Quantum Infinity

[839311]

Can there be an infinite number of quantum levels? Quantum levels in the sense that theres atoms, atoms are made in part by neutrons, neutrons are made of quarks, quarks are made of something else, etc, and we keep going 'deeper and deeper' into levels composed of smaller units that make up the higher units.

Is it possible that there is no such thing as an elementary particle?

What philosophical and/or scientific implications would that have?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Can there be an infinite number of quantum levels? Quantum levels in the sense that theres atoms, atoms are made in part by neutrons, neutrons are made of quarks, quarks are made of something else, etc, and we keep going 'deeper and deeper' into levels composed of smaller units that make up the higher units.

Is it possible that there is no such thing as an elementary particle?

What philosophical and/or scientific implications would that have?

The best and, for the moment, only idea we have for explaining this is String theory (small 't' since it is not an established Scientific Theory), but for the moment we don't have the capabilities to test these ideas.

Don't ask me about the implications of this though.
I tried reading a couple of books on String theory, and while I am going to have another go, at the moment I can't wrap my head around it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can there be an infinite number of quantum levels? Quantum levels in the sense that theres atoms, atoms are made in part by neutrons, neutrons are made of quarks, quarks are made of something else, etc, and we keep going 'deeper and deeper' into levels composed of smaller units that make up the higher units.

Is it possible that there is no such thing as an elementary particle?

What philosophical and/or scientific implications would that have?

Time was the standard view of certain sub-atomic particles was that they were zero-dimensional points in space. String theory rejects that view and under certain interpretations of string theory (or theories) space is discrete (not continuous) and thus cannot be infinitely reduced (i.e., there is a point at which it is no longer meaningful to speak of smaller units). However, the most accurate answer to your question is: no one is really sure and we don't know.

 

[839311]

at the moment I can't wrap my head around it.

An infinite number of quantum levels is something I'm having trouble wraping my head around. Another idea that Im thinking about recently, kind of related, is that there is an infinite number of laws of physics that can exist. And, an infinite number of elemental particles... :faint:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

An infinite number of quantum levels is something I'm having trouble wraping my head around.

You don't seem to be asking about "quantum levels" but whether space or perhaps matter is continuous. That is, can we take (for example) a block of wood and slice it into halves an infinite number of times? Under certain theories of particles (see, e.g., here), you can, because particles become infinitely small. This does not imply that there are an infinite variety.

 

[839311]

This does not imply that there are an infinite variety.

No, it doesn't, and I didn't make that connection. The idea that there are an infinite variety of elemental particles is a separate concept. I just threw that in there because I felt like it

 

[Absolute Zero]

q&a....how small can you go ?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

q&a....how small can you go ?

Nobody is sure. Either infinitely small, or not.

 

[Penumbra]

Can there be an infinite number of quantum levels? Quantum levels in the sense that theres atoms, atoms are made in part by neutrons, neutrons are made of quarks, quarks are made of something else, etc, and we keep going 'deeper and deeper' into levels composed of smaller units that make up the higher units.

Is it possible that there is no such thing as an elementary particle?

It seems to me that in some hypothetical universe, maybe this could have been the case. Seems logically improbable, though.

But in this universe, science seems to be indicating that things start to get more and more discrete as they look deeper. It's been quite a while since any deeper layers of particles have been discovered.

What philosophical and/or scientific implications would that have?

A logical problem relating to turtles all the way down.

 

[839311]

Seems logically improbable, though.

What makes you say that?

But in this universe, science seems to be indicating that things start to get more and more discrete as they look deeper.

I don't share that view. What makes you say that?

It's been quite a while since any deeper layers of particles have been discovered.

I don't share that view either. The way I see it is that its only been a short time since we discovered quarks, let alone some of the specific flavors. It was just 17 years ago that top quarks were discovered. It may be that as we go deeper and deeper, it may take longer and longer to discover deeper levels. Maybe in 100 years we will go one level deeper. After that, maybe a modest estimate could be 700 years? But I don't think thats long. Relative to our lifetimes, yes, but if the human species is destined to exist forever, or say atleast 1 billion years, then whats 700 years? Not too much.

I think, though, that it may be impossible to go deeper than a certain level due to technological limitations.

I think I would always keep an open-mind with regards to whether there could be an infinite number of quantum levels. There doesn't seem to me to be any reason to think that it should stop at a certain point.

A logical problem relating to turtles all the way down.

hmmm? turtles?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

hmmm? turtles?

Of course. How else does the earth stay up? Sheesh.

 

[1137]

It seems logically improbable there are infinite number of "quantum levels", as there is absolutely no explanation for where even the deepest level we can discover comes from. There has to be something fundamental, as small and subtle as that may be. This does not mean we will ever discover / understand what it is. Right now String theory and M-theory seem to be the most likely candidates for finding a so called "Theory of Everything", although I doubt such a theory will ever be completed.

 

[Penumbra]

What makes you say that?

I don't share that view. What makes you say that?

I don't share that view either. The way I see it is that its only been a short time since we discovered quarks, let alone some of the specific flavors. It was just 17 years ago that top quarks were discovered. It may be that as we go deeper and deeper, it may take longer and longer to discover deeper levels. Maybe in 100 years we will go one level deeper. After that, maybe a modest estimate could be 700 years? But I don't think thats long. Relative to our lifetimes, yes, but if the human species is destined to exist forever, or say atleast 1 billion years, then whats 700 years? Not too much.

I think, though, that it may be impossible to go deeper than a certain level due to technological limitations.

I think I would always keep an open-mind with regards to whether there could be an infinite number of quantum levels. There doesn't seem to me to be any reason to think that it should stop at a certain point.

I can keep an open mind that the entire universe is within my head, that you all are an illusion, but that doesn't mean I have to consider the idea to be probable.

Hypotheses are good if they potentially help solve a problem, or explain something that's not currently explained. A simple, unevidenced "what if...<blank>" that doesn't solve any problems can only really get a response like, "cool, I guess." And if a hypothesis actually makes a situation more complex, or takes away current explanations, and offers no explanations or improvements in return, then it's a bit further from being useful than even the first kind.

Scientists are open to what the truth is, but current questions consist of things like, "Why are there so many fundamental particles? What are the underlying themes? How can this inelegant set of numerous particles be organized in a more elegantly simple manner with more fundamental underlying concepts?" This is combined with things like the planck length where current speculations are that space may become discrete, that quantum effects take over, etc.

Adding an infinite number of new particles to a model doesn't add much value, in my view.

hmmm? turtles?

Turtles all the way down.

 

[Yerda]

I tried reading a couple of books on String theory, and while I am going to have another go, at the moment I can't wrap my head around it.

Me neither. I have a friend with a masters in physics who is in the same boat.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Can there be an infinite number of quantum levels? Quantum levels in the sense that theres atoms, atoms are made in part by neutrons, neutrons are made of quarks, quarks are made of something else, etc, and we keep going 'deeper and deeper' into levels composed of smaller units that make up the higher units.

Is it possible that there is no such thing as an elementary particle?

What philosophical and/or scientific implications would that have?

The rabbit-hole of infinity is endlessly deep!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Me neither. I have a friend with a masters in physics who is in the same boat.

Thanks!
Now I feel a little better about not getting it.

 

[839311]

I can keep an open mind that the entire universe is within my head, that you all are an illusion, but that doesn't mean I have to consider the idea to be probable.

I find with ideas like this that probability doesn't really play a role. I don't think we have enough information to be able to justifiably say whether its probable or not. We are entitled to guesses using our intuition, ofcourse. I don't even have that in the case of quantum infinity - but I do think its possible.

A simple, unevidenced "what if...<blank>" that doesn't solve any problems can only really get a response like, "cool, I guess."

Theres no guessing about it! Its cool

And if a hypothesis actually makes a situation more complex, or takes away current explanations, and offers no explanations or improvements in return, then it's a bit further from being useful than even the first kind.

The problem is that this line of thinking has gotten people into trouble before. The word atom, for instance, means indivisible. Protons and neutrons were regarded as some to be fundamental. Every time, though, they were wrong. Science isn't about having convenient beliefs that make us feel good. Its about truth.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other whether there are an infinite number of elementary particles, or if there are an infinite number of quantum levels. But that could be the case, and we could be contemplating the true state of reality in that respect, something which not everyone has the luxury of doing. For those of us who have a deep interest in the nature of reality, its cool

Ideas like an infinite number of elementary particles, infinite quantum levels, eternity, etc. aren't ideas that belong to the realm of science, but they belong to the realm of philosophy. So, if scientists make serious reference to these ideas as they relate to their hypotheses or theories, either rejecting or accepting them, I think that is when it becomes clear that their ideas are beliefs.

Adding an infinite number of new particles to a model doesn't add much value, in my view.

I think its worth keeping ideas like that in mind. They certainly shouldn't be dismissed altogether in favor of a belief in a hypothesis or theory which claims that at one point or another there is a planck length. This kind of a belief is just as bad as a belief in leprechauns. Worse, actually. Polluting the world of science with such beliefs is serious business. I really don't like to see science become like a religion to some people. Its disappointing, and worrying because those beliefs might spread.

Scientists are open to what the truth is.

I find that some are, but some aren't. Some become closed minded without even realizing it when they accept cetain ideas as true, like say accepting that neutrons are fundamental particles, or that quarks are fundamental particles.

"Why are there so many fundamental particles?

No doubt there are many scientists who say that. But, just as atoms and protons were discovered to not be fundamental, the same thing might happen with quarks. The fact that we don't see deeper at this time isn't an invitation to adopt all kinds of beliefs regarding the nature of matter at those quantum levels.

 

[Penumbra]

I find with ideas like this that probability doesn't really play a role. I don't think we have enough information to be able to justifiably say whether its probable or not. We are entitled to guesses using our intuition, ofcourse. I don't even have that in the case of quantum infinity - but I do think its possible.

The problem is that this line of thinking has gotten people into trouble before. The word atom, for instance, means indivisible. Protons and neutrons were regarded as some to be fundamental. Every time, though, they were wrong. Science isn't about having convenient beliefs that make us feel good. Its about truth.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other whether there are an infinite number of elementary particles, or if there are an infinite number of quantum levels. But that could be the case, and we could be contemplating the true state of reality in that respect, something which not everyone has the luxury of doing. For those of us who have a deep interest in the nature of reality, its cool

Ideas like an infinite number of elementary particles, infinite quantum levels, eternity, etc. aren't ideas that belong to the realm of science, but they belong to the realm of philosophy. So, if scientists make serious reference to these ideas as they relate to their hypotheses or theories, either rejecting or accepting them, I think that is when it becomes clear that their ideas are beliefs.

I think its worth keeping ideas like that in mind. They certainly shouldn't be dismissed altogether in favor of a belief in a hypothesis or theory which claims that at one point or another there is a planck length. This kind of a belief is just as bad as a belief in leprechauns. Worse, actually. Polluting the world of science with such beliefs is serious business. I really don't like to see science become like a religion to some people. Its disappointing, and worrying because those beliefs might spread.

I find that some are, but some aren't. Some become closed minded without even realizing it when they accept cetain ideas as true, like say accepting that neutrons are fundamental particles, or that quarks are fundamental particles.

No doubt there are many scientists who say that. But, just as atoms and protons were discovered to not be fundamental, the same thing might happen with quarks. The fact that we don't see deeper at this time isn't an invitation to adopt all kinds of beliefs regarding the nature of matter at those quantum levels.

No one is saying that the deepest layer has definitely been found. To compare the standard particle model to a religion is not an accurate comparison.

When they find new particles, it's often because someone predicted their existence first. They often have a gap, or a need, and are able to estimate what "should exist" and then after some time, someone finds it, another confirms it, etc.

They're still doing that today. Trying to figure out what frameworks make the particles the way they are.

Hypotheses or theories typically come with a solution to something. They propose an idea that fills some current gap, fixes some current contradiction, ties two pillars of physics together with a common foundation, etc. I don't see what an infinite regress of particles adds to any explanations. What problems of science does it solve, if true?

Theres no guessing about it! Its cool

Subjectively, I don't quite see what makes an infinite regress of particles cool. Compared to quantum-mechanics-dominated discrete multi-dimensional space, I guess it's ok, maybe equally as cool.

 

[839311]

No one is saying that the deepest layer has definitely been found.

I think a lot of people believe it, to be honest, probably mostly people with a limited understanding of science who may accept the things a scientist says during a program on the discovery channel haha. Those shows are awesome, but Ive heard some really strange things from scientists on them. Its part of human nature to believe things, and scientists, while having a stronger resistance to credulity, aren't immune to it.

To compare the standard particle model to a religion is not an accurate comparison.

I disagree, because were talking about beliefs. Religions are in part concerned with explanations for the unknown. Not all religions include supernatural entities either. One scientist might not be religious, another one might be, if he believes in string theory, believes that there are parallel dimensions (think sliders. Great show, btw), etc.

When they find new particles, it's often because someone predicted their existence first. They often have a gap, or a need, and are able to estimate what "should exist" and then after some time, someone finds it, another confirms it, etc.

They're still doing that today. Trying to figure out what frameworks make the particles the way they are.

Hypotheses or theories typically come with a solution to something. They propose an idea that fills some current gap, fixes some current contradiction, ties two pillars of physics together with a common foundation, etc.

All great things. I'm a big fan of science.

I don't see what an infinite regress of particles adds to any explanations. What problems of science does it solve, if true?

The idea of infinite regress has little to do with science. Like I said, the idea belongs in the realm of philosophy.

Subjectively, I don't quite see what makes an infinite regress of particles cool. Compared to quantum-mechanics-dominated discrete multi-dimensional space, I guess it's ok, maybe equally as cool.

Pfff, please... Quantum mechanics dominated discrete multi-dimensional space has nothing on infinite regress. Think about the possibilities! It could be that every so many quantum levels the environment could be complex enough and stable enough that complex systems could form capable of sustaining life! If its true that there are an infinite number of quantum layers, then there could be an infinite amount of life in every point in space! (Not that 'points in space' would have much meaning beyond particular layers). Infinite regress is infinitely cooler

 

[Penumbra]

I think a lot of people believe it, to be honest, probably mostly people with a limited understanding of science who may accept the things a scientist says during a program on the discovery channel haha. Those shows are awesome, but Ive heard some really strange things from scientists on them. Its part of human nature to believe things, and scientists, while having a stronger resistance to credulity, aren't immune to it.

I disagree, because were talking about beliefs. Religions are in part concerned with explanations for the unknown. Not all religions include supernatural entities either. One scientist might not be religious, another one might be, if he believes in string theory, believes that there are parallel dimensions (think sliders. Great show, btw), etc.

All great things. I'm a big fan of science.

The idea of infinite regress has little to do with science. Like I said, the idea belongs in the realm of philosophy.

I'm sure some scientists get close-minded about things, but the nature of proof and peer review eventually corrects things that are demonstrably wrong.

Pfff, please... Quantum mechanics dominated discrete multi-dimensional space has nothing on infinite regress. Think about the possibilities! It could be that every so many quantum levels the environment could be complex enough and stable enough that complex systems could form capable of sustaining life! If its true that there are an infinite number of quantum layers, then there could be an infinite amount of life in every point in space! (Not that 'points in space' would have much meaning beyond particular layers). Infinite regress is infinitely cooler

That effect can be simulated to an extent if there were an infinite number of universes, which is currently a speculation that's out there. If each universe is finite, but they are infinite in number, then infinite amounts of life are still possible.