What is Space Made Of? Exploring the Physical Components of the Universe

[Dale]

the debate is largely philosophical

Yes, the choice of interpretation is entirely philosophical, although for QM the scientific community pays slightly more attention to the debate than in most other branches of physics.

I don't believe it really gets to the heart of the OP's question unless you can define what the field is ontologically.

You may be right, but let's let the OP clarify. I did not get that impression. If he is indeed interested in the philosophy then this isn't the correct forum for the discussion. Philosophical discussions are usually avoided here, for very good reasons.

Yet, the interested lay person (reasonably, but naively) expects physics to be able tell them, in ontological terms, WHAT that "something" is.

In scientific terms that something is the fields, there is no logical or experimental need for anything more.

If someone wants a philosophical answer then they need to ask a philosopher, not a scientist. We should restrict the conversation here to the science, not push it into an unnecessary philosophical discussion which will need to be closed.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

The fields themselves are the substance of the linkage. The idea that some other substance is required is neither logically necessary nor experimentally motivated. This assumption is what I was objecting to above.

I should drop it at this point, but I can't help wondering if you find this explanation less objectionable.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

Never mind... Our posts crossed on the net.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the problem is that because we all view the world macroscopically, laypeople are used to the idea that forces and waves involve physical substances in physical contact with each other. That's what makes analogies like the rubber sheet analogy so useful: they speak to such prejudices. But it is also a prejudice that is tough to overcome.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

<<philosophy paper link deleted>>

I offer this paper as an example of why it is challenging for even a well educated lay person to visualize a quantum field as being an objective entity, in and of itself. I would argue that the vast majority of lay people expect physics to convey a "traditionally realistic" description of physical existence, and are confused and frustrated when that is not the case.

 

[Dale]

To the OP, if you are interested in a scientific discussion then please PM me and I will re-open the thread. The philosophical discussion is closed.