Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Field constituents

  1. Mar 6, 2009 #1
    Of what are fields made? Sort of sounds like ether.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 6, 2009 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Could you please list out all the properties and characteristics of fields and all the properties of the classical ether, and point out how you deduced that they "sound" alike?

    Zz.
     
  4. Mar 6, 2009 #3
    "sound" alike?

    Zz.[/QUOTE]

    From what little I know of fields, they seem to "fill up' space. This seems similiar to , or sounds like, ether.
     
  5. Mar 6, 2009 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    So you pick up on ONE characteristics and somehow this is sufficient to make the comparison? A chicken is edible, and so is an apple, so they both "sound" alike?

    Zz.
     
  6. Mar 6, 2009 #5
    Sure; if it seems to be a salient characteristic. I surmise there is a compare/contrast list between ether and fields. But, the point of orignal question is about what makes up fields.
     
  7. Mar 6, 2009 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    So the obvious fact that the classical ether has not been detected while the properties of quantum fields have makes no difference to you?

    Zz.
     
  8. Mar 6, 2009 #7
    makes no difference to you?

    Zz.[/QUOTE]

    It does make a difference. Although, with this thread; I'd rather stay with the original question.
     
  9. Mar 6, 2009 #8

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    But this IS related to your original question, because it renders your claim that they "sound" alike to be false. Thus, the original premise is not valid because of this one, very important, distinction.

    Zz.
     
  10. Mar 6, 2009 #9
     
  11. Mar 6, 2009 #10
    From a classical perspective, a field can be regarded as a smooth, continuous wavelike phenomena; from a quantum mechanical perspective, the field is seen as quantized, being composed of individual photons. A good way to visualize a field is the old magnetic and iron filings...clearly the field carries energy to push the iron filings into an alignment pattern...

    How the field is described usually depends on the model you choose...nobody knows the constituent(s) any more than we know those of matter, space,time,energy...we have working models that usually do a good job of predicting most experimental results....how all the constituents "fall from" an initially unstable high energy "big bang" phase transition to what we see today (as separate electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear fields, for example,) remains fundamentally unclear. "Unification" (of relativity and quantum mechanics, maybe string theory, quantum field theory,etc) seeks to explain much of this...we'll see how it turns out.
     
  12. Mar 10, 2009 #11
    ...nobody knows the constituent(s) any more than we know those of matter, space,time,energy...

    So, when Wiki says that particles are "chunked ripples in the field"; they don't know what the ripples are in?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Field constituents
Loading...