11–20 of 40 posts
Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
Why are fields non-physical?
Until they don't.
Ultimately what is real is a philosophical question. Why isn't man-bear pig real? The Imagination Land story arc really delved into this question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are fields non-physical?
Because they're merely mathematical models of what we experience. They're no more "real" than man-bear pig, although they do have predictive capabilities. Until they don't. Ultimately what is real is a philosophical question. Why isn't man-bear pig real? The Imagination Land story arc really delved into this question.
Particles aren't?
Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s nothing “real” in physics. Everything is a model, and every model is necessarily flawed—otherwise would imply a provably correct, complete formal description of the actual-really-“real”. To obtain that even in theory we would have to observe the real from the outside, which we by definition cannot: we’re necessarily part of what we’re describing, so if we could look at it from the outside all we would get the…
I agree that you can't know what is "real" without looking at our universe from outside it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't imply that every model must be flawed, in the sense that its predictions must not be 100% consistent with observation. We could stumble across the "real" model, or something equivalent to it (in the sense of identical predictions) - we'd have no way of knowing whether the model is "real", bu…
I’d rather prefer a Unix way: a plurality of explicitly more limited but more numerous and conceptually diverse models.
Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
It really depends on what you mean by real. Many philosophers have adopted the stance that if a concept provides a useful way to talk about reality, it's real. There's no such thing as tables or chairs, but we consider them real because doing so is useful. By the same token particles are real because they are a really useful way to subdivide reality, even though their appearance is just a consequence of field theory.
What do you mean?
Is this mostly settled then? And if so why do we continue to teach a bewildering model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are fields non-physical?
Not OP but I think they actually mean non-conforming to deeply held beliefs of an atomic universe a la Democritus I hope primary school educators are moving past the atomic model, first to subatomic then to quantum fields (even just a hand wavey introduction with no maths) People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better
Quantum field are too weird and without math they are just weird magic. Let kids play with balls until they are big enough to be enlighted.
> People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better.
I agree with that, but I don't know how to fix that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're merely mathematical models of what we experience. They're no more "real" than man-bear pig, although they do have predictive capabilities. Until they don't. Ultimately what is real is a philosophical question. Why isn't man-bear pig real? The Imagination Land story arc really delved into this question.
> Because they're merely mathematical models of what we experience. Particles aren't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on what you mean by real. Many philosophers have adopted the stance that if a concept provides a useful way to talk about reality, it's real. There's no such thing as tables or chairs, but we consider them real because doing so is useful. By the same token particles are real because they are a really useful way to subdivide reality, even though their appearance is just a consequence of field theory.
There's no such thing as tables or chairs What do you mean?
> It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public Is this mostly settled then? And if so why do we continue to teach a bewildering model?