3 ms·
Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
by mensetmanusman 2y ago
Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
- andyferris 2y agoWhy are fields non-physical?
- lmpdev 2y agoNot OP but I think they actually mean non-conforming to deeply held beliefs of an atomic universe a la Democritus I hope primary school educators are moving past the atomic model, first to subatomic then to quantum fields (even just a hand wavey introduction with no maths) People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better
- gus_massa 2y agoWith particles and atoms you get a good undestanding of chemistry and CRT, probably radioactivity and many other everyday topics. Even Feyman diagrams look quite readable if youimagine the universe is made of small balls. Quantum field are too weird and without math they are just weird magic. Let kids play with balls until they are big enough to be enlighted. > People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better. I agree with that, but I don't know how to fix that.
- ddcx532 2y agoBecause they're merely mathematical models of what we experience. They're no more "real" than man-bear pig, although they do have predictive capabilities. Until they don't. Ultimately what is real is a philosophical question. Why isn't man-bear pig real? The Imagination Land story arc really delved into this question.
- deciplex 2y ago> Because they're merely mathematical models of what we experience. Particles aren't?
- pessimizer 2y agoNo, the universe is actually made of tiny rubber balls, and I've seen rubber balls so I know they're real. Fields are just mysterious vibes, like ghosts that make your hair stand on end when they pass through you.
- maxbond 2y agoBut you've never seen an electron.
- ww520 2y agoFields are real. They are physical as well as they are the basis of the physical world.
- hinkley 2y agoThey are what keeps you from falling to the center of the earth.
- strogonoff 2y agoThere’s nothing “real” in physics. Everything is a model, and every model is necessarily flawed—otherwise would imply a provably correct, complete formal description of the actual-really-“real”. To obtain that even in theory we would have to observe the real from the outside, which we by definition cannot: we’re necessarily part of what we’re describing, so if we could look at it from the outside all we would get then is a new indescribable “real”. Hence, a question like “are fields real?” is besides the point: it is impossible to tell whether that theory is wrong or qualify how wrong it is, because the reference point is never available. It’s a model—it works for some purposes, it doesn’t for others.
- abstrakraft 2y agoI agree that you can't know what is "real" without looking at our universe from outside it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't imply that every model must be flawed, in the sense that its predictions must not be 100% consistent with observation. We could stumble across the "real" model, or something equivalent to it (in the sense of identical predictions) - we'd have no way of knowing whether the model is "real", but it could still be right.
- strogonoff 2y agoSuch a model would look extraordinarily compelling to rely on all the time for all purposes, all the while remaining capable of being false in a critical and very difficult (impossible with technology of the time) to detect way. I’d rather prefer a Unix way: a plurality of explicitly more limited but more numerous and conceptually diverse models.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoIf the model is wrong but pointing out the shape of the real thing that governs everything, it’s still an interesting question as to why anything is being so perfectly governed.
- strogonoff 2y agoReplace government with correlation. Correlation is data, government is a story. We observe correlations and then create stories and analogies with things we already know that fit those correlations. That’s how our mind works. “Are fields real?” is not a bad question! It can’t be answered within the framing of scientific method, but it brings into focus the bigger question of what “being real” might mean.
- russdill 2y agoIt really depends on what you mean by real. Many philosophers have adopted the stance that if a concept provides a useful way to talk about reality, it's real. There's no such thing as tables or chairs, but we consider them real because doing so is useful. By the same token particles are real because they are a really useful way to subdivide reality, even though their appearance is just a consequence of field theory.
- p1esk 2y agoThere's no such thing as tables or chairs What do you mean?
- russdill 2y agoAs in, if you look at any accepted theory of physics, neither tableness nor chairness appear.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoNor does life appear, but that is real. That probably just means our theory of physics (that only explains 4% of the observable universe) is wrong.
- russdill 2y agoI'm replying to someone who is considering whether or not particles are real as they do not appear in field theory directly
- mr_toad 2y agoIf someone sticks a cushion on a beer crate and sits on it, is it a chair? Opinions differ.
- p1esk 2y agoDo opinions differ whether that particular beer crate is real? Of whether the name is appropriate?
- alphazard 2y agoThe names are made up; the structures aren't, but they are only as good as they need to be and no better.