|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is "the fabric" of space-time? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think that the problem is that you're not comprehending what cavediver is saying. If the fields are the most fundamental description of the universe then they cannot be made of anything else. If they were composed of something else then THAT would be more fundamental.
Given that, the only way to describe the fields is in terms of their behaviour - which is described mathematically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That's the problem. You aren't fully taking into account the point that the fields are more fundamental. In short the fields ARE physical reality.
quote: Strictly speaking that argument is self-contradictory. Presumably you mean some hypothetical non-physical thing that you call "energy" (even though it isn't). But what possible basis can you have for such a claim ? By the way entanglement cannot be used to transmit useful information faster than light. That suggests that it isn't quite what you think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So you accept that the fields are physical and that it is foolish to ask what they are composed of ?
quote: If it's so simple then why don't you answer the question ? What reason DO you have for supposing that the fields are composed of this hypothetical non-physical thing that is somehow vaguely like energy ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, it wasn't answered. You don't offer any reason to suppose that the fields are not absolutely fundamental - and therefore not composed of anything else. Nor do you offer any valid reason why anything that the field is composed of would be non-physical (since it, too would BE physical reality any such claim would be dubious at best).
quote: It's certainly not a good explanation. The field does not simply connect the particles - the particles are aspects of the field. Creating a false distinction between the particles and the field is misleading at best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, you didn't.
quote: As I pointed out in my last post this precludes the field being composed of anything else. Including your "non-physical" energy. Your "answer" does not deal with this point - hence it is no answer at all.
quote: As I have already pointed out the field is physical because it IS physical reality. Matter and energy are aspects of the field. Since the field ultimately is what Physics studies I would have to say that it is clearly physical.
quote: You've not listed any "energy-like" properties. And to describe them as "not possessing energy" when energy is an aspect of the fields seems odd, indeed.
quote: I am saying that this is at best a misleading explanation - for the reasons I have given.
quote: 1) Ask Cavediver for the details. I beleive it would be the Quantum field. 2) As I - and others - keep telling you it isn't composed of anything but itself. That's what it MEANS to say that it's fundamental. That is the point I've been trying to get through to you. 3) I daresay that Cavediver could dig out the maths that describes the way that the field works, but is that the answer you want ? It would only be an explanation of what happens at the level of the field - because that's the only answer that is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I'm afraid that isn't true. As I keep pointing out, if the fields are fundamental then they consist of nothing but themselves. You have offered no reason to think that the fields consist of some other thing at all. Yet you keep assuming that they do, even while paying lip service to the idea that the fields are fundamental. Why ?
quote: I already have addressed your points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But it's not your "non-physical" energy. And it means that it doesn't make any sense to ask what the fields consist of. The properties of the fields are described mathematically. I'm sure that Cavediver would give you the mathematics if you asked. I don't think that either of us would really understand that, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Despite the title there is no mention of unanswered questions in the text.
Now there should be no doubt that I accept entanglement. I don't disagree with mainstream QM. Just your ideas.
quote: I think that this illustrates your problem. You are still stuck in the thinking of classical physics. Because QM comes up with ideas that are strange to that you take it as essentially something supernatural. But that's wrong. QM isn't non-physical - it's a deeper insight into the nature of the physical. What is "commonly thought of as physical" is classical physics. But it is absolutely wrong to limit the physical to that and to exclude the deeper understanding offered by QM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That seems to be what you're getting at.
quote: I am addressing the picture. You are restricting "physical" to classical physics. And that's wrong. That isn't a quibble - it is a serious problem that invalidates your argument.
quote: No, I don't say that. And I've told you why I don't say that. The quantum field doesn't respect your idea of locality. Just a suggestion, but perhaps you should try considering how entanglement might work in the many-world model of QM ? I have.
quote: ANd that's classical physics again. QM doesn't work like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I can think of a better place to start. With you actually coming to terms with the points I've already made.
Such as: The unified field is what physical reality is. It is very much a part of the science of physics. On those grounds it seems absurd to call it anything other than physical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That isn't the conclusion I came to. My conclusion is that "which universe you are in" is a universal "hidden variable". When you make the measurement you gain some information about that variable - which gives you information about the entangled particle. There is no need for information to be transmitted to the other particle at all !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This simply doesn't address anything I said in the post you are responding to.
quote: My point is that the "event" - the measurement - effects the whole universe by forcing a "split" in reality.
quote: The laws of physics say that the particles must be in a consistent state. However they do not fully dictate what that state is. In the many-world interpretation all the possible states are real - but each exists in another universe. So the question of how the other particle "knows" what state it should be in is solved - not by super-luminal "communication". It is solved by the split in the universe. Whichever universe you end up in, the particles will necessarily be in a consistent state. Thus the universe amounts to a universal "hidden variable". Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It's the point of this side-branch which you chose to follow up on.
quote: It's in all the universes generated by the split of course. If you think about it, it would have to be. The different universes correspond to the possible states of the system before the measurement - and the particles exist in all of them.
quote: And in saying that you completely ignore the point. The point is that in this interpretation there is no communication between the particles. QM rules out states where the particles are not in consistent states so there are no such universes. (They correspond to possible states - impossible states are excluded)
quote: But it does not do so because of any communication from the other particle. That is the point.
quote: It isn't any of those. The universe doesn't "sense" what needs to happen. It doesn't do anything to the particles. It just splits based on the possibilities.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024