Mordred Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 (edited) Well unfortunately even the term field is an abstract object, as you also noted correctly. Many of us get stuck on the macroscopic way of thinking. This includes solidity, myself I tend to try to ignore anything other than how we can describe our universe in terms of relations. Those relations naturally including attraction and repulsion ie charge though charge is a type of attraction/repulsion not the full group. One of the easiest ways though to understand all the numerous physics fields is to study the "action" which equates displacement to the relations between potential and kinetic energy. Measurable effects being defined by Operators example the external lines on a Feymann diagram. The propagators handle the momentum terms on particle scatterings this group corresponds to the vector gauge bosons. (internal lines on a Feymann diagram. ) When you step this up to many particle systems such as fields it gives you a very accurate picture. Every interaction can be described under action so it encompasses all physics theories in general including string theory, QFT, QED, quantum geometrodynamics, LQC etc etc... Solely to provide a better picture of what I mean the entire body of standard model of particles including Higg's can be described under the following though this formula is FAR more complex in all the matrix's, tensors and spinors truly involved. [latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] I've spend nearly 3 months just trying to extrapolate all the relevent relations that went into this formula and am still working on it. For the record its not a personal formula I came across it a year or so ago in a University lecture note but cannot find the original pdf. Though that pdf only referred to but didn't explain the formula above. Currently working on the CKM mixing angles in regards to neutrino mixings atm. LOL there was a similar formula in a Sean Carroll video on QFT and Higg's field posted awhile back in the quantum mechanics forum. However this is off topic to this thread. Here is the video the formula is at 49 minutes into the video however you have already watched it hehe. You were the original poster Notice the first page Quote Reality is a combination of all observable possibilities, combined into a single wave function very apt descriptive... two key words of strong note. Observable possibilities takes into account the probability nature of wave functions. Edited February 8, 2019 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 8 hours ago, Mordred said: You were the original poster Notice the first page Quote Reality is a combination of all observable possibilities, combined into a single wave function very apt descriptive... two key words of strong note. Observable possibilities takes into account the probability nature of wave functions. Not sure who this is addressed to or why. The bulk of the post seems out of place here ? Perhaps it has something to do with this 9 hours ago, StringJunky said: If it''s measurable, it's physical (but it''s not a substance). Length is physical but not a substance. Yes I agree, though I would ask is everthing that is physical also measurable? You can measure properties of a shadow, but can you measure the shadow itself? Of course a shadow is also not a substance. Yes I think Time is physical. It is instructive to consider a situation where more than one time related process are overlaid or combined. For instance consider what can be measured or observed in this thought experiment. A fluid is passing down an obscured pipe in steady uniform laminar flow. There is an observation window on the side of the pipe to see what is going on. Within the pipe there is a nozzle that can release a second material which then enters the flow as streak lines. The observation window is sufficiently downstream that steady laminar flow is resumed, whether injection is on or off. For instance the production of that famous striped toothpaste. Every so often the injection is switched on or off so the streak lines appear and disappear in the observation window. Here we have two different time regimes superimposed producing changes in observed pattern in the window. It is instructive to consider this in realtion to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 ! Moderator Note argo, it's clear you've made up some distinctions to help you understand the flow of time better, but even you aren't able to clarify why the distinctions are necessary. Your whole argument seems to be one from incredulity (you think the mainstream definitions of time are too confusing to be described without your distinctions). You've been asked for references but haven't provided them. You keep repeating your argument rather than refining it, which is soapboxing and against our rules. You've had five pages to persuade the membership your idea has merit, so I'm closing this to avoid more repetition. Please don't post guesswork you can't support. There are other forums where they like that sort of thing, but we aren't one of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts