Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Jokodo]

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

That's a question you need to answer. The rest of us are saying the question is based on a misconception and there is no answer.

Also, how is your replacement for the last 130 years of physics getting along?

 

[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).

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.

I sense a strange presence in the Force,it can't be...

The case was made that current is continuous as opposed to quantized based on speed and change of current. That is wrong.

The vacuum tube is an example. Current is not limited to conductors. Continuous current in practice means it is constant over time. It does not mean not quantized as bomb seemsedto say.

Both bomb and juma appear to at times reject quantization of charge.

Bomb used capacitance to conclude charge can change in fractions of an electron. He based that on using real numbers to derive a fractional result. Most of the time we use real numbers in electronics as quantization errors involved are well below any effect on systems. Being off a Few hundred electrons in calculating a voltage or current has no effect. The fact that applying real numbers you can get fraction charge results does not mean charge can be fractional.

Commercial instruments can measure femto amps. Ordinary instruments resolve micro volts and micro amps. The difference between a measured current converted to electrons and the actual number of electrons has no effect on systems.

If you want to respond limit to the above with specific refutation.

 

[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.

I sense a strange presence in the Force,it can't be...

The case was made that current is continuous as opposed to quantized based on speed and change of current. That is wrong.

No, it isn't.

The vacuum tube is an example.

No, as I made clear above, it isn't. Examples of white swans cannot refute the existence of black swans.

Current is not limited to conductors.

Oh, good; You noticed that central part of my argument. I was worried that you hadn't read it at all.

Continuous current in practice means it is constant over time. It does not mean not quantized as bomb seemsedto say.

Bomb has yet to say anything as incoherent as this babble. Nobody cares about 'continuous current'. The question is, is current quantised or not.

The answer is that it is not.

Both bomb and juma appear to at times reject quantization of charge.

Neither has done so in this forum, anywhere I can see. We all agree that charge is quantised. Please quote anyone saying otherwise in this thread; Or withdraw your incorrect claim.

Bomb used capacitance to conclude charge can change in fractions of an electron.

No, he didn't. He (correctly) concluded that capacitance can change continuously despite charge being quantised.

He based that on using real numbers to derive a fractional result.

Are you seriously suggesting that arithmetic must be prohibited in case it shows that you are wrong??

Most of the time we use real numbers in electronics as quantization errors involved are well below any effect on systems. Being off a Few hundred electrons in calculating a voltage or current has no effect.

Neither voltage nor current are measured in electrons. The electron can be treated as a unit of charge. But not of current nor voltage.

The fact that applying real numbers you can get fraction charge results does not mean charge can be fractional.

Nobody has said you can. Well done, you just proved something everyone here agrees with. In other news, water is wet; Bears shit in the woods; The pope remains devoutly Catholic.

Commercial instruments can measure femto amps.

Which are units of current, not charge. Amps can be devided to an arbitrary prescision; There is no minimum quantum of current, because there is no minimum quantum of time.

Ordinary instruments resolve micro volts and micro amps. The difference between a measured current converted to electrons and the actual number of electrons has no effect on systems.

Neither micro volts, nor micro amps, are measures of charge.

If you want to respond limit to the above with specific refutation.

Done.

You seem to be VERY confused, and (surprisingly for someone with an apparently religious devotion to SI), bizarrely incompetent to spot the difference between Coulombs, Amperes, Volts, and Farads - all of which have different dimensionality.

Charge is quantised. Current, Voltage, and Capacitance are not; Because Time and Distance are not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

We all know that, it never was the question. Why is it you never understand what people say? Do you have a reading problem?

So, the question was why you then say:

"Real" is just a human label.

It is nothing more.

Just a human label?!

It is nothing more?!

What does that mean in this context?



Well, maybe it means nothing. Just nothing. Nothing at all. Just your very "colloquial" way of speaking English.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

That can of worms was already open -- DeBroglie stuck us with subluminal matter waves a hundred years ago. It's something any discrete spacetime theory is going to have to find a way to deal with.

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.

Or a "rolled-up" 4th space dimension could do the trick.

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

Good find. That's another blow to discrete spacetime's chances.

 

[untermensche]

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

That's a question you need to answer.

No it is not.

I am not claiming anything is taking infinite steps. You are.

That is your question to answer.

If something is taking infinite steps as it moves from from A to B how far is each step?

If it is taking finite steps there is an answer.

Also, how is your replacement for the last 130 years of physics getting along?

Delusion.

First of all I do not accept your self appointed authority on the state of anything. You can only speak for yourself.

You are not the spokesman for "science".

You are claiming when something moves it moves in infinitely small increments. Something that is impossible. There is no such thing as an infinite increment in reality. It makes no sense.

You are speaking gibberish.

That is not science.

If you want to show you are not speaking gibberish tell me how far is an infinitely small movement.

 

[untermensche]

Why is it you never understand what people say? Do you have a reading problem?

I answered your pointless question.

Your English is limited. That is not my problem.

"Real" is just a human label.

It is nothing more.

Just a human label?!

It is nothing more?!

What does that mean in this context?

Which word do you not understand?

Do you have any point that anybody should care about besides you?

 

[Juma]

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.

Yes! Current is not quantized because velocity is not quantized! How many times do i need to say that?
And velocity is not quantized because time and position.
Last: energy is generally NOT quantized. But enrgy transitions in electromagnetic fields are.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Yes! Current is not quantized because velocity is not quantized! How many times do i need to say that?
And velocity is not quantized because time and position.
Last: energy is generally NOT quantized. But enrgy transitions in electromagnetic fields are.

We must have different views on modern physics.

In the models photons and electrons are discrete particles which are the energy transfer mechanism in EM waves and electric current. In a photodetector the quantum efficiency is electrons per photon. I worked in a group making infrared sensors.

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

Given current is discrete electrons what do you mean by continuous current? Maybe we have a semantics problem. I'd like to see id we can get to a resolution.

 

[Juma]

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.

Yes! Current is not quantized because velocity is not quantized! How many times do i need to say that?
And velocity is not quantized because time and position.
Last: energy is generally NOT quantized. But enrgy transitions in electromagnetic fields are.

We must have different views on modern physics.

In the models photons and electrons are discrete particles which are the energy transfer mechanism in EM waves and electric current. In a photodetector the quantum efficiency is electrons per photon. I worked in a group making infrared sensors.

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

Given current is discrete electrons what do you mean by continuous current? Maybe we have a semantics problem. I'd like to see id we can get to a resolution.

I havent said anything about ”continous” current. We discuss wether it is quantized. That is: wether current is always a multiple of a general constant. (Like charge and like energi exchange in electromagnetic fields)

 

[bilby]

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.

Yes! Current is not quantized because velocity is not quantized! How many times do i need to say that?
And velocity is not quantized because time and position.
Last: energy is generally NOT quantized. But enrgy transitions in electromagnetic fields are.

We must have different views on modern physics.

In the models photons and electrons are discrete particles which are the energy transfer mechanism in EM waves and electric current. In a photodetector the quantum efficiency is electrons per photon. I worked in a group making infrared sensors.

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

Given current is discrete electrons what do you mean by continuous current? Maybe we have a semantics problem. I'd like to see id we can get to a resolution.

Oh FFS. Current is electrons PER SECOND.

Speed is not measured in metres; Power is not measured in Joules. Current is not measured in electrons.

Seconds are a measure of time. Time is NOT quantized.

Current is given by (quantized) charge divided by (non-quantized) time; The result of that calculation is (arithmetic tells us) NOT quantized, and can take any value.

This is really simple stuff. If your view on modern physics includes quantized current, then it is different from correct.

You are in error. You can avoid being in error ONLY by changing your position; Reality will not change itself to accommodate your mistake.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, the question was why you then say:

"Real" is just a human label.

It is nothing more.

Just a human label?!

It is nothing more?!

What does that mean in this context?

Which word do you not understand?

I understand the words. I don't understand what you could possibly mean by them.

Still, how could you possibly explain yourself if you don't understand the words you're using?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Which word do you not understand?

I understand the words. I don't understand what you could possibly mean by them.

Still, how could you possibly explain yourself if you don't understand the words you're using?
EB

If you understand the words then it is up to YOUR cognitive abilities to make sense of them.

I cannot help you with that.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

I asserted nothing of the sort. Not before, not now. You are unable to quote me saying what you claim I said. You are putting words in my mouth. I have corrected you on that point several times, but you persist. There is only one possible explanation for why you behave this way: you do it because you are a jerk.

Capacitance is not continuous at the quantum level.

That is the first substantive counterargument you have made in this whole exchange. Seeing if you can prove your claim might be interesting in other circumstances. But we're past that. Trying to reason with a person who refuses to stop putting words in other people's mouths is a waste of time.

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

I did not infer a half electron change. Stop putting words in my mouth, you jerk.

Both bomb and juma appear to at times reject quantization of charge.

Bomb used capacitance to conclude charge can change in fractions of an electron.

Stop putting words in my mouth, you jerk. We're done.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I cannot prove a negative.

No proof, no certainty. So why are you so vehement there's no infinity? This is idiotic.

Show

You cannot prove infinity doesn't exist, you admit as much, and yet you keep insisting vehemently that infinity doesn't exist. This is an idiotic stance.

Show

The reasonable attitude would be to give your reasons, if any, for believing infinity doesn't exist and leave it at that. OK, I guess we all understand you're not reasonable.

Show

So, instead, you're on a Crusade to rid the Earth of all those who see infinity as a logical possibility or even as something plausible. All you have as a motivation is your irrational belief that infinity could not exist.

Show

From now on it's turtles all the way down!

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

Show

Turtle

EB

 

[untermensche]

I am demonstrating a positive which results in the negation of an idea.

I am showing that infinity as defined is in conflict with something like time in the past.

Infinite time is the time it takes to recite all the positive integers. They are equivalent amounts of time.

That is my model for infinite time since just to say infinite time means nothing. You need a real world model. Reciting all the positive integers is the model for infinite time. It is arbitrary but accurate. Infinite time implies infinite events. Time without events is a contradiction.

Reciting all the positive integers is not something that could have occurred in the past. It is a contradiction to say you have reached the last positive integer.

And therefore neither could something equivalent to it, infinite time.

 

[steve_bank]

We must have different views on modern physics.

In the models photons and electrons are discrete particles which are the energy transfer mechanism in EM waves and electric current. In a photodetector the quantum efficiency is electrons per photon. I worked in a group making infrared sensors.

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

Given current is discrete electrons what do you mean by continuous current? Maybe we have a semantics problem. I'd like to see id we can get to a resolution.

Oh FFS. Current is electrons PER SECOND.

Speed is not measured in metres; Power is not measured in Joules. Current is not measured in electrons.

Seconds are a measure of time. Time is NOT quantized.

Current is given by (quantized) charge divided by (non-quantized) time; The result of that calculation is (arithmetic tells us) NOT quantized, and can take any value.

This is really simple stuff. If your view on modern physics includes quantized current, then it is different from correct.


You are in error. You can avoid being in error ONLY by changing your position; Reality will not change itself to accommodate your mistake.

Bilby

I know what you are saying, but you are not getting the complete picture.

As I said, we end up using real numbers because quantization effects are low. In everyday practice for me current and voltage are real numbers infinitely divisible. The quabity of electrons even in a micro amp is much larger than quantization.

Water is often used as an analogy to electric current. Consider water filling a bucket from a hose. We say the water is flowing continuously in say liters per second. We treat liters per as a real number infinitely divisible. In reality the water in the bucket can only change in increments of one H2O molecule. Water flow is continuous but quantized. Likewise electric current can only change in increments of one electron.

What you are describing is an artifact of arithmetic and mixing integers and reals. Instead of electrons imagine a large quantity of ball bearings flowing through a pipe. Mathematically in some series of calculations I might end up with 100.4 balls per second. That kind of result does happen when mixing discrete and continuous variables.. Balls are quantified.

If there are 6.241509×10^18 balls flowing , 1 amp of current, the math resulting in a fraction of a particle have no effect at the practical level.

Consider a solid block of aluminum, we say it is continuous. Mass is taken a continuous real variable. We treat the block as infinitely divisible limited only by cutting tools in normal reality. It is actually quantized, mass can only change by atoms.

Mass flow rate is treated as Newtonian continuous variable . Kilograms per second. . 12.4 kg/3.7 seconds. It works in practical engineering because the number of total atomic elements are large The actual error in mass is tiny. .. However mass can only change 1 atom or molecule increments. Computationally we can get fractional mass, but quantization remains.

The kg standard is a chunk of metal in a lab. We treat the kg as infinitely divisible but it is not.

There are many computational artifacts that manifest in calculations. Modern physics came along because Newtonian continuous variables failed at the particle level.

In a cross section of a wire electrons are moving back and forth with a net drift in one direction. The instantaneous quantity varies with time. On a neter the current will not change, but at the quantum level the net electron drift is not constant. The quantum variation in flow is not detectable normally.

In a conductor there are other artifacts such as Shot noise, Johnson noise, and skin effect. With skin effect as frequency goes up self inductance of the wire forces electrons out from the center increasing resistance.

Yes, quantization of current and drift are simple, relative to everything else. In semiconductors there are electrons and holes with different mobilities and drift velocity. There is a majority and minority current. Modern physics. Everything is quantized.

- - - Updated - - -

We must have different views on modern physics.

In the models photons and electrons are discrete particles which are the energy transfer mechanism in EM waves and electric current. In a photodetector the quantum efficiency is electrons per photon. I worked in a group making infrared sensors.

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

Given current is discrete electrons what do you mean by continuous current? Maybe we have a semantics problem. I'd like to see id we can get to a resolution.

I havent said anything about ”continous” current. We discuss wether it is quantized. That is: wether current is always a multiple of a general constant. (Like charge and like energi exchange in electromagnetic fields)

Then I have no clue what you are talking about. See my response to bilby.

 

[bilby]

Bilby

I know what you are saying, but you are not getting the complete picture.

I am pretty sure I have more of the picture than you; And your comments below show very clearly that you do NOT know what I am saying.

As I said, we end up using real numbers because quantization effects are low.

No. We end up using real numbers for those things that are quantized (such as charge), because quantization effects are low. For other things - like distance, or time - that are NOT quantized, we use them because they are correct.

In everyday practice for me current and voltage are real numbers infinitely divisible.

That is also true of reality. Current and voltage are infinitely divisible. That's not an approximation or a rule of thumb; It's a fact of reality as described by our best current physical theories.

The quabity of electrons even in a micro amp is much larger than quantization.

That is meaningless nonsense, and is the heart of your error.

Dimensional analysis - Have you heard of it?

Would you say "The quantity of metres in a mile per hour is ... "? That would be crazy - metres are a unit of distance; miles per hour are units of speed. They are NOT COMPARABLE. You are making a category error.

Current is charge divided by time. The Amp is a unit of current. Electrons carry charge; They can be used as a unit of charge. They cannot be used as a unit of current.

You can no more compare electrons to amps than you can compare the distance to New York with the speed limit. It's a meaningless comparison.

Water is often used as an analogy to electric current. Consider water filling a bucket from a hose.

We really don't need your kindergarten examples. But if you must employ them, you better not get them wrong...

We say the water is flowing continuously in say liters per second. We treat liters per as a real number infinitely divisible.

..but you do anyway. Can you spot the difference between the two units you have employed here? (I bolded them to help you out).

In reality the water in the bucket can only change in increments of one H2O molecule.

Sure. But the flow rate is in molecules per second. And that's a very different thing. You have confused yourself, and reached an erroneous conclusion as a result:

Water flow is continuous but quantized. Likewise electric current can only change in increments of one electron.

Water flow, like electric current, includes a time dimension. Time is not quantized; So flow (and current) are not quantized. The sentence "Electric current can only change in increments of one electron" is nonsense; It contains a gross error that renders it meaningless. You may as well say "Speed limits can only change in increments of one mile".

You could instead say: "electric current can only change in increments of one electron per second" - and then you would be saying something that was at least coherent. It's WRONG, but at least it's not meaningless. If one electron per second passes a given point, then you can halve the current by having one electron every two seconds pass that point. The electron is indivisible, but the second is NOT - so the current is NOT either.

What you are describing is an artifact of arithmetic and mixing integers and reals.

No, it isn't.

Instead of electrons imagine a large quantity of ball bearings flowing through a pipe.

Why not. Nothing changes - you are still just as wrong, and for exactly the same reason.

Mathematically in some series of calculations I might end up with 100.4 balls per second. That kind of result does happen when mixing discrete and continuous variables.. Balls are quantified.

But as seconds are not, that result can be precisely correct.

If there are 6.241509×10^18 balls flowing , 1 amp of current, the math resulting in a fraction of a particle have no effect at the practical level.

There are no fractions of particles. Electrons are quantized. There are, however fractions of seconds. Time is NOT quantized.

Consider a solid block of aluminum, we say it is continuous.

You might. You would be wrong, but probably close enough for an engineer.

Mass is taken a continuous real variable. We treat the block as infinitely divisible limited only by cutting tools in normal reality. It is actually quantized, mass can only change by atoms.

No shit, Sherlock.

Mass flow rate is treated as Newtonian continuous variable . Kilograms per second. . 12.4 kg/3.7 seconds. It works in practical engineering because the number of total atomic elements are large The actual error in mass is tiny. .. However mass can only change 1 atom or molecule increments.

Indeed. But time can be sliced as small as you like, so kg.s^-1 can be theoretically determined to arbitrary precision.

Computationally we can get fractional mass, but quantization remains.

Of mass? Yes. Of flow rate? No.

The kg standard is a chunk of metal in a lab. We treat the kg as infinitely divisible but it is not.

I am aware of this.

There are many computational artifacts that manifest in calculations. Modern physics came along because Newtonian continuous variables failed at the particle level.

Infinitely divisible flow rates are not a 'computational artifact'. And I am up to speed on the history of modern physics, which is way off topic.

In a cross section of a wire electrons are moving back and forth with a net drift in one direction. The instantaneous quantity varies with time. On a neter the current will not change, but at the quantum level the net electron drift is not constant. The quantum variation in flow is not detectable normally.

On a chess board, the bishops only move diagonally. So they can never reach a square of a different colour from the one they start on.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were just throwing out random, irrelevant, and widely known facts.

In a conductor there are other artifacts such as Shot noise, Johnson noise, and skin effect. With skin effect as frequency goes up self inductance of the wire forces electrons out from the center increasing resistance.

Look, you can just assume that I know you read a textbook once. You don't need to try to impress me with how smart you are; My assessment that you are wrong is not based on your credentials, or mine, or on what else either of us might know - it is based on the fact that you are WRONG.

You won't become right by knowing lots of related stuff, or by having a nice diploma, or even by having years of experience.

To become right, you just need NOT TO MAKE THE ERROR YOU KEEP MAKING.

Yes, quantization of current and drift are simple, relative to everything else. In semiconductors there are electrons and holes with different mobilities and drift velocity. There is a majority and minority current. Modern physics. Everything is quantized.

No. Not everything is quantized. Whoever told you that was either ignorant, mistaken, or (more likely) discussing a narrow range of specific entities, and you misunderstood the claim as being universally applicable.

Modern physics tells us that space and time are continuous. This implies that all measures that include a space or time component can also be continuous. You are wrong; And if you could think this through carefully, without randomly dropping important metrics, or confusing the issue with pointless models and examples, you might see that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I am demonstrating a positive which results in the negation of an idea.

Your so-called "demonstration" has failed to convince anyone here. You should reflect on that.

Not only that, but most people here see it as moronic. You should ask yourself why.

I am showing that infinity as defined is in conflict with something like time in the past.

As "defined"?!

But there are many different concepts of infinity. Even in our everyday experience, we all have three very different notions of infinity, at least that I can identify.

And how could you possibly know that a particular concept is in contradiction with what the actual past has been? You've been there?

And your continuous rant on the subject has never convinced anybody. Time to think about that.

Infinite time is the time it takes to recite all the positive integers. They are equivalent amounts of time.

No. Sorry, but this is moronic. Time is what it is and doesn't give a fuck about you counting any integers.

That is my model for infinite time since just to say infinite time means nothing.

And your model is crap.

You need a real world model. Reciting all the positive integers is the model for infinite time. It is arbitrary but accurate. Infinite time implies infinite events. Time without events is a contradiction.

How would you know it's accurate?

That there's an infinity of event doesn't mean they could be counted.

Reciting all the positive integers is not something that could have occurred in the past. It is a contradiction to say you have reached the last positive integer.

You can think of time as the set of integers. That's one model. And in this case, the past would have been infinite. Where's the contradiction in this model? That we're unable to count integers from the infinity end of them is completely irrelevant. We're finite beings. We can't count infinity.

And therefore neither could something equivalent to it, infinite time.

You've failed again to convince your reader.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time is the time it takes to recite all the positive integers. They are equivalent amounts of time.

No. Sorry, but this is moronic. Time is what it is and doesn't give a fuck about you counting any integers.

No.

Wanting to talk about infinite time without a model is fucking moronic.

Those that want to talk about infinite time but are unwilling to model it in any way are fucking morons.

And if the shoe fits.......

That is my model for infinite time since just to say infinite time means nothing.

And your model is crap.

In what way?

Please be specific so I know you are not a fucking moron.

How exactly is infinite time different than the time needed to recite all the integers?