Is very finite number of ways that matter can be arranged?

What I'm trying to find out is: Is this a theory or a proven fact? Do we know this for certain or is it just the belief of a few? Is there room for doubt?

It's a theory, Quantum Mechanics. You start with basic math like 2+2=4, and then you twist and contort until nothing makes sense, and then you claim it's incomplete, that there must be a fix. LOL :rolleyes:

It's akin to explaining the universe in it's entirety, and it all boils down to the "God did it" explanation.

ie, you start with an agenda of God, then you twist and contort the math to make it prove God.
 
I'm talking about molecular combinations, each of which has its own energy equilibrium which defines its stability. Atoms can not be arranged arbitrarily, there are minimum distances and maximum distances, and there are specific angles their arrangements have to obey.
And I'm talking about the limits of the physical presence of particles in QM. If one of your molecules is not being observed, its states are in superposition. QM says that superposition is about randomness, and probability. The measurement problem itself says you can't pinpoint the location of a particle with complete accuracy unless you lose all information about its motions, and atoms and their electrons within molecules are always in motion, even if that motion is only oscillation. So my conclusion is, if you want to invoke the math of QM, you have to allow for infinite possibilities.
 
What I'm trying to find out is: Is this a theory or a proven fact? Do we know this for certain or is it just the belief of a few? Is there room for doubt?

Take 10x10 pixels image with 8 possible colors. You see how the number of combinations is limited? The real world just have much higher resolution and many more possible colors, but the numbers are not infinite. Pixel size in the real world can never go below the size of one atom, it's a hard limit no question about it. I'm not sure how colors are limited beside chemically, but the same picture with different colors is not really kind of diversity you would look forward to anyway.
 
Take 10x10 pixels image with 8 possible colors. You see how the number of combinations is limited? The real world just have much higher resolution and many more possible colors, but the numbers are not infinite. Pixel size in the real world can never go below the size of one atom, it's a hard limit no question about it. I'm not sure how colors are limited beside chemically, but the same picture with different colors is not really kind of diversity you would look forward to anyway.

What is a pixel? How many .1x.1 dimensional pixels will fit into 1 pixel?
 
Take 10x10 pixels image with 8 possible colors. You see how the number of combinations is limited? The real world just have much higher resolution and many more possible colors, but the numbers are not infinite. Pixel size in the real world can never go below the size of one atom, it's a hard limit no question about it. I'm not sure how colors are limited beside chemically, but the same picture with different colors is not really kind of diversity you would look forward to anyway.

So this theory is proven then? It's airtight?
 
So this theory is proven then? It's airtight?

Yes. Instead of talking about paintings it becomes more clear to talk about digital photographs. Now you know that computer images have fixed resolution and fixed number of colors, therefore the number of combinations of those colors over given number of pixels must be fixed finite number. You can actually calculate exact number of how many possible different photographs can exist for any given image size. Scary, eh? Shall we calculate it and write the number down?
 
Yes. Instead of talking about paintings it becomes more clear to talk about digital photographs. Now you know that computer images have fixed resolution and fixed number of colors, therefore the number of combinations of those colors over given number of pixels must be fixed finite number. You can actually calculate exact number of how many possible different photographs can exist for any given image size. Scary, eh? Shall we calculate it and write the number down?

Paraphrased, "I can calculate the limits of my technology." LOL
 
1920x1080=2073600

But that says nothing as to how big the monitor is, eh? Uh oh, different monitors have different square footage of pixel area, but as the pixels are fixed at 1920x1080, that means the pixels get bigger as the monitor gets bigger. Now what? Space is expanding!!!!!
 
Humbleteleskop, Do you think the maximum number of perfect squares that can fit into a 1 square meter square is proportional to the capability of the human eye? How many perfect squares do you think that is? Got a number in mind?
 
Okay everybody, I've just had an epiphany.

I spoke to someone I know over the phone and he reminded me that a theory, by definition, is something that has not yet been proven and cannot currently be proven.
Yes humbledesktop, the logic does hold up but that logic is based on a theory and a theory is based on current information. The theory may seem reasonable at the time it was conceived but new information often dispels it.

At one time there was a theory that the earth was flat and the sun orbited it. By our standards it seems like an incredibly stupid and ignorant belief. But based on the technology, observations and information of the age it was a reasonable assumption.

In the Victorian age it was believed that diseases like cholera were spread through miasma, through foul smells. And this was widely accepted and forever and he believed by leading health officials such as Florence Nightingale. And the idea that disease was caused by microorganisms was considered too radical.

Even the great Stephen Hawking himself has retracted some of his theories in the past.

My point humbledesktop this theory regarding the finite possible arrangement of matter is just that, a theory, a presumption, a postulation based on what we know and understand and observe through technology. And considering in the past we knew relatively nothing to what we now know and we show no signs of slowing down, it may be safe to say that most theories will be disproven and probably are false already. And if memory serves me right, it seems that theories about the universe and reality seem to come and go almost as fast as fashion trends.

And I think you have to agree that it is very presumptuous to talk about a theory as if it were proven fact when the very word itself means that it is not.
And finally I issue you a challenge. Instead of metaphors, assumption and logic based on a theory, can you lay before me, undeniable evidence that this theory is 100% true? Can anyone?
 
I didn't notice anyone mentioning the Bekenstein bound yet, but perhaps I just missed it. If true (which is not certain, but the argument looks plausible) then there would indeed only be a finite number of ways of arranging the matter in a given region of space.
 
Perhaps you are talking about classical combinations when you talk about putting atoms on a canvas, while if you consider the quantum mechanics of the atoms that you place on the canvas, there are infinite possibilities as to the states that you can observe when you look at the canvas, combined with the states that are in superposition in the atoms that are not observed?

Quantum implies only distinct states, and not continuous functions. A continuous function, like in math, has an infinite number of points side by side, whereas quanta imply something that looks like a dashed line with gaps. A quantum universe does not have infinite states but distinct states.

The confusion is connected to the assumptions of the math and allowing the math cart to lead the horse (data). Infinite possibilities is an assumption stemming from the math that cannot be proven in the lab, since how do you accumulate infinite data as hard proof? This is physically impossible. Classical combinations assume a more manageable finite set which is much easy to show in the lab. It is not based on a math cart pulling a Helios chariot. But rather it lets the data speak with the math following the data horse.

The reason for a quantum universe, is this saves time and allows progression to occur faster. If the entropy of the universe needs to increase, infinite possibilities would allow entropy to increase while cycling through all the infinite states of step one. As long as a new state of step one keeps appearing ad infinitum entropy continues to rise. With quantum placing a limit on this, step one will begin to recycle sooner. For entropy to increase even more, a new arrangement foundation needs to appear leading to step 2. If this had infinite states, the universe would stop here at step two, since entropy can be expressed by going through endless variation. But as a quantum universe, an entropy wall appears, requiring step 3.

The classical approach based on direct observation and not math first, catalogs a more manageable number of states under natural conditions. There are also other states we can add under synthetic conditions.
 
And for those of us who have no idea of what entropy is?

Also, are your arguing for or against this theory.
 
And for those of us who have no idea of what entropy is?

You could give Leonard Susskind's lectures on statistical mechanics and thermodynamics a whirl (they're on YouTube). The concepts of entropy and information are very much at the heart of this sort of discussion, so it's well worth getting to grips with them.
 
Let me approach the arrangement of matter, from another direction. Scientists use the Doppler shift to infer the size and age of the universe. This method works under the assumption that atomic spectra are very distinct for each atom, like a finger print and not subject to endless variations. One can tell a sodium atom from a mercury atom because it has a very specific emission spectra that you can place side by side. This demonstrates very distinct states of matter at the level of atoms. If it was endless variation you could not tell one from the other due to so many similar lines.

bunsen1.jpg


Once the emission spectra is released by any atom, the motion of the star, galaxy or the universe will have an impact on the energy waves that reach a distant reference like the earth. The entire spectrum might red shift causing the little lines, in the diagram above, to all move slightly to the right. But these extra states, although representing hypothetical matter states on paper, are not due to matter, but are the various energy tweaks.

Essentially matter is finite in the ways it can arrange as inferred by spectra standards. Energy is different and can tweaked with a number of reference effects connected to relativity for example. This will add variety to the energy beyond what the matter can spontaneously emit.

Matter and its constitutes like mass and change are not reference dependent, but are invariant to reference. These act as standards which are the same in all reference. Energy, as the Doppler shift shows, is reference dependent and therefore as variable as the number of possible references.

This brings us back to entropy. No matter how you define entropy, entropy needs energy to increase. The waste heat of a machine due to friction is one source of energy for entropy. If the machine was perfect with no friction heat, entropy would stay low. Since matter is more limited, while energy has more variety due to reference effects like velocity and red shift, the impact of this more varied energy fed back onto limited matter is used to express entropy via matter. The entropy is different from the EM forces in atoms, that define specific atomic spectra; represents additional information beyond EM forces.

If you take two waves and add them, one can get a single wave that is the composite of the two. This is shown below. Say the reference change of energy creates one new wave, that is different from the spectra of matter. This can be still be used to express entropy, as long two or more matter waves add to get to energy wave.

With information, brain energy tweaked by intellectual reference, cause standard ideas to take on new arrangements based on the energy/priority of standards states. With certain atoms having distinct states different from others (spectral lines) often entropy has to work with energy that can only be expressed by distinct and specific arrangements, tailoring new information.

interference.gif
 
I didn't notice anyone mentioning the Bekenstein bound yet, but perhaps I just missed it. If true (which is not certain, but the argument looks plausible) then there would indeed only be a finite number of ways of arranging the matter in a given region of space.
That theory talks about describing a system "down to the quantum level". Just to clarify, does "down to the quantum level", include quantum physics like superspostion and decoherence, or doesn't it?
 
Humbleteleskop, I'll get you rolling in the right direction and you let me know if you agree, K?

1/4=.25 and .25*4=1
1/16=.0625 and .0625*16=1

See how I get to check my work for errors too?!! So far so good, everything matching up perfect!!!!

Let's try a few more just to be sure, K?

I hope this one doesn't throw you for a loop, but here goes anyway:


1/10=.10 and .10*10=1

another...

1/10000=.0001 and .0001*10,000=1

Did you catch the bonus fact that 1/10=.1 (1 Tenth) and 1/10000=.0001 (1 Ten Thousandth)???

Do you think there is a limit as to how many and how little will fit into 1?

1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000=????

Any limit on the amount of decimal places available for those really really really big, or rather little numbers?

Doesn't it seem weird that the smaller the pieces the more that fit into 1??? Whoda thunk? And that they factor to 1 too? Ridiculous!!! :rolleyes:


Wait, do you know how to read a ruler? How about one of those old micrometers?? Check this out. Are you saying that math is all wrong and it should be Quantum Mechanics math in place on the calipers?

Wiki on Micrometers said:
Micrometers are also used in telescopes or microscopes to measure the apparent diameter of celestial bodies or microscopic objects. The micrometer used with a telescope was invented about 1638 by William Gascoigne, an English astronomer.

Do you know how to read this micrometer?

578metric-micrometer.jpg



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gascoigne_%28scientist%29

In the late 1630s, Gascoigne, was working on a Keplerian optical arrangement when a thread from a spider’s web happened to become caught at exactly the combined optical focal points of the two lenses. When he looked through the arrangement Gascoigne saw the web bright and sharp within the field of view. He realized that he could more accurately point the telescope using the line as a guide, and went on to invent the telescopic sight by placing crossed wires at the focal point to define the centre of the field of view.[2] He then added this arrangement to a sextant modelled on the instrument used by Tycho Brahe, although Tycho’s sextant was only a naked-eye instrument. Gascoigne's sextant was five feet in radius, and measured the distance between astronomical bodies to an unprecedented degree of accuracy. Gascoigne then realised that by introducing two points, whose separation could be adjusted using a screw, he could measure the size of the image enclosed by them. Using the known pitch of the screw, and knowing the focal length of the lens producing the image, he could work out the size of the object, such as the Moon or the planets, to a hitherto unattainable degree of accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Quantum implies only distinct states, and not continuous functions. A continuous function, like in math, has an infinite number of points side by side, whereas quanta imply something that looks like a dashed line with gaps. A quantum universe does not have infinite states but distinct states.
I doubt if you will respond, because there is a rumor that you are actually a "bot" that reads threads looking for certain words or phrases, and posts paragraphs of prepared text associated with those words and phrases. I don't think that is true, but I never see you reply directly to posts that are responses to your posts. Prove you are real, and answer this:
Is the wave function continuous or discrete in regard to the location and momentum of the energy contained in a particle whose states are in superposition?
 
Back
Top