B Does a field with 0 value "exist"?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter black hole 123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Value
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the nature of electromagnetic (EM) fields, particularly whether a field with a uniformly zero value can be said to exist. There is a philosophical angle regarding the implications of such fields on the existence of other fields and their relevance in scientific theories. The idea of parsimony in scientific theory is emphasized, suggesting that if a field does not contribute to predictions or interactions, its existence may be unnecessary. Participants consider whether a field that is sometimes present and sometimes not is more parsimonious than one that is always present but has a zero value at times. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the need for measurable differences in theories to validate the existence of such fields.
black hole 123
Messages
36
Reaction score
2
this has bugged me for quite a while. i was listen to chalmers talk about consciousness and making comparison consciousness to the field generated by a mass/charged particle. i know this is slightly philosophical question, but does a field with uniformly 0 value exist in the sense we mean tree/people exist? the problem is, if you say in a room with no charges, a EM field will 0 value exists in that room, then i can just postulate an infinity of other fields existing but they just have 0 value. if you say it doesn't exist, then that sort of implies EM fields with non 0 value don't exist either.

sorry if this sounds philosophical, i know the rules of this forum very well i don't have any bad intentions, I am just stumped by this thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I tend to think of the field as existing everywhere and just having a value of 0 in some locations. But to be honest I cannot see what difference it could possibly make.
 
black hole 123 said:
if u say in a room with no charges, a EM field will 0 value exists in that room, then i can just postulate an infinity of other fields existing but they just have 0 value.
So what? If they don't do anything then what's the point of speculating about whether or not they exist? This is the point of applying parsimony in scientific theory. If you add something to a theory and it doesn't change the predictions, someone else is going to take it back out because the simpler theory does the job.

The only question is whether having a field that's sometimes there and sometimes not is a more parsimonious concept than a field that's always there but sometimes zero. Like Dale I tend to the latter interpretation, but I've certainly used language that implies the former. Unless you can construct a theory that makes different predictions in the two cases, it isn't a question with a scientific answer.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
black hole 123 said:
... i can just postulate an infinity of other fields existing but they just have 0 value...
Sure, have a field day with that.
 
  • Like
Likes king vitamin, nasu, Ibix and 2 others
A.T. said:
Sure, have a field day with that.

That sure came out of left field.
 
  • Like
Likes WhatIsGravity, king vitamin, A.T. and 2 others
LOL :biggrin:
 
If there's a field that always has the same value at any point in spacetime, it could just as well be modeled as a constant source term in the field equations of anything it interacts with. If it can have some other value that can be measured, then it should be regarded as an actual field.
 
Back
Top