughly 6000 m/s even if your hammer moved with just 50 m/s or for that matter 5 m/s through the air before hitting it. Since that speed is apparently c for the ether-resurrected, all objects should either be moving at c, or not at all. One way out might be to say that time is multidimensional: a slow-moving object is in fact moving at c in a temporal direction almost orthogonal to the one we perceive.

And yes, sound attenuates much more quickly in glass than in quartz, apparently. This site gives values of 0.0127 vs. 2.0: http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_4/2_4_1.html

 

[bilby]

juma some food for thought for you.

Consider a triode vacuum tube mimis the grid. Electrons flow between anode and cathode. At a cross section in the tube the mean nunmber of electrins crossing will be constant. Over time the number will vary about the mean. Current in the electron srteam is coulombs per second, amps. Current is quantized. We call it continuous or direct current because fr all practical purposes except for small quantum effects the current does not vary. Continuous current does not erfer to not being quantized.

In a conducter it is different. An electron does nty enter one end of a wire at a velocity and exit the wire at the other end at the same velocity. Current, as said in the link, in a conductor is more like an aggrefate of electrons moving along the wire, it not the velocity of a single free electron. As with bomb I thing you are using a Newtonian perspective to describe quantum events. You can not apply Newtonian velocity to electron current.

Drift velocity is only a small part. If I connect a voltage source across a 1 meter copper wire and the voltage changes from 0 to 10 vols in a few nanoseconds how long does it take for the change in current to propagate across the wire? If it is drift velocity hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity

The drift velocity deals with the average velocity of a particle, such as an electron, due to an electric field. In general, an electron will propagate randomly in a conductor at the Fermi velocity.[5] Free electrons in a conductor follow a random path. Without the presence of an electric field, the electrons have no net velocity. When a DC voltage is applied, the electron drift velocity will increase in speed proportionally to the strength of the electric field. The drift velocity is on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field (over a distance of a few micrometers – see example calculation).

You can keep coming up with examples of quantization until the cows come home - and it won't change the fact that your are wrong.

All that is needed to disprove the claim that current is always quantized, is a single example where it is not - a million examples of systems where it is, will count for nothing in the presence of that one example. The observation of just one black swan disproves the claim 'All swans are white', and no amount of pointing to swans and saying 'but that one is white' will make the claim any less untrue.

Imagine an electron in deep space, far from any other particles. It's charge is a constant, so the current represented by its motion is dependent ONLY on its velocity, and can ONLY be described relative to a specified reference frame. That current can therefore have ANY value, depending on the movement of the observer. Unless space is quantized, and an observer cannot therefore move at an arbitrary velocity relative to the electron under consideration. But if space were quantized, that would violate Lorentz invariance, which is highly robust. So your proposal is that we throw out a robust and well tested theory, in favour of your conjecture that space is quantized - a conjecture whose ONLY purpose is to defend your unsupported and unevidenced claim that current is quantized.

Yet again, you are clinging to some simplification that is a handy 'rule-of-thumb' in many earthbound applications, and declaring it to be a universal axiom; And then defending to the death your false 'universal axiom', even after it is shown that it applies only in limited circumstances, and produces results that conflict with observation in many other circumstances.

Space and time are, to the best of our ability to determine, continuous. When we assume that they are not, we find ourselves predicting things that contradict observations of reality. That's a condition known to scientists as 'being wrong', and people in that condition are well advised to adjust their assumptions. Digging in and defending your dogma against reality is strictly for religion.

 

[Jokodo]

They are not explanations of reality and never claimed to be.

They are models that describe how nature works.

They are not explanations of what nature is.

And most importantly they in no way say a real infinity is possible.

Infinity is an imaginary process. Not a thing that can be real.

They do say that there's an infinite numbers of intermediate positions between my fist and your face. A granular conception of Space is incompatible with either without major modifications.

They say that because they make use of imaginary points. You confuse the models with the real thing.

Hint: Model has points, infinite points. Reality does not.

There are no points in the real world.

Two objects can only be so close to one another. They cannot move closer and closer infinitely.

As my head moves from your slow weak fist it moves in positive steps.

Not imaginary infinite steps.

You've asserted as much before. You provided evidence neither then nor now.

And for all your talk about "reality", what you describe another model. One that's extremely poorly worked out and in direct contradiction with a ton of observation, but a model nonetheless. Your style of argumentation is indistinguishable from a flat-earther.

 

[untermensche]

I cannot prove a negative.

There are no points in reality.

Show me one.

 

[Jokodo]

I cannot prove a negative.

There are no points in reality.

Show me one.

No-one other than you is talking about points. They're not required for what I'm saying. They're effectively what you're claiming though. Anyway, can you show me the smallest possible spatial distance, or calculate its value?

The assumption that space is granular, there's finite number of steps between my palm and my forehead, or my fist and your nose, or two rocks on a collision course in outer space, implies that the Lorentz invariance and with it pretty much all of physics of the last 130 years is wrong. It implies resurrecting the ether theory. You don't get to do that without offering an alternative that explains the observations of reality that have lead to the formulation of modern physics just as well. You don't get to do that without addressing the empirical results that led to the abandonment of the ether theory in the first place.

Well, you do, free speech and all. But then you're an obious crackpot.

Consider two rocks in interstellar space moving with a relative velocity of 25,000 m/s, about to hit each other: If space is not infinitely divisible, if it's quanized, then it has to be true that there's a finite, countable number of minimal distances/space quants/shortest steps between those two bodies (say, 2.5 * 10^52 steps). Then it also has to be true that in the second before the collision, both bodies move a specific integer number of steps, adding up to (at least - they might both be co-moving relative to that absolute frame) 2.5 * 10^52, say one is moving 1.6 * 10^52 while the other is moving 9 * 10^51 steps. This is a direct consequence of your model (no, not calling it a model doesn't get you out), and a direct contradiction with observed reality.

 

[untermensche]

If you claim your hand can move infinite steps as I kick you in your vulva then how far is each movement?