The Quantum Redefined
12 January 2008It has occurred to me recently that the quantum, defined aptly by Wikipedia as “an indivisible entity of energy,” is not.
In fact, I have currently talked myself into believing that this whole idea of the quantum is absolutely wrong.
I’ve decided to post this as a way of getting a little feedback, either via the Comments section, or to my email at sns@tapsns.com.
Here is my current interpretation:
1. The quantum is a unit of energy contained in the difference between atomic electron energy states. When an atom interacts with electromagnetic energy, it can only do so by absorbing, or releasing, energy in quantum amounts.
There is no other, deeper, more universal meaning to the quantum. Light does not, per se, come in quantized packets of energy.
2. All of the original experiments which led Planck and Einstein to the discovery of and description of the quantum (Phillip Leonard’s work, black body radiation, other photoelectric measurements) measured energy that had been quantized by atomic interactions. For instance, in the black body problem, the energy being released is released by atoms in the walls of the container. In the photoelectric effect, a carbide lamp was used, so that the incoming light was quantized by atoms before hitting the metal plate; additionally, the electrons in the metal plate were captured by atoms.
3. Unlike all other units of measurement, the quantum can assume any number, and it can have an infinite number of values, all measuring h x freq. In this sense, it is neither basic, nor a real unit of measure.
4. Em radiation can, and I would propose, does exist free of quantization. Such radiation coming off a mast antenna would be an example of the generation of em radiation which is not inherently quantized.
Well, that’s about it. There is more, but this should get the ball rolling. I realize that this is heresy, for which I should be flayed before the Queen, if not the Stanford board of regents, but I expect it may be correct. I would very much like to hear any thoughtful arguments pro or con which could help elucidate this claim.
If you wish to discuss this new idea elsewhere, please point back here as part of the conversation. I have come to this understanding while working to expand my own Resonance Theory, which was the first Theory of Everything based on stringlike (resonance) models, and which does not require light quantization.
2 Responses to “The Quantum Redefined”
January 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Fascinating ruminations, Mark, as usual.
You’ll recall that a year or so ago I asked MacArthur prize winner Shawn Carlson, founder of the Society for amateur scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Amateur_Scientists) to set up a forum specifically for the guys I know who love to poke away in theoretical physics.
I know a bunch of you! Nathan Myrhvold, of course, has his union card, having studied under Hawking. But he’s as lively and joyful a crackpot as the best of them. I can also think of Joe Miller of USC (who I’ll link you with separately) and Mark Snoswell, of the Computer Graphics Society. And others. ALas, I don’t think any of you ever actually checked in or joined the SAS forum!
So much for the collegiality of unlicensed quantum mechanics.
Actually, your ruminations on the quantum came to mind when someone raised, once again, the hoary old notion that we haven’t contacted extraterrestrials because “we live in a simulation” and one intelligent species is all that the computert could handle.
Well, well. At one level, that’s becoming a ho-hum, yawner. At another, it remains a wow idea.) But I’ve long been intrigued with the notion that the quantum effects we see are a programmer’s convenience, allowing discrete computational elements to handle discrete packages of simulated data.
As Joe Miller (jdm@hsc.usc.edu put him on your list!) put it:
” I think the problem is resolution! I have been teaching myself some of the fine points of quantum mechanics for some years now, including of course the uncertainty principle. But I never put it in the context of cosmological simulation until someone pointed out to me that since there is according to QM both a minimum quantized spatial distance and a minimum quantal temporal duration, that really defines a pixel (or more appropriately voxel or even more appropriately whatever you call a picture element in a 10 or 11 dimensional space, assuming you accept the holy commandments of string theory!). Anyway, the idea is that if we are living in the One True Universe, why isn’t it analog continuous indefinitely? Why should an omnipotent Creator be limited in this way? So the answer is that the Artist is just some physicist whose computer has limited resolution! And if you go that far, then it is not too much more to say that just simulating one intelligent civilization must eat up a great deal of memory, let alone a Galactic Congress.”
As for your general statement, I agree that the quantization that we observe in most experiments arises because of interaction with atoms, which have energy levels which are, themselves quantized. Hence radiation emitted by atoms will, as well.
Yes, EM radiation can be tuned to emerge as arbitrary frequencies. There are no stepwise quantum allowed vs forbidden energies for EM waves travelling through space… that is, unless the foamlike nature of that space prevents us from seeing interstices and simply skipping over them, in which case it doesn’t matter.
But this does NOT mean that EM waves aren’t “quantal”… in that the interaction of two EM waves, in empty space, will be a quantum interaction. It is not limited to the prim levels defined by an atom. But they will do their own “level sifting” with each other.
Interesting stuff, as always.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:35 am
David,
A couple of thoughts:
Em waves don’t interact directly; only through degradation into pairs (leptons and antileptons, etc.), and so only indirectly. So this is probably not a “clean” test.
So, we still don’t know if they are naturally quantized, or only quantized when interacting with atoms. It may even be that we decide, at some point, to replace “atoms” with a larger category of matter, also quantized.
Thanks for a great comment!