15 ms·
It’s everything! Idk, I don’t think the universe owes us an answer there. What is a human? Well, it’s a human. You can think of all sorts of mental tools for un
by bbor 2y ago
It’s everything! Idk, I don’t think the universe owes us an answer there. What is a human? Well, it’s a human. You can think of all sorts of mental tools for understanding humans (eg “species”), but ultimately they just are.
- lottin 2y agoNo... a field is mathematical representation. The universe is most definitely NOT made of fields.
- dgoodell 2y agoAre you saying that the universe cannot be represented by mathematics? I imagine you could use that argument to shoot down pretty much any explanation.
- lottin 2y agoI'm saying that a mathematical representation of a physical phenomenon isn't the physical phenomenon.
- bbor 2y agoOk fair: they're things that right now are best understood using the term Field. I don't understand what kind of answer you're hoping for that would be better than this -- what kind of answer to "what is a particle" wouldn't be describable by mathematics? By saying "the universe is fields", I'm saying "it's distributions of energy across spacetime". That's seemingly a consensus. Why demand that that energy must also form into strings or even tinier spheres or spheres in an alternate dimension or something? We have described fields in detail, I say Mission Accomplished
- lottin 2y agoLet's say we describe a particle as being an excitation of a field. Can't we describe any physical phenomenon in the same way? For example, describe a football as an excitation of the football field. I think we all agree that this description does a terrible job of actually describing a football. In fact, I don't think it can be called a description at all. Likewise, I find describing a particle as an excitation of a field to be equally unsatisfactory.