There are Physical Concepts that is Left Up To Magic

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Space is defined as what numbers relative to a reference position points to.

Are you going to listen ?

Or are you just going to continue trotting out your misconceptions ?

A space is a container for whatever I want to put in it.

Common spaces include vector spaces, coordinate spaces, phase spaces, topological spaces....... the list goes on and on.

Usually a space contains at least one set of objects, and a set of rules.

 

So a vector space contains a set of vectors, a set of coefficients, a set of rules, perhaps a set or sets of the results of those rules.

 

Listen and learn and you will find your discussion with others so much more rewarding.
You are often partly right in what you say, but you are missing out on so much.

For example

6 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

You see: you are removing yourself from the physical reality. Because we understand the particle to behave like "A" the particle behaves as "A". This require the particle to read our minds.

This is known as a sufficient but not necessary condition.

Yes that is one way for us to observe the particle behaving lik A.

However there exists at least one other way, quite independent of the particle or even the existence oft he particle.

If we set up the observation to observe only A that then is what we may or may not observe.
But when we do it clearly implies the existence of the particle and its action as A.

 

The real fun in quantum or any other theory starts when we do not observe A.

Edited October 29, 2022 by studiot

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

But that doesn't mean the statement is ontologically complete (that it provides a full account of what something IS in its inmost essence), it only means it corresponds to a measurement (perception) in a consistent way.

It seems like you (studiot) have a mental block, refusing to reason to the conclusion. TheVat agrees with me that there has to be something physical corresponding to the mathematical field.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Willem F Esterhuyse

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

You see: you are removing yourself from the physical reality. Because we understand the particle to behave like "A" the particle behaves as "A". This requires the particle to read our minds. Its absurd.

You’re being obtuse.

A rock does not need to read our mind to fall under the influence of gravity. That would indeed be absurd. It falls, and we want to know about its motion. So we come up with equations which allow us to do that.

Gravity exists all around us, we can assign a magnitude and direction to any point we choose, and it has these values independent of anyone’s thought. 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Gravity exists all around us, we can assign a magnitude and direction to any point we choose, and it has these values independent of anyone’s thought.

Its just a short step from this to say that therefore a gravity field physically exists. Its just how you empliment it that is still in question.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Willem F Esterhuyse

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Its just a short step from this to say that therefore a gravity field physically exists. Its just how you empliment it that is still in question.

Can you hand me a gravity field? 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

You see: you are removing yourself from the physical reality. Because we understand the particle to behave like "A" the particle behaves as "A". This requires the particle to read our minds. Its absurd.

I would suggest reading up on what an observable is, and how its meaning changes between classical and quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable

This is heavy with technical jargon but I think you can glean the basic idea.

 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you hand me a gravity field?

I can hand you an object that creates a gravity field.

[TheVat]

How do you know the gravitation holding you in your chair is a real force?  Perhaps it's what Albert called a fictitious force, and really it's just electrostatic forces in the chair molecules and the Earth's crust beneath the chair which are opposing your natural path of following a spacetime geodesic?

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

37 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I would suggest reading up on what an observable is, and how its meaning changes between classical and quantum mechanics.

Observables is produced by an operation on a system. This is again a step removed from being a real physical quantity.

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

How do you know the gravitation holding you in your chair is a real force?

You make the leap of belief. Make sure your belief system is consistent though.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Willem F Esterhuyse

[joigus]

23 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

I can hand you an object that creates a gravity field.

No. You can hand someone an object that attracts another object. You then take measurements, see how it depends on distance, amounts of matter, velocity, etc., start thinking in mathematical terms to parametrise that, express the patterns as mathematical relations, and finally come up with the idea of a field.

Then you test your theory.

You don't seem to realise that even the notion of a particle underlies a theory. Before the first Greek natural philosophers (proto-scientists) nobody thought seriously of particles. Some theory said that everything was some kind of continuum, made up of a mixture of water, earth, air, and fire. Nothing "obvious" about the theory that things are made up of particles.

And when you get to radiation, even that idea fails. You need fields.

And when you get to quantum phenomena, even that idea fails. You need field quanta.

And so on.

Taking as starting point that particles are a given shows very poor reasoning, as well as knowledge of the history of science.

Edited October 29, 2022 by joigus
Addition

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

On 10/28/2022 at 3:26 PM, TheVat said:

But that doesn't mean the statement is ontologically complete (that it provides a full account of what something IS in its inmost essence), it only means it corresponds to a measurement (perception) in a consistent way.

It seems like you (studiot) have a mental block, refusing to reason to the conclusion. TheVat agrees with me that there has to be something physical corresponding to the mathematical field.

Whilst I can't see why you have quoted the Vat but replied to me I can only say that it is your loss not mine.

These definitions are not mine, just the ones in general use by the scientific and technical community at large.

So if you must imagine or guess your own then carry on and expect a great many such communication difficulties.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

I can hand you an object that creates a gravity field.

So that’s a “no”

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Its just a short step from this to say that therefore a gravity field physically exists. Its just how you empliment it that is still in question.

 

Do you have any idea who first introduced the idea of a Field into Physics, or what he meant by it ?

I'll give you a clue it was not Newton.

Newtonian gravity was not a Field theory  - Newton did not deal in Fields.

It is true that we have since incorporated or recast newtonian gravity into Field theory.

Edited October 29, 2022 by studiot

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

14 hours ago, joigus said:

Taking as starting point that particles are a given shows very poor reasoning,

But it solves a lot of problems.

11 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Do you have any idea who first introduced the idea of a Field into Physics, or what he meant by it ?

James Clark Maxwell, I think.

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

James Clark Maxwell, I think.

Not quite.

Farady was the one who introduced the idea of 'Lines of Force' and grouped them together into a 'Field'.
Faraday was the archetypal experimenter. He came to his theory after meticulous repeats of the experiments of Oerstead and Ampere adding many of his own.
The field theory did not come all at once, he had several false starts before he came to his final version.
At this point he asked Maxwell to rewrite it as a mathemtical theory, a job he himself was incapable of.

Faraday's field theory did not require a medium, this came after out of Maxwell's excellent rewriting.
One thing that came out of Maxwell's maths was that the Field could support waves., that appeared to have the same characteristics as light waves.
But at that time (the mid 19th century) the only waves known all required a pre-existing medium to propagate in.
So it was not suprising that they proposed an aether with some rather special properties.
Maxwell himself was a staunch supporter of the aether and spent much of his prodigous effort trying to make the concept work.
So all his work was written in assumption that a Field requires a medium.

The subsequent work described in this book leads on to the modern Quantum Field where we are to day.

Back with the fact that some fields need a medium and some do not.

Berkson  :  Fields of Force.

 

 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

The disproof of local realism does not disprove that fields have got a real physical analog, just that an entangled particle are really deciding what to do when the other one gets measured.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The disproof of local realism does not disprove that fields have got a real physical analog, just that an entangled particle are really deciding what to do when the other one gets measured.

When my left shoe is measured, it has no impact on my right shoe; other than, it's one of a pair...

[joigus]

11 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

But it solves a lot of problems.

You missed my point.

You talk about particles as obvious pieces of input from sensory experience.

But somehow you mistrust the concept of fields, because they don't implement correctly what these particles do.

What you don't seem to understand is that both, particles and fields, are conceptualisations. Neither is more closely-related to sensory input than the other. Both are theories. That was my point.

And, as Studiot said, it was Faraday who introduced the concept of a field.

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

Then fields aren't properly conceptualized since the grouping together problem remains. This is related to my derivation that a space point can take only one number.

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Then fields aren't properly conceptualized since the grouping together problem remains. This is related to my derivation that a space point can take only one number.

Repeating this doesn’t make it true.

 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

What's wrong with the derivation?

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

What's wrong with the derivation?

Your interpretation of the meaning of the word, derivation.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

What's wrong with the derivation?

What derivation? A bald assertion is not a derivation, and your assertion was rebutted. 

Pick a point. I can e.g. assign a value for the electric field, the magnetic field and gravitational field to that point. That's three. Three is not one. 

[Markus Hanke]

18 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

This is related to my derivation that a space point can take only one number.

Pick a random point in - say - your living room.

At that point, you can define a value for air temperature - a scalar. At the same time, you can define a value for air pressure at that same point - another scalar. You can further define a quantity to measure air flow there - a vector, since it has magnitude and direction. Or you can define the stress within the air medium at that point - a tensor. Or perhaps you could look at the electromagnetic field there - a differential 2-form.

And so on.

So as you can see, not only can a single point ‘take’ more than one field value at a time (each of which reflects a different physical quantity), the fields themselves can consist of many different objects, not just simple scalars. They can even take more abstract objects that don’t have numerical components at all, such as operators.

This is all rigorously defined, and works precisely as it should - the very computer you are using right now is built upon these principles.

[joigus]

Just for the record, I don't see any derivation either.

Mathematical abstractions (fields, particles, manifolds) are just constructs to be constantly revised and possibly reformulated.

And the argument "how can a particle read our mind" is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever met.