Understanding Virtual Particles: Excitations of Quantum Fields

[Drakkith]

For obvious reasons, your 'model' can not make a correct prediction and this is kind of important in physics :tongue:

But you haven't even seen all the nifty graphs I made!

 

[No-where-man]

The concept of the field is just a way to predict and explain how our universe works. It's possible I could come up with a way to explain all observable effects using invisible fairies. How would you know which theory is right? The fairies, or the fields?

You don't. You can't. It isn't possible if both explain observations equally well.
So no, you don't know if fields exist or not. You can't know. It isn't possible.

Nothing is 100% proven. Nothing is irrefutable. Ever. Remember that.

Like I said, all I'm saying that you can't have nothing, there is always something some energy.
Well, you can't say nothing is ever proven, energy is proven for example.
Earth's electromagnetic field does exist, and it is 100% proven, for example. So fields do exist (you can make your own electromagnetic field as well, entropy is proven, there are plenty of things in science 100% proven, however there are a lot of things and concepts in science that could never be 100% proven.
Gravity is 100% proven as well.
However, when it comes to quantum fields, than things get harder to understand, but like physicists always there is no such thing as absolute nothingness and you can't have anything without energy and work (which is a form of energy).

 

[No-where-man]

no where man...

a good portion of your post #32 is incorrect and strays from the OP's question.
If you'd like to discuss all those issues, try a separate post.

I don't see, how is it false, if it's based on facts.

 

[Drakkith]

Like I said, all I'm saying that you can't have nothing, there is always something some energy.

As far as we know. This is not guaranteed.

Well, you can't say nothing is ever proven, energy is proven for example.

Is it? What exactly do you mean by "energy is proven"?

Earth's electromagnetic field does exist, and it is 100% proven, for example.

Again, what do you mean by saying it is 100% proven? All we know is that our measuring instruments act in certain ways that we attribute to something we call an electromagnetic field. What if in the future a new theory comes about that completely does away the concept of the traditional EM field? You can't claim that it's 100% proven if that happens.

Gravity is 100% proven as well.

Statements such as "X is 100% proven" mean very little. If you mean that it is 100% proven that something appears to hold us to the Earth and cause matter to attract all other matter, then sure. But that's not science. That's just observing that something's going on without trying to figure out how it works. The explanation, which is what we are talking about when we talk about science, is never 100% proven. And that's what a field is. It's a way of explaining and figuring out how our universe works. We believe it exists because we have no better way of explaining our observations.

 

[No-where-man]

As far as we know. This is not guaranteed.

Yes, it is. Because nothing means nothing, fro example; what is your debt nothing-nothing in this case means non-existence of your debt, meaning in general nothing is non-existence, you can't create something that exists from something that does not exist-this is the basic rule.

Is it? What exactly do you mean by "energy is proven"?

I'm not sure it's smart to continue, especially for me, since when exactly the post is becoming trolling?
I will answer you this question, for example you eat food, you will have energy when you eat food, energy is tangible and physical, if it wasn't, you'd die from the food, if food does not contain energy, actually for every single process, universe or not, you need energy.
Sure we call this energy, but it's crucial for the existence of the universe and it's crucial for our own existence and survival, as well.

Again, what do you mean by saying it is 100% proven? All we know is that our measuring instruments act in certain ways that we attribute to something we call an electromagnetic field. What if in the future a new theory comes about that completely does away the concept of the traditional EM field? You can't claim that it's 100% proven if that happens.

So, if there is no such EM field around the Earth, it means radiation will kill we like it or not, the fact this field protects us, Aurora borealis and Aurora australis prove this.

Statements such as "X is 100% proven" mean very little. If you mean that it is 100% proven that something appears to hold us to the Earth and cause matter to attract all other matter, then sure. But that's not science. That's just observing that something's going on without trying to figure out how it works. The explanation, which is what we are talking about when we talk about science, is never 100% proven. And that's what a field is. It's a way of explaining and figuring out how our universe works. We believe it exists because we have no better way of explaining our observations.

Fair enough, but you call it gravity and gravitational field and its effects here on Earth are real.
But I can't pass that everything that is explained in science is not 100% proven, there is a lost of things/phenomenons in science 100% proven, the way they work and their effects on their surrounding environments/space, as well as proven, however there are many more things/phenomenons in science that are never proven 100%.

If at least one part of the hypothesis or theory works (and it's scientifically proven every single moment/time) in reality exactly in the way reality works, than there is nothing else to prove, than this part of hypothesis or theory is 100% proven.
That's what I'm trying to say, and I think that's a fair statement.
Cheers.

 

[Drakkith]

Yes, it is. Because nothing means nothing, fro example; what is your debt nothing-nothing in this case means non-existence of your debt, meaning in general nothing is non-existence, you can't create something that exists from something that does not exist-this is the basic rule.

Again, as far as we know this is true. We only believe this to be true because we have never observed a contradiction to the rule. We can never be absolutely sure.

So, if there is no such EM field around the Earth, it means radiation will kill we like it or not, the fact this field protects us, Aurora borealis and Aurora australis prove this.

Nonsense. Just because a new theory is developed does not mean that somehow the real effects of the EM field suddenly go away.

Fair enough, but you call it gravity and gravitational field and its effects here on Earth are real.

That's what I'm getting at. If I develop another theory for gravity that works and doesn't use geometry or fields, it in no way changes the fact that gravity still works exactly as it always has.

If at least one part of the hypothesis or theory works (and it's scientifically proven every single moment/time) in reality exactly in the way reality works, than there is nothing else to prove, than this part of hypothesis or theory is 100% proven.
That's what I'm trying to say, and I think that's a fair statement.
Cheers.

I disagree completely.

 

[Maui]

Drakkith, you are taking your initially reasonable argument way too far into scepticism, almost into Heyerabend's Epistemological anarchism territory(and I am not sure that even philosophers agree with his views)

There is obviously a difference between empirically confirmed scientific models which get falsified but remain true in some domains and mysticism/religious beliefs.
There is no better theory of the interaction of matter in spacetime than QFT and its predictions hold up every time. This usually means that we have a very good map of the territory. Even if the theory is one day disproved in experiment, it will remain approximately valid, so the concept that reality is composed entirely and solely of fields will remain. What will surely not remain intact is the human concept of reality as that concept is based on assumptions and as long as experiments do not agree with it, it will be prone to modifications.

 

[jtbell]

This thread has moved from physics to philosophy. Since we do not have a philosophy forum, this thread is now closed.