FloridaManPhysics

I have never seen that Feynman interview before and I never really considered it from that angle. I have to agree that it would be incredibly naive to attempt to ascribe an overly simplistic definition to something inherently complicated when you read the way he stated it. It made sense at first but that rebuttal is something i can't really argue with. I'll concede the stance. Appreciate the engagement. It was fun and enlightening, even if only for me. In the future ill have to be more aware of becoming hyperfixated on something that i fail to see the other angles approach. Thanks for time.

Respectfully, what fields ARE or ARE NOT made of is actually still up for debate since there is no clear ontological definition. But im not actually arguing that. And yes, when you begin to engage on a scholastic level, the fundamentals and math, come gradually along with the technical understanding of such things. But what about a child? Or a grocery store clerk? These people, usually, dont have any frame of reference for what those maths entail or even what the characters in each specific formula means. E=mc^2 is meaningless to someone if they dont know what it means. It was also clear to me, upon finishing my little thought experiment, that this MAY be one of those things that only meant something to me, but it was done from the frame of a lay person to help the lay person. Communication has many needs and seeding the idea of fields as, initially, something tangible that has an affect on our reality seemed like a worthy way to bring complete novices closer to a fundamental truth of that reality. The fact that something tangible can be so much easier to conceive for those people, may also help draw people with a curiosity towards the fields themselves. That is, admittedly, a very straightforward way to explain them, but what do you say when asked, "Where do the particles come from, then?" How would you explain, in a straightforward and intuitive way, that they come from nothing based on a mathmatical set of circumstances? I profer another angle to look at this: objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum despite their mass. While this is, technically, a "lie" and is only true in an idealized situation, the truth is far more complicated. I bring this up because what we are discussing, essentially, is the "lie" used to easily explain a thing that is not necessarily true in reality. The degrees of innacuracy may be different but the intent is the same.

Appreciate the interaction. If it wasnt clear, my apologies, the point of the proposal was to make communication of fields easier to understand, not an attempt to change anything in regards to mechanics. I believe a clear form of ontological communication could be valuable in a field where everything is defined by math. Adding tangibility to the description and communication of these concepts COULD help bring more people to the fields of physics, etc, whereas they may shy away from the complicated mathematical explanations that currently exist. Good point, but i do believe i clarified that i didnt actually mean "sheets" and stated that i only meant it as a placeholder vehicle to convey the concept. These fields are 3-Dimensional structures. The ideas of a potential sub-Planck-scale lattice work or spacing came up while i was trying to refine my idea and is BRIEFLY mentioned in my "essay" but those specific concepts are not something i have any related knowledge on so remain entirely speculative in nature. Honestly, it is VERY close to what i had in mind. The personal analogy i went with was a guitar string. The string is tangible. Its there and exists silently until plucked, emitting a note, before returning to its zero energy state of silence. Now, i simply posited, for the sake of attempting to explain the concept, that the string is composed of every note that it can emit. When strummed or "energized", it kicks one of those notes (particles) out.

Greetings, I've recently been exploring a speculative, philosophical idea to simplify how we view and communicate quantum fields and would appreciate the feedback. My conjecture is that fields could be imagined as "sheets" made of inert particles that respond to specific stimuli to produce their effects. The gist: -QFT (quantum field theory) describes fields as mathematical operators wherein potential exists at any given point for a particle of the the corresponding field to propagate. My aim with this thought experiment is to ground the concept in reality and make it more tangible, therefore making it's communication more effective to the lay-masses. -"Sheets": The word "sheet" is used as a placeholder and shouldn't suggest that I mean actual sheets. Instead I propose looking at these fields as full 3-Dimensional "fields" that are constructed of inert or dormant particles that are undetectable until excited or energized. -Goal: The model aims to make fields more intuitive, bridging the abstract math concepts of QFT with a tangible picture, much like string theory uses vibrating strings for particles in order to make the topic more accessible in the fields of science communication and education. Now, I'm not claiming any changes to the current standings of established physics. This is, first and foremost, a speculative thought experiment on the efficacy of the idea and to spark discussion. Some things about my current model that I'm curious about: -Could this analogy align with how fields work in QFT or classical physics? -What are the flaws or limitations to visualizing fields as particle-based "sheets"? -Are there any existing models that resonate or align with this idea? I'm open to critique and most definitely willing to indulge in detailed discussion about the idea. Hopefully this was enough to get the ball rolling. Below I'll be attaching a PDF that contains a, roughly, 1,000 word "essay" that I've constructed during the solo pondering section of this thought experiment. I'm sure it'll be hard to convince anyone to download and read it, but it's there if anyone wants it. Meanwhile, I'd be more than happy to begin engaging with discussion on the topic and spelling out the paper in the forum, should discussion warrant it. Fields+as+Sheets+of+Inert+Particles+(revision2).pdf