Philosophical Perspective: Need for Properties in a Relativistic Field?

In summary, the conversation touches on the philosophical and mathematical aspects of relativistic fields and their properties. The question is raised whether a relativistic field can have no properties without an object on it, and the concept of a field having no properties is challenged. It is also mentioned that space-time based quantum gravity theories have non-trivial properties, and that at a fundamental level, quantum fields are the "objects". The conversation also delves into the struggles of formulating properties for a new space and the concept of empty space in physics.
  • #1
bambambambambam
2
0
Philosophically speaking is there a need for a relativistic field to have no properties without an object on it? It seems like all throughout the history of mathematics there have been fields designed to describe the dynamics of specific particles, but isn't that necessarily a limit to their functionality?

Am I just imagining things or wouldn't it be possible to create a field with only properties relative to the objects it describes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For better or for worse, in general, classical formulations of general relativity have vacuums that have non-trivial properties. This is also generally true of space-time based quantum gravity theories like loop quantum gravity.
 
  • #3
I'm referring to the mathematical formulation of a relativistic field. Isn't it necessary for the field to have no properties without an object on it? Traditionally it seems like they all have some sort of mathematical properties that are their limits to describe things found on them.
 
  • #4
bambambambambam said:
I'm referring to the mathematical formulation of a relativistic field. Isn't it necessary for the field to have no properties without an object on it?

No. It is not necessary. It is a very plausible thing to think, but it is not, in general, true.
 
  • #5
bambambambambam said:
I'm referring to the mathematical formulation of a relativistic field.
Which formulation? (I have no idea of your background.)

When I see those words, I think: "Wignerian classification of elementary quantum fields as unitary irreducible representations of the Poincare group." But I'm guessing that's perhaps not what you had in mind?

Isn't it necessary for the field to have no properties without an object on it?
At the most fundamental level that we know of, quantum fields are the "objects".
 
  • #6
Well for example hilbert space exhibits orthogonality. Basically I am just thinking it seems like the formulation of any mathematical space inherently exhibits quantum mechanical problems of measurement. We make a space to fit a rule we find for some naturally occurring phenomena and suddenly it's no longer fit to describe others. It's sort of a moot point from the perspective of usefulness but my perspective is more philosophical/historical and I'm just curious what anyone might know about the process of formulating the properties of a space or the struggles that come from attempting to create a new one to fit some purpose, etc.
 
  • #7
Spacetime certainly has properties without anything in it.

If I remember correctly, completely empty space has an enourmous pressure and will expand rapidly?

In quantum physics it's also simply not possible to have space with nothing in it. You can be sure you start with no particles and you can be sure you ended with no particles. You can say nothing definitive about the in between.
 

Related to Philosophical Perspective: Need for Properties in a Relativistic Field?

1. What is the significance of properties in a relativistic field from a philosophical perspective?

From a philosophical perspective, properties play a crucial role in understanding the nature of reality in a relativistic field. They are the fundamental building blocks that make up the physical world and are essential in explaining the behavior of objects and events. Properties are also central to the concept of causation, as they determine how objects interact with each other.

2. How do properties relate to the theory of relativity?

In the theory of relativity, properties are seen as relative and dependent on the observer's frame of reference. This means that the properties of an object can be perceived differently by different observers depending on their relative motion. This concept challenges the traditional notion of absolute properties and highlights the importance of perspective in understanding reality.

3. What role do properties play in the concept of space and time in a relativistic field?

In a relativistic field, properties are closely linked to the concepts of space and time. They dictate how objects are located and move in space-time and are crucial in understanding the effects of gravity and acceleration. Properties also play a role in the concept of space-time curvature, which is a fundamental aspect of the theory of relativity.

4. Can properties exist independently of an observer in a relativistic field?

From a philosophical perspective, properties are seen as dependent on the observer's perception. This means that they do not exist independently of an observer's frame of reference. However, this does not diminish their importance in understanding the physical world, as they still play a crucial role in determining the behavior of objects and events.

5. How do properties contribute to our understanding of the nature of reality in a relativistic field?

Properties are essential in our understanding of the nature of reality in a relativistic field. They provide a framework for explaining the behavior of objects and events and offer a way to predict and control the physical world. Properties also challenge our traditional understanding of reality and highlight the importance of perspective in shaping our perception of the world around us.

Similar threads

A MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
A Uncovering the Combinatorial Origins of Yang-Mills Theory?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
546
Can ChatGPT Handle Complex Physics Questions Accurately?
    • General Discussion
6
Replies
190
Views
9K
I The general structure of relativistic QFTs
    • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
I Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
A Twistors and celestial holography
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
A Gravitational dressing in quantum field theory
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
A The double copy of (2,0) theory
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
A Is the quantum mechanics explanation for the propagation of light adequate enough to be understood?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
484
I QED Picture of static EM Fields
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
787

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top