Leaderboard

A local energy density, in excess of the baseline, which would manifest as a particle, would modify local space-time curvature just like any other energy/stress/momentum does under GR. Essentially what experimental Physicist do. To test at really small scales, we need to poke really hard, with equipment as large as the LHC.

This came up in one of the earlier pages. You hear a lot of current YouTube videos stating fields are fundamental. Yet at the same time under QFT fields are simply a geometric distribution of values. Some quantities being physical (measurable) in this case and strictly mathematical. The problem with occupancy with fields is under QFT is the probability density functions. Using Higgs as an example with the above the field encompasses all spacetime however at each location there is a probability of occupancy of a Higgs boson. However the Higgs boson is extremely short lived. Also to get a Higgs boson that probability also requires sufficient energy that in essence requires another particle interaction. In essence the Higgs field is not a sea of Higgs particles flying around to get a Higgs boson requires another particle interaction to mediate. This is the problem with all gauge boson fields (specifically gauge boson fields) force fields for short) While the field may be described as existing everywhere the occupancy will be in a state of constant shifting occupancy where every location has a probability of having a particle. So the best we can state is everywhere there is in spacetime a field however that also does not mean that all of spacetime is filled due to fields In essence space still serves as the arena the volume , whose occupancy is determined by the field probability density functions. This is true for all particle fields under QFT. Including matter fields Now there's a mouthful lol. To borrow a line from the Sean Carroll video in one of our pinned threads. "To get a Higgs boson one must poke the field "

I've come to expect it; and wouldn't have it any other way.

Possibly a lot of the misconceptions can be attributed to mixing up models. GR and QFT treat space-time differently. In QFT, space-time is the stage on which various fields act. In GR, space-time is an active participant, and no background stage is required for the acting. I find it funny when one uses the quantum mechanical considerations of a crystal, to make predictions about the properties of the aether that ( they believe ) permeates space in GR. And I'm with Studiot ( as always ) on this. You can't define space by the matter within it, and then say "there is empty space between matter". How, then, is that 'empty' space between matter defined ? We would do well to stop trying to force reality to be the same as our models ( GR and QFT ). All our models do, is describe small parts and qualities of reality, and only within their range of applicability.

Yes indeed, but more than that, the higgs field is the gage field that supports the higgs boson which is the particle that is responsible for mass. Higgs didn't invent the idea that was originally due to Nambu (1957) who showed how the mass gain of cooper pairs in superconductivity are a result of a symmetry breaking mechanism. Higgs applied this to his new field to derive the mass boson.

I'm banging on about 'empty space' for a reason. Back along Mordred mentioned symmetry breaking and I mentioned Higgs and the Principle of Least Energy. This is because using our best standard model equations Higgs' great insight was to show that 'empty space' is in an energetically higher state than space permeated by what we now call the Higgs Field ie non empty. It would seem that Nature does indeed abhor a true vacuum.

I think so too. Space is that which is occupied by matter and matter is that which occupies space, in the same sense that matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move. They are inextricable. Per Markus, some years ago: "Spacetime is the map, not the territory". It's a conceptualization of a geometrical arena, with volumetric and temporal axes, to describe energy-density-momentum through time of phenomena within it in some arbitrary volume. The ontological nature - what something is intrinsically - can never be known, only what it does. Trying to get a macro-materialistic sense of things outside of our senses is futile.

Children's ages are not generally integers.

@swansontI always look forward to a comment from you. You embody the scientist spirit very well. Break and doubt till you cannot break and doubt no more. That is how we get to the truth according to Karl Popper.

The total mass and energy of the system of the universe are conserved. And so it is an imbalance, one area having more and one area having less that leads to complexity. It is not just one area having more and one area having less alone that leads to something being its own thing. It needs to be held, and when held energy is released and concentration is increased. That is the premise of the framework. On what grounds are you to define it your way? The traditional way is to look at characteristics and then categorize the characteristics but complexity is to my knowledge something that is subjective when defined. The framework includes the axioms of mass and energy, imbalance, and balancing forces and says these things create the conditions for complexity.

The idea is not fully fleshed out yet but it definitely sits at the creating level of Bloom's taxonomy. The point is not to spit out knowledge but to show understanding to a level that you end up creating a framework. I have much work ahead to fill in details but you can't deny that I am showing that I know enough to be able to create a framework.

Space is the ether, this has been known since 1900. Even in Einstein's theory, which removes the rest frame, space is the 4-dimensional ether. Matter is ether in a condensed form.

Too scared it'll outsmart you?