Are all forms of energy quantized, such as kinetic energy? Here's

No.

On the other hand, yes.

>>8880904
>Finnish scientist
this is a freshman physics exercise you doofus
what the fuck are you even asking? you can uniformly approximate continuous movement by taking "quantized" movement instead
literally makes no difference for classical physics

>>8880904
>Here's a pic of a Finnish scientist demonstrating how a pendulum only moves a tiny bit forward at a time because of quantization.
that's not what it showed at all

it shows that for that pendulum system, you can find the difference in height between two positions where the gravitational potential energy at the lower point is half that at the higher position .

>>8880904
>scientist
lmfao

that's high school exercise

>>8880904
>Here's a pic of a Finnish scientist demonstrating how a pendulum only moves a tiny bit forward at a time because of quantization.
That h is height, not planck's constant. There's nothing quantum happening here.

You absolutely cannot use E=hv here. That's for massless particles only. I've got no idea how anyone could think this makes any sort of sense at all.

File: Untitled2.png (22KB, 259x163px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 259x163px

>>8880904
quantisation is a result of boundary conditions imposed on a wavefunction.

Consider a piece of string. If you shake it around the wave can do quite a number of things (think of this being a continuous stream). But if you clamp the ends of this string, only certain types of wave are allowed (one's that are 0 at the clamped points, which limits the wave to an integer number of modes.

See the pic. This is exactly the quantisation for a particle in an infinite potential well too.

>>8880904

>Everyone here falling for the bait

>>8880928

>this is a freshman physics exercise you doofus
>what the fuck are you even asking?

Well, duh, what do you think? I'm not a physics student.
Despite posting on /sci/ at this particular instant, I'm actually not a scientist or studying science. Judging by your reaction, I must be the first non-physicist on this board, right?

So, how much more do you want to belittle me before you can actually answer the fucking question?
I expected some elitism as I came here but damn..

>>8881161

Well this reply actually makes some sense.

But other posters are saying that it's a "common high school exercise" whereas you implied its whole basis is incorrect.

>>8880904
planks constant has something to do with the quantization of energy eigenvalues.

However more explicitly (classically) I suppose you could say something like "a curved line is composed of an infinite number of infinitesimally small straight lines" this is basically what line integrals do when you find the work if a system

W = ∫ F • dS