Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
87 online now:
aaa, AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 1 guest login, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 892,997 Year: 4,109/6,534 Month: 323/900 Week: 29/150 Day: 2/27 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 51 of 327 (458170)
02-27-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
02-27-2008 2:23 AM


randman writes:

How does energy and mass stem from non-physical realms or fields?

I think what is causing the problem is the word 'physical'. Why is it that you think the field is not physical? Are you considering the properties of mass/energy to be what defines something as physical?

From my (admittedly very limited) understanding of what cavediver said, there isn't really any such thing as mass/energy, but rather the nature of the field when viewed in a certain way appears to be mass/energy. This means that everything is the field, and the field is all there is.

Now I would consider 'physical' (in the context of physics) to mean something which contributes to the nature of 'existence' (whatever that may be). If the field is the only thing that actually exists, and the field is reality as cavediver suggested, then I don't think there could be anything more physical than that.

I also didn't get the impression that the field is 'nothing', but rather than the field is 'fundamental'. When people have responded to the question 'What is the field?' with the answer 'The field isn't anything' I don't think that meant that the field is 'nothing'. I think that meant that there isn't anything more fundamental than the field, its just the field. There are no building blocks in the way you can say that a nucleus is protons and neutrons, or a proton is different quarks etc.

To the people who actually know what they're talking about here, is any of what I said accurate or is it all way off the mark?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-27-2008 2:23 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2008 4:32 PM happy_atheist has taken no action
 Message 56 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 2:14 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 132 of 327 (459275)
03-05-2008 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
03-01-2008 2:14 PM


randman writes:

I do think they don't exist in the way people previously thought, as some self-existing things. They are descriptions from a certain perspective, that is true, and that's exactly my point.


Well we agree on that then.

randman writes:

The problem is you are just changing the meaning of the term "physical." The reality is that the field is non-physical and immaterial, hence cavediver's admitting it is "nothing", though he's been conspicuously absent since then in explaining that more fully.


No, what was said is that the field is the only thing that exists. There is nothing but the field. Anything else that appears to exist is really just the field. There isn't anything more physical than the field, because the field is the universe.

Again, when cavediver or anyone else said the field is 'nothing' (if indeed he did say that, I haven't checked), I think this is referring to the fact that the field is fundamental. It has no constituent parts, it's just the field.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 2:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 1:25 PM happy_atheist has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022