- #1
Apophenia
- 61
- 0
The bulk of this would be to expand my understanding of what a field actually is so please keep that in mind.
I don't think the 'virtual particles from nothing' is a mainstream scientific theory but would like to discuss for the above reason. I have watched some videos of Lawrence Krauss discussing a 'Universe from Nothing' and have stumbled on some confusion.
1) At one point he states, "Nothing is not nothing anymore, it is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles..."
Now, in order to remove this from a semantic debate I would like to define:
1) can be taken to mean he defines nothing as the '... bubbling virtual particles' or he means that nothing inevitably becomes ' ...bubbling virtual particles'. I am not sure what Krauss actually meant but I was discussing this with someone who said that he meant the latter; nothing means the absence of matter (particles) and his statement is referring to nothing eventually becoming virtual particles. For some explanation on this I was told that underlying fields can be found to give rise to these particles.
Now this is where the specificity of my question shifted from understanding what Krauss said (which if you understand it correctly can give some explanation) to what a field actually is.
My understanding of a field would be in the classical sense: a vector field of the velocity of fluid particles is a RESULT of the fluid particles. A gravitational field is the RESULT of the existence of particles with mass.
Correct me if I have some misinterpretation but I see the field as a description of the effects of matter; I see fields as a result of matter (or I suppose you can say elementary particles). A field cannot be said to exist without the presence of what creates it (I suppose it can also be said matter cannot exist without a field that determines it. It may be better not to look at it as a RESULT but as a mutual relationship.)
Either way, result or mutual relationship (one cannot be said to exist without the other):
Assuming that there is only nothing in a given area of space(no matter or particles what so ever) how can a field be said to exist to give rise to these virtual particles? I have no knowledge of quantum fields or quantum physics in general so perhaps there is a distinction between them and my conception of a 'classical field' that enables this. That's assuming the explanation I was told of Krauss's statements is correct to some extent... which I do not know.
Not immediately related but...
On wiki it states, "This utility leads to physicists believing that electromagnetic fields actually exist, making the field concept a supporting paradigm of the entire edifice of modern physics. That said, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman have entertained Newton's pre-field concept of action at a distance (although they put it on the back burner because of the ongoing utility of the field concept for research in general relativity and quantum electrodynamics)."
Out of curiosity: Does anyone have any further information on the Feynman and Wheeler remark (if it has merit)? ...or to what that is referring?
Thanks
I don't think the 'virtual particles from nothing' is a mainstream scientific theory but would like to discuss for the above reason. I have watched some videos of Lawrence Krauss discussing a 'Universe from Nothing' and have stumbled on some confusion.
1) At one point he states, "Nothing is not nothing anymore, it is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles..."
Now, in order to remove this from a semantic debate I would like to define:
1) can be taken to mean he defines nothing as the '... bubbling virtual particles' or he means that nothing inevitably becomes ' ...bubbling virtual particles'. I am not sure what Krauss actually meant but I was discussing this with someone who said that he meant the latter; nothing means the absence of matter (particles) and his statement is referring to nothing eventually becoming virtual particles. For some explanation on this I was told that underlying fields can be found to give rise to these particles.
Now this is where the specificity of my question shifted from understanding what Krauss said (which if you understand it correctly can give some explanation) to what a field actually is.
My understanding of a field would be in the classical sense: a vector field of the velocity of fluid particles is a RESULT of the fluid particles. A gravitational field is the RESULT of the existence of particles with mass.
Correct me if I have some misinterpretation but I see the field as a description of the effects of matter; I see fields as a result of matter (or I suppose you can say elementary particles). A field cannot be said to exist without the presence of what creates it (I suppose it can also be said matter cannot exist without a field that determines it. It may be better not to look at it as a RESULT but as a mutual relationship.)
Either way, result or mutual relationship (one cannot be said to exist without the other):
Assuming that there is only nothing in a given area of space(no matter or particles what so ever) how can a field be said to exist to give rise to these virtual particles? I have no knowledge of quantum fields or quantum physics in general so perhaps there is a distinction between them and my conception of a 'classical field' that enables this. That's assuming the explanation I was told of Krauss's statements is correct to some extent... which I do not know.
Not immediately related but...
On wiki it states, "This utility leads to physicists believing that electromagnetic fields actually exist, making the field concept a supporting paradigm of the entire edifice of modern physics. That said, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman have entertained Newton's pre-field concept of action at a distance (although they put it on the back burner because of the ongoing utility of the field concept for research in general relativity and quantum electrodynamics)."
Out of curiosity: Does anyone have any further information on the Feynman and Wheeler remark (if it has merit)? ...or to what that is referring?
Thanks