geordief

All Fields have parameters,do they? Is it just one value(value =value of a parameter**?) at each point or can it be multiple? It is the parameter (s) that define the Field? If so ,what are the parameters of a quantum Field? **hope I am not confused with terminology

What might be the simplest scenario that a Field model would be applicable to? In EM , for example ,what might be the smallest charge that might produce a Field when it interacts with another?

Maybe so. The onus might be on me to find a field that doesn't interact with another field . So maybe I will will go with you. I wonder how fields superimpose (if that is the word) mathematically. Does an em field superimpose on a gravitational field?

Great ,just what I was wondering about (and working out an OP but not loosing sleep). Particle and Field = Chicken and Egg? 2 sides of the same phenomenon? Seems like the Fields don't interact with each other (but that an eventual TOE might "put manners" on them)

You are forgetting about the voices in his head.... there aren't any? OTOH wish him all the best in this serious test ....just wish I had any confidence.

Can you give a specific example? (If electrons jump to a different level in an atom can that be considered as "discontinuous motion"?)

2 since the former alignment degrades with time. (if your clock shows exactly 1200)

"longer"? Damn these dumb phones

Thanks. Does the concept of half lives also apply to particle decay in general or just to radioactive decay of the nucleus? Does the wave property of particles have any bearing in the phenomenon of half lives? Can/could particle decay be used to measure time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay (just to specify what I am hopefully referring to)

Have you an example of a physical change which does not involve a motion? Since motion appears to me to be inbuilt into everything I can see that it may be impossible to show this as the "environmental" ever present motion would drown out the signal of any change that occurred with no "additional" motion. Or we can just accept perhaps that all changes do involve a motion (some motions being apparently continuous and some with no intervening physical locations)

Is L a universal constant** and the period of time applicable open ended ?( so "ten thousand years" for any particular atom could as well be the life of the universe....simply less likely ) ** just experimentally verified without any a priori reason that it should have that particular value.....

What about the half life? Is that "built into" the randomness ? Wait long enough and you have your timepiece? Hope I have not wildly misunderstood the process. Atomic decay is used in radiocarbon dating ,isn't it?

A stopwatch is simply an ordered arrangement of moving constituent parts . You could say the same of any natural physical system with movements that could be compared to one another . Ie ,anything at all. There is nothing at all that could not be used as a rough timing device .

You mean a well defined 3d space? Are you talking about "spontaneous radioactive emission"?

Yes I agree with that. I don't even think any phenomenon can be locally static ,although what causes change seems (to me at any rate) unknown in cases like spontaneous radioactive emission where statistic likelihood seem to be the only causative contributor to the outcome.

Sorry ,my phrasing was ambiguous. My "if" was an acceptance of Swansont's proposition that motion does not cause time

Might "nothing remains the same" be the fundamental axiom? "panta rhei" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei,_"everything_flows"

Yes ,apologies for the use of "perception". If motion does not "cause time" ,does anything? Can we point to anything that produces a measurement involving "time" either on the micro or on the macro level? (take away the initial** condition/requirement and the time measurement will not follow) **is "initial" a time derived term? (it seems to call for/imply an arrow of time)

Am I right to be reminded of an old thread I started 18 months ago? If so can I also ask what might be the value of pi for one of the neutron stars in the binary black hole merger recorded not so long ago. Is Studiot's measure of curvature essentially the same thing as this divergence from pi in a massive object such as the neutron star or a black hole?

It is possible to "collapse"or show sections of (or quotes within) posts by clicking on the small arrow inside a small circle to the left of where it says,for example "19 hours ago,Strange said" Perhaps that is the problem? If the arrow has been inadvertently clicked then perhaps some of the post may be invisible or it may need to be clicked to show the various quotes.

An amazing story ,even if it was predicted. Has a feel of Tolkein about it.

Yes , I was being a bit "cheeky" but am still taken aback that the "hilly" concept was there ahead of Einstein. I can't see how Clifford came up with that(presumably on the shoulders of someone before him,though)

So Einsten was being bold when he claimed that he was the first to realize that spacetime could be curved? I don't have his (E's)quote to hand but this Clifford seems to have tackled the concept quite explicitly.

If MM had discovered aether then there would have been a value for it. Since no discovery or value was made then it seems possible that the latter could be either vanishingly small or non existent Would that "open verdict " keep proponents of both models happy? Would anything hang on one model being "more correct" than the other? Btw this "spacetime can be considered an aether " idea seems very wrong headed to me if spacetime is just a mathematical model.... (nothing curves any "fabric" of spacetime does it-unless this fabric is actually this undetectable aether)

I have heard that we only have "time" as a result of motion (relative ,of course). But I have also heard ,(in contradiction) that there are events that occur which do not exhibit motion (eg spontaneous decay,random but statistically time ordered.). If we just address for now the areas where time and motion are seemingly directly linked (classical physics ,I guess) can I ask which of the two phenomena could be considered more fundamental ? Does Time cause motion or does motion cause our perception of time? Also ,in the cases** where we have time without motion,is it completely meaningless to talk about a frame of reference for the systems at the heart of such processes? ** such as radioactive decay.