Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply

Grammar Apocalypse

cupidmedia
Community Guru
Jennifer D Member Since: Feb 15, 2016
41 of 121

It's my understanding that a quantum leap is momentous not because of the distance leapt but because of the sheer amount of energy required to make the leap - but I'm no physcist.

 

(I did love that TV show, though.)

versailles
Community Guru
Rene K Member Since: Jul 10, 2014
42 of 121

@Jennifer D wrote:

It's my understanding that a quantum leap is momentous not because of the distance leapt but because of the sheer amount of energy required to make the leap - but I'm no physcist.

 


It doesn't require much energy at all, when it does. And it may actually produce energy.

 

The quantum leap refers to the behavior of the electron which leaps from one orbit to another (orbits around the atomic core) in a discrete jump, which means that the particle doesn't travel from one position to the other, it just cease to be here and starts to be there, without going through all the intermediary positions.

 

The electron can absorb a photon to perform the leap if it transits to a more energetic orbit level, or it can release a photon if it transits to a less energetic orbit level.

 

 

 

(Note: at the subatomic level, orbits, particles, here and there are just words that give us a simplified, and totally inaccurate, representation of what is happening at those tiny scales. The reality is, there are no such things as orbits, particles, here and there.)

 

 

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   —William Ashbless
cupidmedia
Community Guru
Jennifer D Member Since: Feb 15, 2016
43 of 121

Interesting, Rene. So if the phrase is not due to to the energy or the distance, is it because of the difficulty? I would guess that electrons changing orbits doesn't happen very often?

 

Or is it just that the TV show used it in a psedo-scientific way as their explanation for time travel, and people just picked it up? (Kind of like how people use "light years" to describe a long time, and not a long distance...).

versailles
Community Guru
Rene K Member Since: Jul 10, 2014
44 of 121

@Jennifer D wrote:

 I would guess that electrons changing orbits doesn't happen very often?

 


It happens all the time. When you switch a light bulb on, the light that comes out (visible photons) are emitted by electrons changing orbits. Your own body emits photons (infrared) because of the temperature of your body.

 

Also this thread made a discrete, transition less, quantum leap from grammar to quantum physics. It must have emitted a photon. Somewhere.

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   —William Ashbless
reinierb
Community Guru
Reinier B Member Since: Nov 3, 2015
45 of 121

And the light thus emitted is bound to attract a mod that is sure to zap the thread for having gone off-topic...

reinierb
Community Guru
Reinier B Member Since: Nov 3, 2015
46 of 121

@Rene K wrote:

@Jennifer D wrote:

It's my understanding that a quantum leap is momentous not because of the distance leapt but because of the sheer amount of energy required to make the leap - but I'm no physcist.

 


It doesn't require much energy at all, when it does. And it may actually produce energy.

 

The quantum leap refers to the behavior of the electron which leaps from one orbit to another (orbits around the atomic core) in a discrete jump, which means that the particle doesn't travel from one position to the other, it just cease to be here and starts to be there, without going through all the intermediary positions.

 

The electron can absorb a photon to perform the leap if it transits to a more energetic orbit level, or it can release a photon if it transits to a less energetic orbit level.

 

 

 

(Note: at the subatomic level, orbits, particles, here and there are just words that give us a simplified, and totally inaccurate, representation of what is happening at those tiny scales. The reality is, there are no such things as orbits, particles, here and there.)

 

 


 Rene is right, and he clearly shows why using "quantum leap" as a political buzz term is so ridiculous. In most cases, politicians use it to give us a "simplified, totally inaccurate representation" of the "facts" of a matter- as they see them at the time.

 

 

jmlaidlaw
Community Guru
Janean L Member Since: Apr 6, 2016
47 of 121

Cannot resist going off-topic-squared. (Meta-quantum-leap?)

 

You know the particular Zeno's Paradox about how motion is logically impossible because in order to go from Point A to Point B one must first travel to the midpoint between A and B (let's call it Point C). And then one must travel to the midpoint between Point C and the original target endpoint (Point B)--let's call that new midpoint Point D. Then you have to get from Point D to Point B, but first you have to get to the midpoint between between D and B... And, since there are an infinite number of midpoints to traverse, one can never cross them all, and thus never actually manage to make it from Point A to Point B?  (Technically, one cannot even reach the first midpoint, of course--thus there are two forms of this single Zeno's Paradox, the "Progressive" and the "Regressive" forms of the Paradox.)

 

Think about it: the idea of quantum movement provides a certain elegant solution to this apparent and well-worn chestnut of a Paradox.

 

(By the way, Zeno of Elea also proposed additional Paradoxes, and quantum movement is very applicable to them all. It is especially applicable--intuitively--to the lesser-known but intriguing Paradox known as "The Arrow.")

versailles
Community Guru
Rene K Member Since: Jul 10, 2014
48 of 121

@Janean L wrote:

 

You know the particular Zeno's Paradox about how motion is logically impossible because in order to go from Point A to Point B one must first travel to the midpoint between A and B


It's a funny paradox, but the reality is always stranger than you may expect. It has been theorized, but not proved yet, that the Universe is not continuous but that it has a discrete structure. If this very plausible theory turns out to be true, there is a minimal non-divisible distance.

 

It would be as if the very fabric of the Universe is in reality a grid. You can only go from one point of the grid to another point and there are no intermediary positions at all. The distance between two of those points is called the Planck length, which would be the minimal length in the Universe. Nothing could be smaller because the whole concept of being smaller than the Planck length doesn't make any sense. The Planck length is extremely small. Like really extremely small.

 

And because time is nothing more than another axis in a four-dimensional Universe, the same rule applies. There is a minimal non-divisible duration, the Planck time. Nothing happens between two Planck time graduations.

 

And who is responsible for the derailing of this topic? I want names.

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   —William Ashbless
jmlaidlaw
Community Guru
Janean L Member Since: Apr 6, 2016
49 of 121

LOLZ, LOLZ, LOLZ René !

 

By the way -- Planck length/Planck time is [are] directly applicable to Zeno's "Arrow" Paradox, wtih which you may well be familiar. It is simultaneously simple and complex--a bit of a Zen-type Paradox:  If, at every given moment in time, an arrow exists at a specific point in space--when does it move?  (That is, the Arrow cannot occupy two or more different points in space at the same time--so how/when does it get from here to there? In effect, at any given identifiable time, the Arrow is motionless! ) (I have always considered the Arrow to be the Paradox that, of them all, best describes the essential questions of time and motion that Zeno seemed to be considering.)

reinierb
Community Guru
Reinier B Member Since: Nov 3, 2015
50 of 121

@Janean L wrote:

LOLZ, LOLZ, LOLZ René !

 

By the way -- Planck length/Planck time is [are] directly applicable to Zeno's "Arrow" Paradox, wtih which you may well be familiar. It is simultaneously simple and complex--a bit of a Zen-type Paradox:  If, at every given moment in time, an arrow exists at a specific point in space--when does it move?  (That is, the Arrow cannot occupy two or more different points in space at the same time--so how/when does it get from here to there? In effect, at any given identifiable time, the Arrow is motionless! ) (I have always considered the Arrow to be the Paradox that, of them all, best describes the essential questions of time and motion that Zeno seemed to be considering.)


 Perhaps this Zeno fellow did not know that nothing in the Universe is stationary? Or can never be stationary unless it is stopped by a force that exceeds its inertia? Or that even then, both objects (or their remains)will still be moving relative to everything else?

 

I just don't get paradoxes. Most of them take little to no notice of what everyone can observe directly, such as that nothing in the Universe is stationary. From whence then the idea that an arrow does not (or cannot) move because it cannot occupy two positions in space at the same time?

 

I agree that the arrow in this paradox cannot be in two places at the same time, but then again, it does not have to be. Here is how it works- if an arrow is shot into space at a speed that allows it to escape Earth's gravity, it will keep on moving until it hits something that stops its motion. Thus, until the arrow hits something, there is no question about it existing in two places at the same time, since it is moving at a steady pace from one position to the next at the rate of its length, or multiples of its length, per unit of time. Therefore, there is no paradox, since the arrow can be observed to be moving from one position to the next.

 

PS - Another silly paradox is the Twins Paradox, in which one twin that travels away from earth at the speed of light ages at a slower rate than the twin that remained on Earth. Time dilation? Really?      

TOP SOLUTION AUTHORS