The discussion revolves around the philosophical implications of space and time as constructs of human imagination, particularly in the context of physics. Participants explore whether space and time are fundamental aspects of reality or merely useful models for understanding physical phenomena, touching on advanced topics such as quantum field theory and the holographic universe model.
Participants express differing interpretations of the role of space and time in physics, with some supporting the idea that they are merely constructs, while others argue for their fundamental existence in models of reality. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.
Participants reference advanced theoretical concepts and models without reaching consensus on their implications or validity. The discussion highlights the complexity and nuance surrounding the nature of space and time in physics.
Please provide a link.Rick16 said:I came across a post in another thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...teraction-between-mass-and-spacetime.1049104/PeterDonis said:Please provide a link.
All he means is that space and time are part of the model we use in relativity to make predictions. He refers to a quote from Einstein in his signature block, which you should be able to look up online to find its source.Rick16 said:The quote is from post #17.
The idea that space and time are mathematical artifacts, but quantum fields are not is ridiculous. A quantum field is, by definition, an abstract mathematical artifact. Even Hilbert Space is deeper down the mathematical rabbit hole than Euclidean or Lorentzian manifolds. Or, they are at least equally far down.Rick16 said:strangerep writes:
“Space and time are artifacts of our imagination (see the Einstein quote in my signature block below). They are useful concepts to construct mathematical models of physical (i.e., experimentally perceived) events. What's real are the correlations exhibited by (various configurations of) correlata, i.e., quantum fields, or, in a suitable limit, classical fields+particles.”
No, that's not what he was saying. He was just saying that, as I said in post #4, space and time are part of a model we use to make predictions. He contrasted that with actual events that we observe and measure, which are the things in reality that our models and their predictions are about.Rick16 said:This sounds to me like something that I have heard about before, that space and time do not exist at the fundamental level