Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: mbkennel



You're confusing 'nothing' with 0 dimensional in extent.

No, I am not. Nothing, has 0 dimensional extent. And that is all that does. Nothing does. Because the definition of 0 dimensional, is non existing. Substance can not have the quality of being non existent.


Imagine there existed 2 realities. Imagine you and I were Gods that existed in 1 of them, and we knew of another we can access that was a pure infinite eternal realm of absolute pure nothing. You tell me that a 0 dimensional object can exist (an object with 0 height, width, or depth). You are a God, and I have faith in your powers, so I say, we live in this reality full of substances, and you have the power to do absolutely anything you say you can do, but you have to prove it with reason of physical action and consequence according to the ways in which these words we use are defined. So, to try and widdle down a piece of substance, to place in this empty reality, to prove to me that a 0 dimensional object can exist; you can either pick any object of substance, or you can try and conceptually...built one from scratch I guess...but I dont know... because you cant make something from nothing....

So I guess, take substance, we will go into the realm of nothing, and you will take your perfect god hands, which turn into any device possible, the finest grains of substance possible and beyond, and you will slowly shave and cut up this substance, giving me the pieces so I can toss them out of the realm of nothing, and you keep cutting and widdling right, (and I would argue it is impossible to ever even get to 2d, let alone 1d, let alone 0d) but eventually you believe that you will have formulated an object, which only has 2 dimensions? What was the precipice, what occurred at the brink of having 3d object to 2d? Just one tiniest degree of substance was removed, and now the object no longer extends in a spatial dimension?

I suppose it might be easier to imagine this with a sheet of paper or something, continually cutting its height, until it is a 2d plane, or we must use the most fundamental objects, because we will be getting down to them eventually, as that is what the paper would be made of, but the paper can be a representative of what the fundamentality must look like at the smallest level, if you wish to turn a 3d object into a 2d plane, and claim it is physically possible.

You can't rotate an electron in physical 3-d space, that's the point. If you rotate it in the internal 2-d space associated with spin, you change the direction of its magnetic moment. So the intrinsic magnetic field generated by the electron will look different and be axi-symmetric and have an effect in the exterior 3-d space via the magnetic field.

The intrinsic electric field generated by the electron will look the same and be spherically symmetric.

Where does the internal 2d space come from, the concept, the knowledge of its existence? Can that which is an electron ever be 'turned' for real, in 3d space, in theory? The answer, yes, for it has a magnetic moment, which makes it like the needle of a magnet, which means by altering the magnetic field of its surroundings, you will force the electron to rotate?

You say "you cant rotate an electron in 3d space"..... "if you rotate it in the internal 2d space"..... How do you rotate it in the internal 2d space?

that establishes the opposite of how it started, and so it takes another full rotation for everything to become settled again. Also ambient things like the nature of the experiment, how the energy was pumped in to cause the electron to rotate effect the EM field surrounding, where that energy went off to, how it was registered etc.

I am very interested in hypothetical and theoretical circumstances, for I believe that is the best way to test your knowledge, so if you knew all the details about the existence of the electron as it exists in and of itself, and everything about the local EM field as it exists in and of itself, you should be able to comprehend exactly what and why occurs when it is (unlawfully, magically...in impossible hypotehtical and theoretical terms, with the god hand of our minds, 0 energy, EM usage, with our mind fingers, rotate the electron, without the atoms of our fingers messing with the experiment, we only want to fully know what occurs, what the relationship with the electron in and of itself is with the EM field) rotated. So no detectors or anything, no experiments or earths or people, just our absolute knowledge of the electron and our absolute, highest, knowledge of the EM field.

The electron is slowly started to rotate by the power of our imagination,( or it is quickly started to rotate, and will that effect the experiment? ), why, when we rotate the electron 360 degrees, does the rotation of the electron 360 degrees, not equal the electron being rotated 360 degrees?

As was previously explained, the rotation is not in 3-d space, because electrons don't have any physical spatial structure in 3-d space so you couldn't possibly tell. It's in a hidden 2-d space, but the effects leak out to 3-d through the magnetic field. So when people say 'rotate the electron' it's not as if there are any handles on it, it means apply a magnetic field which tweedles the electron's "hidden innards"

the innards are not which are moved, the electron itself, it has no innards, if we have faith that it is a fundamental quanta. It is a pure quanta of substance. When you do what must be done to rotate the electron at all, are you unavoidably not effecting first and foremost the electrons field? That is to say, you cannot 'touch the electron itself', you can not sneak past the electrons field to touch the electron? Any attempt to interact with the electron must be done via its field?

So, to rotate the electron, you need to apply an external magnetic environment that will force the electrons field to rotate? The electrons field being caused to rotate, causes the electron it self to rotate? You are assuming that due to this relationship, the field itself is in a way just as much 'electron' as the 'center of the field is', and so this field you assume is the 3d component, and you give the center of the field a 2d component because you dont want to be concerned with details of whether or not there really is a tiny 3d spec of substance at the center, so you just abstract it into a mathematical point that can only possibly move in 2 relative dimensions.

I suppose you do this, because the spin, imposed on the field is already focusing on the 3d component, in the sense of insuring, or being concerned with its rotational movement, and the idea of rotational movement, when focused on that concept alone, gives you the luxury to ignore any other potential movements such as depth or vertical, though these are what is covered in the 3d aspect, you then say, only the rotational axis and therefore too necessarily the vertical axis is important for these concerns, so thus, the center of the field when collapsing our own probability function of possible variables to be concerned with, is 2d.

originally posted by: ImaFungi


There is no argument here, it is faulty one at least. When people work with math, are they not seeing the math in their head? And is the only reason they are working with the math and seeing it, because (hopefully) the math relates to reality? Is the math they are seeing in their head not details of quantity and quality of reality? Is this not what the nature of 'image' is? Is image, not the attempt at capturing an amount of informational, dimensional, quantitative, qualitative details about something that exists in reality? The argument is that I take things a step forward, at times they get too lost in their math tricks and games, while ignoring fundamental things that can be known about reality, and ignoring reality, and sometimes mistaking simplified and corner cut math stacked on simplified and generalized and rounded math as reality itself. So I merely ask, this math, as this is the whole point of seeking to know truth, seeking to know reality, seeking to understand reality, is an attempt to behold the information that reality is; so, I merely ask, can you tell me what the math says reality must exist as? As that which exists, exists... the very implications of this being , quantitative and qualitative values greater than 0. Reality is a painted picture, to know reality is to know what the painted picture is, and how it is being painted, that is all I am trying to know. I ask a lot of questions, these folks cant possibly answer, so they get scared and bury their noses in their books, and laugh and mock and scoff, because that feels better and is a lot easier than thinking about the things no human has ever thought of.

Right but the problem here, with quantum mechanics, is that the math works but the picture it paints violates common sense. It violates either local realism or causality. The Uncertainty principle math shows you get momentum information only with decreasing information about position and vice-versa. So quantum objects defy us making a mental picture, it's similar to trying to think of a 4D object.
Except with a 4D object you know what it is you're trying to visualize. Imagine something that has either a place in space but infinite speed or no speed but it's location could be anywhere, how do you picture that thing?

I agree "something" exists, information or probability. But we don't know how probability or potential objects can exist in the way that 3D objects exist?
I can elaborate further with better examples when I have more time.

Negative numbers might have a physical counterpart with negative energy. Another quantum physics phenomena.

If you can imagine complex numbers then maybe there are higher level numbers off the number plane that are unconceivable to us but obvious to a higher intelligence.

Or the 4th level infinity Alef 3. That is to much to imagine.
w, Alef null = number line
Alef 1 = irrational/transcendental numbers
Alef 2 = possibly all possible curved lines but the might be Alef1, related to the continuum problem,
Alef 3 = ?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
All negative numbers are imaginary also.

A negative number needs a further number or process other than itself to exist in reality, a negative number does not describe a directly measureable quantity.

The way we define real numbers, negative numbers are considered real, not imaginary.

In mathematics, a real number is a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line. The real numbers include all the rational numbers, such as the integer −5

Imaginary numbers are defined as follows:

An imaginary number is a number that can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit i, which is defined by its property i² = −1.

The real number -5 doesn't qualify as an imaginary number as we define imaginary numbers.

Yes there are vectors with magnitudes and directions, but that doesn't change the definition of "imaginary number".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
All negative numbers are imaginary also.

A negative number needs a further number or process other than itself to exist in reality, a negative number does not describe a directly measureable quantity.

The way we define real numbers, negative numbers are considered real, not imaginary.

In mathematics, a real number is a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line. The real numbers include all the rational numbers, such as the integer −5

Imaginary numbers are defined as follows:

An imaginary number is a number that can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit i, which is defined by its property i² = −1.

The real number -5 doesn't qualify as an imaginary number as we define imaginary numbers.

Yes there are vectors with magnitudes and directions, but that doesn't change the definition of "imaginary number".

My mistake, I used a technical math term in its English prose sense.

The real numbers are the union of the sets of rational and irrational numbers.



No thing has negative quantity in and of itself.

In the world we live and breath in, any measurement is a positive rational number.

There are no directly negative numbers in the real world. All negative numbers are derived or defined of a positive quantity.

A negative quantity could be a verb, but as a noun is has no analog in the world of matter.

I meant imaginary in the sense of-- mental only, not that all negative numbers included i.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel



You're confusing 'nothing' with 0 dimensional in extent.

No, I am not. Nothing, has 0 dimensional extent. And that is all that does.

Yes you are, something which is '0 dimensional in extent' (in regular x,y,z space), like an electron, is not necessarily 'nothing'.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

You can't rotate an electron in physical 3-d space, that's the point. If you rotate it in the internal 2-d space associated with spin, you change the direction of its magnetic moment. So the intrinsic magnetic field generated by the electron will look different and be axi-symmetric and have an effect in the exterior 3-d space via the magnetic field.

The intrinsic electric field generated by the electron will look the same and be spherically symmetric.

Where does the internal 2d space come from, the concept, the knowledge of its existence?

It appears to be a fundamental fact of nature created in the big bang.

Can that which is an electron ever be 'turned' for real, in 3d space, in theory? The answer, yes, for it has a magnetic moment, which makes it like the needle of a magnet, which means by altering the magnetic field of its surroundings, you will force the electron to rotate?

Yes, but what the electron 'rotates around' is it's internal 2-d space, even though it is affected by, and influenced by, the magnetic field which is in regular 3-d space.

You say "you cant rotate an electron in 3d space"..... "if you rotate it in the internal 2d space"..... How do you rotate it in the internal 2d space?

With a magnetic field.

that establishes the opposite of how it started, and so it takes another full rotation for everything to become settled again. Also ambient things like the nature of the experiment, how the energy was pumped in to cause the electron to rotate effect the EM field surrounding, where that energy went off to, how it was registered etc.

I am very interested in hypothetical and theoretical circumstances, for I believe that is the best way to test your knowledge, so if you knew all the details about the existence of the electron as it exists in and of itself, and everything about the local EM field as it exists in and of itself, you should be able to comprehend exactly what and why occurs when it is (unlawfully, magically...in impossible hypotehtical and theoretical terms, with the god hand of our minds, 0 energy, EM usage, with our mind fingers, rotate the electron, without the atoms of our fingers messing with the experiment, we only want to fully know what occurs, what the relationship with the electron in and of itself is with the EM field) rotated. So no detectors or anything, no experiments or earths or people, just our absolute knowledge of the electron and our absolute, highest, knowledge of the EM field.

I have no idea what that means.

The current understanding of quantum mechanical behavior of particles comes from analyzing many experimental results. There is no "absolute knowledge of the electron and highest knowledge of the EM field"---there is accepted physical theory justified by experiment, and which makes successful predictions.

The electron is slowly started to rotate by the power of our imagination,( or it is quickly started to rotate, and will that effect the experiment? ), why, when we rotate the electron 360 degrees, does the rotation of the electron 360 degrees, not equal the electron being rotated 360 degrees?

Because that rotation is not in 3-d space.

As was previously explained, the rotation is not in 3-d space, because electrons don't have any physical spatial structure in 3-d space so you couldn't possibly tell. It's in a hidden 2-d space, but the effects leak out to 3-d through the magnetic field. So when people say 'rotate the electron' it's not as if there are any handles on it, it means apply a magnetic field which tweedles the electron's "hidden innards"

the innards are not which are moved, the electron itself, it has no innards, if we have faith that it is a fundamental quanta. It is a pure quanta of substance.

A fundamental quantum particle can have spin and a magnetic moment so it does have intrinsic properties which I called 'innards'---but it's true that there are no subparticles. Like a person has a liver, but there are no other mammals living inside a person.

So, to rotate the electron, you need to apply an external magnetic environment that will force the electrons field to rotate?

External magnetic field causes the spin state to change, which causes the electon's emitted magnetic field to change.
The magnetic fields are outside the electron, in 3-d space. The spin state is "inside/contained in/part of" the electron, and it has an algebra of rotations in 2-d space with complex numbers, not 3-d space with real numbers.

The electrons field being caused to rotate, causes the electron it self to rotate? You are assuming that due to this relationship, the field itself is in a way just as much 'electron' as the 'center of the field is', and so this field you assume is the 3d component, and you give the center of the field a 2d component because you dont want to be concerned with details of whether or not there really is a tiny 3d spec of substance at the center, so you just abstract it into a mathematical point that can only possibly move in 2 relative dimensions.

No, it's because the behavior of the electron is not like something which is rotated in physical 3-d space.

I suppose you do this, because the spin, imposed on the field is already focusing on the 3d component, in the sense of insuring, or being concerned with its rotational movement, and the idea of rotational movement, when focused on that concept alone, gives you the luxury to ignore any other potential movements such as depth or vertical, though these are what is covered in the 3d aspect, you then say, only the rotational axis and therefore too necessarily the vertical axis is important for these concerns, so thus, the center of the field when collapsing our own probability function of possible variables to be concerned with, is 2d.

The 2-d space is something on its own, not a projection of physical 3-d space.

a reply to: mbkennel

Prior to doing any experiments or knowing anything about an electron. You know there is an electron. You know EM field exists, and electrons 'move EM fields'. You know an electron is unavoidably, constantly creating a novel indentation surrounding it, in the EM field, which is is coupled to.

Is there any way to effect the electron, while bypassing the EM field?

Or is there no way to 'touch', 'move', the electron, without touching/moving the EM field?

The pattern of EM field locally surrounding the electron, can be said to be something of a 3d pattern.

Depending on what you answer to the above questions, you may be forced to admit, that the only way to potentially rotate an electron, is by effecting the 3d local field, the electron is producing.

In your theory, you are not thinking about the electron and its local configuration of EM field traveling up/down, left/right, forward/backward.

Because, in this specific aspect of QM, you are interested in the nature of rotation and the seemingly lack of intuitive symmetry.

So you ignore the fact that electrons do move up/down, left/right, forward/backward, relatively, in 3d space.

Because you are only concerned with the minimal dimensions needed to describe an object rotating.

So you say the electron has 2d space even though Bedlam, said the electron is 0 dimensional object, how can a 0 dimensional object (exist, let alone) have 2d space?

Does the concept of spin, 720 degrees and all, suggest that the electron itself, is a fundamentally non uniform object? And to a very specific and exact degree?

I suppose that question is answered obvious, just by saying, monopoles do not exist...the electron must be a dipole, therefore non uniform, therefore something to do with this is why there is intriguing data related to experiments with 'spinning its field'.

You have no idea the geometry of the EM field and how it is coupled to the electron do you?

And when you rotate magnets around the test particle, (as must be down in some way, to try and spin the electron), you are forcing the "EM field to rotate"? Or the magnet powers sneak past the electrons EM field, and touch the S and/or N side of the electron?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

Prior to doing any experiments or knowing anything about an electron. You know there is an electron. You know EM field exists, and electrons 'move EM fields'. You know an electron is unavoidably, constantly creating a novel indentation surrounding it, in the EM field, which is is coupled to.

Is there any way to effect the electron, while bypassing the EM field?

Or is there no way to 'touch', 'move', the electron, without touching/moving the EM field?

The electron has it's own field which interacts with the EM field via photons. Technically there are always virtual photons around an electron popping in and out of existence.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

Prior to doing any experiments or knowing anything about an electron. You know there is an electron. You know EM field exists, and electrons 'move EM fields'. You know an electron is unavoidably, constantly creating a novel indentation surrounding it, in the EM field, which is is coupled to.

Is there any way to effect the electron, while bypassing the EM field?

Or is there no way to 'touch', 'move', the electron, without touching/moving the EM field?

The electron has it's own field which interacts with the EM field via photons. Technically there are always virtual photons around an electron popping in and out of existence.

The electron does not 'have its own field', there is only one EM field, the electron locally (locally meaning, most surrounding the electron) effects the the EM field, wherever the electron is, to a degree greater than the EM field is effected when no charged particles are near, but to a degree comparable to when a charged particle is accelerated, thus even away from the charged particle, while 'viewing' an area of EM field, it is possible to detect 'instabilities', which his refereed to as EM radiation.

What you mean by 'virtual particles popping in and out of existence' is; Due to the nature of nature, the electron cannot avoid being coupled to the EM field, and the EM field cannot avoid being non trivially effected by the existence of the electron locally and its motion.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

Prior to doing any experiments or knowing anything about an electron. You know there is an electron. You know EM field exists, and electrons 'move EM fields'. You know an electron is unavoidably, constantly creating a novel indentation surrounding it, in the EM field, which is is coupled to.

Is there any way to effect the electron, while bypassing the EM field?

Or is there no way to 'touch', 'move', the electron, without touching/moving the EM field?

The electron has it's own field which interacts with the EM field via photons. Technically there are always virtual photons around an electron popping in and out of existence.

The electron does not 'have its own field', there is only one EM field, the electron locally (locally meaning, most surrounding the electron) effects the the EM field, wherever the electron is, to a degree greater than the EM field is effected when no charged particles are near, but to a degree comparable to when a charged particle is accelerated, thus even away from the charged particle, while 'viewing' an area of EM field, it is possible to detect 'instabilities', which his refereed to as EM radiation.

What you mean by 'virtual particles popping in and out of existence' is; Due to the nature of nature, the electron cannot avoid being coupled to the EM field, and the EM field cannot avoid being non trivially effected by the existence of the electron locally and its motion.

emphasis by semicollegiate

I'm very glad I read that.

So space is made of the field forces, and matter is an effect of an activated field or fields. In other words, matter is fluctuations or concentrations in the ubiquitous field forces.

An universe wide field with acute variations is simpler to understand than a piece of matter making an infinite and mobile field that exerts all of its energy precisely at the position of objects in it.

WOW

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

Prior to doing any experiments or knowing anything about an electron. You know there is an electron. You know EM field exists, and electrons 'move EM fields'. You know an electron is unavoidably, constantly creating a novel indentation surrounding it, in the EM field, which is is coupled to.

Is there any way to effect the electron, while bypassing the EM field?

Or is there no way to 'touch', 'move', the electron, without touching/moving the EM field?

The electron has it's own field which interacts with the EM field via photons. Technically there are always virtual photons around an electron popping in and out of existence.

The electron does not 'have its own field', there is only one EM field, the electron locally (locally meaning, most surrounding the electron) effects the the EM field, wherever the electron is, to a degree greater than the EM field is effected when no charged particles are near, but to a degree comparable to when a charged particle is accelerated, thus even away from the charged particle, while 'viewing' an area of EM field, it is possible to detect 'instabilities', which his refereed to as EM radiation.

What you mean by 'virtual particles popping in and out of existence' is; Due to the nature of nature, the electron cannot avoid being coupled to the EM field, and the EM field cannot avoid being non trivially effected by the existence of the electron locally and its motion.

emphasis by semicollegiate

I'm very glad I read that.

So space is made of the field forces, and matter is an effect of an activated field or fields. In other words, matter is fluctuations or concentrations in the ubiquitous field forces.

An universe wide field with acute variations is simpler to understand than a piece of matter making an infinite and mobile field that exerts all of its energy precisely at the position of objects in it.

WOW

I hope someone can come along and insure us that what I have said is the leading candidate in our collective seeking of Truth. But it is what I have come to in all my full and half butted means of learning physics.

Wiki- "An electromagnetic field (also EMF or EM field) is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. It is one of the four fundamental forces of nature (the others are gravitation, weak interaction and strong interaction)."

I have though, never understood the 'excitation' part. When you consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed (which should be one of the first axiom, and not too far in the back of the mind when thinking about anything in physics) you are forced to believe that there is a 'somethingness', that exists, that has never been created or destroyed. A real, plus, value, seemingly lots of it, stuff.

So, is the electron stuff, and is the EM field stuff. But just very different kinds of stuff? It seems, due to extreme conditions at some point in the past, the totality of stuff, was forced, seemingly harshly, to splinter into a sort of balance, or hierarchy, of types, which then due to the types, and the laws in which types interact with one another, the universe progressed into this sort of balanced system we now are able to experience.

So, I dont know if electrons are excitations of the field, because that makes it seem like you can grab the EM field (with what?) and shake it, and produce an electron? If that is true, well, than, thats just quite interesting, but im not sure its true, so I wont think of what that means yet.

If an electron can exist in space. A person can shake the electron, and then detect light at a distance from the electron. I believe, the idea of field theory was to say "the electron does not have stored in it an infinite number of bullets to toss from itself when it is shaken, the more logical potential truth seems to be that there is a medium that exists everywhere in space, that has at every point a greater than 0 value, and all electrons are connected to this (all charged particles). The trouble than, for me at least, is comprehending how that EM field exists, what its 'lines of force' actually are, materially, if it is composed of ball like particles, quintriquillions of them, that form a very dense ocean of sorts, or something else...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hi – reading your first post, don’t you think that quantum computing has laid to rest any doubters? Quantum computing wouldn’t be possible without superposition and superposition only exists in the quantum world.

Question: Do you think that quantum computing has a higher probability of machines that can really think and act like a human? Most of the articles that I’ve read (I’m not a computer geek) say that QC can solve problems at an exponential rate, but is it going to be just a fast computer or something beyond that? Some links that I’ve come across:

www.dwavesys.com...
dwave.wordpress.com...
www.youtube.com...

If you think this should be in another thread rather than here, just let me know. Thanks.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hi – reading your first post, don’t you think that quantum computing has laid to rest any doubters? Quantum computing wouldn’t be possible without superposition and superposition only exists in the quantum world.

Doubters of what? Did you watch the video by Sean Carroll in the OP? As he explains (or tries to), his favorite interpretation matches observation without any superposition of the particle, though it involves superposition of universes instead. He barely mentions DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation but that's another one which doesn't have superposition like the Copenhagen interpretation, and no, I'm not aware of any experiments in quantum computing or elsewhere which have distinguished between these interpretations though I read such experiments were being attempted.

Question: Do you think that quantum computing has a higher probability of machines that can really think and act like a human? Most of the articles that I’ve read (I’m not a computer geek) say that QC can solve problems at an exponential rate, but is it going to be just a fast computer or something beyond that? Some links that I’ve come across:

www.dwavesys.com...
dwave.wordpress.com...
www.youtube.com...

Of course the Dwave marketing spiel talks about superposition but so do most textbooks as if it's a fact, but it's really not. We just don't spend a lot of time even teaching students about the alternative interpretations, and as Sean Carroll explains in the OP video most physicists don't really need to think about it that much. The predictions of all the various QM interpretations match observation so far, otherwise they would have been rejected for failing to match observation.

Engineering computers is a complex task but I think it's too early to tell how useful quantum computers will be. So far I haven't seen them do much, but the technology is still in its infancy so we need to give it time to grow to see what it can do. They have the potential to be much faster on certain types of problems, but they aren't faster yet:

Quantum Computer

There are a number of technical challenges in building a large-scale quantum computer, and thus far quantum computers have yet to solve a problem faster than a classical computer.

That's not the impression I get from reading the marketing literature but I suspect it's probably true.

My guess is that quantum computers will eventually find a niche subset of the supercomputer market and will eventually prove faster on certain types of problems, but they probably won't see widespread use for a very long time, if ever. You can read more about the technical challenges at that link.

originally posted by: ImaFungi


So, is the electron stuff, and is the EM field stuff. But just very different kinds of stuff? It seems, due to extreme conditions at some point in the past, the totality of stuff, was forced, seemingly harshly, to splinter into a sort of balance, or hierarchy, of types, which then due to the types, and the laws in which types interact with one another, the universe progressed into this sort of balanced system we now are able to experience.

So, I dont know if electrons are excitations of the field, because that makes it seem like you can grab the EM field (with what?) and shake it, and produce an electron? If that is true, well, than, thats just quite interesting, but im not sure its true, so I wont think of what that means yet.

Yes, electrons are excitations of "the electron field" and photons are excitations of "the electromagnetic field" and the two objects are distinct entities/constructions in accepted quantum field theory. It so happens that there are conservation laws on the number of leptons (like electrons) and not on photons so the excitations of the electron field (namely electrons) are quite a bit more persistent.

If you grab the electron field and shake it really hard (say with electromagnetism as it interacts) then yes, you can make electrons pop out, but because of conservation laws a positron has to pop out at the same time. Since electrons and positrons have non-zero rest mass you need a whole bunch of concentrated energy for this to happen, whereas with photons there is no lower bound on energy if you go to lower frequencies, so they're much easier to create (and destroy).


If an electron can exist in space. A person can shake the electron, and then detect light at a distance from the electron. I believe, the idea of field theory was to say "the electron does not have stored in it an infinite number of bullets to toss from itself when it is shaken, the more logical potential truth seems to be that there is a medium that exists everywhere in space, that has at every point a greater than 0 value, and all electrons are connected to this (all charged particles). The trouble than, for me at least, is comprehending how that EM field exists, what its 'lines of force' actually are, materially, if it is composed of ball like particles, quintriquillions of them, that form a very dense ocean of sorts, or something else...

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I have though, never understood the 'excitation' part. When you consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed (which should be one of the first axiom, and not too far in the back of the mind when thinking about anything in physics) you are forced to believe that there is a 'somethingness', that exists, that has never been created or destroyed. A real, plus, value, seemingly lots of it, stuff.

Yes, what you say is true, but it is not true that the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom. In fact, that conservation law is a consequence of underlying symmetries in the laws of physics---this is the great insight of Noether's theorem. So when the laws of physics don't have that particular symmetry the notion of energy conservation need not be true. In general relativity in fact, the question of total energy conservation is not necessarily solved or well-defined. But for virtually all human-scale properties, it is true because the laws of physics do have the appropriate symmetry.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I have though, never understood the 'excitation' part. When you consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed (which should be one of the first axiom, and not too far in the back of the mind when thinking about anything in physics) you are forced to believe that there is a 'somethingness', that exists, that has never been created or destroyed. A real, plus, value, seemingly lots of it, stuff.

Yes, what you say is true, but it is not true that the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom. In fact, that conservation law is a consequence of underlying symmetries in the laws of physics---this is the great insight of Noether's theorem. So when the laws of physics don't have that particular symmetry the notion of energy conservation need not be true. In general relativity in fact, the question of total energy conservation is not necessarily solved or well-defined. But for virtually all human-scale properties, it is true because the laws of physics do have the appropriate symmetry.

The notion of energy not being able to be created or destroyed is an absolute notion, it is a notion for the highest perspective, the totality of reality. Of course there may be differences when observing only specific areas of space and measuring what happens, what stays and goes. But from the highest perspective, energy is not destroyed. From the highest perspective, there is a quantity of non nothingness, that cannot be created or destroyed.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Yes, electrons are excitations of "the electron field" and photons are excitations of "the electromagnetic field" and the two objects are distinct entities/constructions in accepted quantum field theory. It so happens that there are conservation laws on the number of leptons (like electrons) and not on photons so the excitations of the electron field (namely electrons) are quite a bit more persistent.

It would be nice if you responded to my reply to you, though I do not mind you responding to this as such, my reply to others of course, the one to you would be nice as well.

I dont get what you mean by 'more persistent'..

Can the electron field be measured where there are no electrons?

Can the EM field be measured where there are no photons?

If not, are there theories about its average energy density, mass, at every point where there is no excitations, excitations assumedly being greater than average?

What came first, the electron or the electron field? If the electron field came first, in what way were all the electrons excited/created?

Are the areas of non excited electron field able to interact with each other?

Can multiple electrons interact strongly enough to excite another one into existence?

Is every fundamental field a different version of the same concept? (as perhaps it can be said every atom is a different version of the same concept, due to an altering of quantity, which unavoidably alters quality)

If you grab the electron field and shake it really hard (say with electromagnetism as it interacts) then yes, you can make electrons pop out, but because of conservation laws a positron has to pop out at the same time. Since electrons and positrons have non-zero rest mass you need a whole bunch of concentrated energy for this to happen, whereas with photons there is no lower bound on energy if you go to lower frequencies, so they're much easier to create (and destroy).

Does electromagnetism interact with the non excited portions of the electron field, how?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I have though, never understood the 'excitation' part. When you consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed (which should be one of the first axiom, and not too far in the back of the mind when thinking about anything in physics) you are forced to believe that there is a 'somethingness', that exists, that has never been created or destroyed. A real, plus, value, seemingly lots of it, stuff.

Yes, what you say is true, but it is not true that the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom. In fact, that conservation law is a consequence of underlying symmetries in the laws of physics---this is the great insight of Noether's theorem. So when the laws of physics don't have that particular symmetry the notion of energy conservation need not be true. In general relativity in fact, the question of total energy conservation is not necessarily solved or well-defined. But for virtually all human-scale properties, it is true because the laws of physics do have the appropriate symmetry.

The notion of energy not being able to be created or destroyed is an absolute notion, it is a notion for the highest perspective, the totality of reality. Of course there may be differences when observing only specific areas of space and measuring what happens, what stays and goes. But from the highest perspective, energy is not destroyed. From the highest perspective, there is a quantity of non nothingness, that cannot be created or destroyed.

He's right is symmetry just turns out to be nothing more than wish full thinking on our part than we may find out energy can be created and destroyed. The only reason we say it can't is because we believe the universe does have a symmetry. But there is no conclusive facts to prove this.

Then through in some theories that say energy can be borrowe'd for short periods of time as long as in the end it returns to 0. That means in something as big as the universe that borrowed energy would be huge. This is the zero point energy all the websites like to discuss.

And finally there is a positivity of stealing energy from other dimensions since some of them can be smaller than an electron but the entire energy of a universe contained within. Bottom line we don't know where zero point energy comes from we have multiple possibilities some which require energy creation and some which dont. As of now we some think the Copenhagen interpretation is correct others disagree.

You have some scientists that are sure energy can be created anywhere. But for you to say you know something can't be created from nothing is a bold statement. When Even IN Physics WE Don't Know THE answer.

a reply to: dragonridr

He's right is symmetry just turns out to be nothing more than wish full thinking on our part than we may find out energy can be created and destroyed. The only reason we say it can't is because we believe the universe does have a symmetry. But there is no conclusive facts to prove this.

There is a lot of observable symmetry.

All vertebrates have bilateral symmetry.

Stars are nearly spheres, orbits are nearly circles. Less than 1% off

Force fields are symmetrical.

a reply to: dragonridr

Respond to all of my questions; you are not speaking from a place of rationality, or clear and concise desire to purely seek the Truth.