• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

185 submissions , 145 unreviewed
4,725 questions , 1,928 unanswered
5,268 answers , 22,442 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
743 active unimported users
More ...

  What is quantized in Nature?

+ 1 like - 2 dislike

I've thought that it was normal modes of collective motion who were quantized. One can call them quasi-particles. Here one have everything - constituents, nearly free quasi-particles and their interactions in place.

But obviously my point of view is not widely accepted. Instead, they think of a free space, free particles and interactions of free particles. This all looks too stupid to me. What do you think? 

Closed as per community consensus as the post is not a real question
asked Jun 9, 2015 in Closed Questions by Vladimir Kalitvianski (102 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Jun 10, 2015 by Dilaton

So, basically your question is "Don't you think the mainstream view is stupid?"?

Voting to close. Not a real question.

Everything in Nature is quantized. This has nothing to do with normal modes - consider angular momentum. 

I agree that the question is not a good fit for PO and therefor support closing it.  It is not a real question but rather a complaint of the OP about the fact that his personal views of quantization are not accepted by the physics community.

@ArnoldNeumaier I consider angular momentum and see that it is quantized indeed. No particles, neither quasi-particles are necessary for that, just an angular momentum existing itself.

@Dilaton You modified my question.

@dimension10 You were misled with the modified question.

@VladimirKalitvianski please look at the revision history of the question more carefully, and (re)read chaper 8 in the FAQ about editing posts.

Dilaton wrote: "I agree that the question is not a good fit for PO and therefor support closing it.  It is not a real question but rather a complaint of the OP about the fact that his personal views (or misunderstanting) of quantization are not accepted by the physics community."

And I thought that any personal misunderstanding could find clarification on PO rather than simply downvoted and closed.

@VladimirKalitvianski PO is a graduate-level+ physics site, so its members are expected to understand undergrad quantum mechanics, including the basic methods of quantization.

To clarify (personal) misunderstandings concerning below graduate-level physics, PhysicsForums, Quora, or Physics SE are more appropriate places.

My question stems from imported question about the physical meaning of the second quantization. It is of primary importance. I vote to reopen it. I insist!

@VladimirKalitvianski: Takiing the present discussion into account, ask a new and clear question about the factual part without the emotional load your present question carries. If your question is open-ended ("What do you think?") it should be asked in Chat.

Arnold, I do not believe in success of asking a new and clear question. Dilaton and dimension10 are here to vote it down and close because it will be mine. They systematically voted down everything and moved my replies to other places without discussions. This makes me sad. Yesterday I took a can of beer and let my emotions go, but the essence of my question and remarks remain the same. You too, leave often my remarks without reply, so my hopes sank.

@VladimirKalitvianski: If you don't expect to get answers, why do you insist on reopening the current question? 

You are downvoted because of your disrespect of the mainstream and because of sneering remarks; if you stay factual and use moderate language (as you should) you will hardly be downvoted.

 You too, leave often my remarks without reply

It doesn't make sense to reply to a remark by you if I have nothing new to say. And when I say something it doesn't make you happy anyway...

I insist in order to demonstrate my disagreement with mistreatment I have here. Of course, I do not expect Dilaton and dimension10 to answer; they never answered my questions in physics.

And my sarcastic remarks like quantization of the angular momentum itself is a good reply to your valuable comment.

@VladimirKalitvianski When we talk about free particle we implicitly make an assumption, that the particles don't interact with anything but the detectors, which is a reasonable assumption to understand the formalism but really unhelpful when talking about nature. We quantize actions(Or equivalently hamiltonians  ) This question really is pointless,  please talk about a specific action and discuss it properties.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights