Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Iwonderaboutthings

Is the electric field " really made up?"

Recommended Posts

The electric field isn't real. It's just something some guy (Michael Faraday) made up to make it easier to think about the universe.

 

http://physics.info/electric-field/

 

 

 

 

I was not sure of this was true, but it kinda makes sense??????? :wacko:

 

 

So what now do we do???

 

I am thinking that most formulas for electrical engineering are a waste of time coupled with so many others too.

 

 

Can these be upgraded :unsure: ?

 

 

This is really annoying and confusing, it seems now something is also leading to unresolved issues,

How can we invest so much time in science research when we deal with news like this most of the time?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All physics theories are just "made up" models that describe some aspect of the world. These models allow us to do useful things like predict the motion of planets, describe black holes, create formulas for electrical engineering, and so on.

 

Science is not about "truth"; just about better explanations and descriptions.

 

I'm not sure what unresolved issues you are referring to....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tool that we can use to solve physics problems. Charges behave as if the field was a real thing, so it's a moot point from the persepective of getting the right answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of straying too far into philosophy, what do you define as real? I suppose that it could be argued that nothing is "real". Also, the job of scientists is not to find one "truth" and stick with it, but to try their hardest to disprove every theory possible in order to get rid of all incorrect theories. As strange said, I don't understand what unresolved issues you are referring to, please clerify that. I hope that this post helped, if something didn't make sence let me know so I can correct it. Excellent topic by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of straying too far into philosophy, what do you define as real? I suppose that it could be argued that nothing is "real". Also, the job of scientists is not to find one "truth" and stick with it, but to try their hardest to disprove every theory possible in order to get rid of all incorrect theories. As strange said, I don't understand what unresolved issues you are referring to, please clerify that. I hope that this post helped, if something didn't make sence let me know so I can correct it. Excellent topic by the way.

 

I'm not sure exactly where on can draw the line, which is was part of my motivation for the thread. The other being that there are obvious instances where people are questioning the reality of something that physics doesn't assert is real, and trying to show that most of these calculational/conceptual tools make no claim of being real. For the most part physics won't care, because the goal is to get a model that correctly explains behavior of what we observe.

 

At one point in my career I would have insisted that photons are real, but one can make almost the same argument about them as one can about phonons: they are simply the manifestation of a vibrational mode of some electromagnetic system. What we call particles are also seen as resonances in some field being excited. We use such descriptions as particle because are convenient to use for our model, not because because we have any proof that the particle is the underlying truth. All we can say within the context of physics is that something is happening, and it behaves a certain way (enter mathematic model, stage left).

 

As opposed to something that appeared a few posts back, I am more inclined to say something is real the bigger the scale gets and the further we are from "fundamental" explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure exactly where on can draw the line, which is was part of my motivation for the thread. The other being that there are obvious instances where people are questioning the reality of something that physics doesn't assert is real, and trying to show that most of these calculational/conceptual tools make no claim of being real. For the most part physics won't care, because the goal is to get a model that correctly explains behavior of what we observe.

 

At one point in my career I would have insisted that photons are real, but one can make almost the same argument about them as one can about phonons: they are simply the manifestation of a vibrational mode of some electromagnetic system. What we call particles are also seen as resonances in some field being excited. We use such descriptions as particle because are convenient to use for our model, not because because we have any proof that the particle is the underlying truth. All we can say within the context of physics is that something is happening, and it behaves a certain way (enter mathematic model, stage left).

 

As opposed to something that appeared a few posts back, I am more inclined to say something is real the bigger the scale gets and the further we are from "fundamental" explanations.

I am very glad to read your reply, and would only hope to understand " then"

 

If photons are mass-less, I assume they also have no size then right??

 

They cannot be scaled, touched, felt, tasted etc, they are well " constant"

 

So then, how does physics describe how humans perceive the world macroscopically and microscopically??

 

 

As far as vision is concerned and photo receptors within the human eye's anatomy goes..

Does your same comment apply to what we see???

 

 

In other words, when a light photon enters our eyes, what " size" is the perceived " focus" of what we are sighting or focusing on??

 

 

I would only assume the size is point like and we are looking " everywhere in all directions" all at once, at all times, at all distance and with everyone on the face of this world?????

 

 

I guess a good question would be then, is white light black???

At the risk of straying too far into philosophy, what do you define as real? I suppose that it could be argued that nothing is "real". Also, the job of scientists is not to find one "truth" and stick with it, but to try their hardest to disprove every theory possible in order to get rid of all incorrect theories. As strange said, I don't understand what unresolved issues you are referring to, please clerify that. I hope that this post helped, if something didn't make sence let me know so I can correct it. Excellent topic by the way.

Proportional to the square of the distance that is a good unresolved issue, or better yet derivatives = 0 all the time, then we have the measurement problem in which basically describes perhaps ALL THE UNRESOLVED ISSUES...

 

About whats real??

 

Well, you are right with that one, however I don't really see too many scientist contributing for humanitarian purposes on a quest for a better world and a better system that describes nature and life, what I see are "scientist" making inventions IE, better lcd screens, touch tone cell phones, better diet plans, plastic surgery etc..

 

 

Now only in theory, is the world in terrible condition due to the " standard model" of science??

 

 

In other words, since science is a major influence on this planet and has a major role in politics, is the planet's condition a consequence of the application of science?

 

I assume this is where whats real and whats not would apply??? Free will perhaps???

All physics theories are just "made up" models that describe some aspect of the world. These models allow us to do useful things like predict the motion of planets, describe black holes, create formulas for electrical engineering, and so on.

 

Science is not about "truth"; just about better explanations and descriptions.

 

I'm not sure what unresolved issues you are referring to....

Theories are made up then " confirmed"

 

The mathematics too?

 

 

 

How about radiation therapy for cancer victims, are you saying that chemistry is made up too??

 

On the notion of a Theory being made, why then would any scientist have a debate on something made up???

 

Wouldn't it be pointless??

 

 

Sorry, this is all new to me, I am glad I bumped into that link!

It's a tool that we can use to solve physics problems. Charges behave as if the field was a real thing, so it's a moot point from the persepective of getting the right answer.

physics problems???

 

as in health problems too??

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photons are described by their properties: energy, momentum, frequency, wavelength.

They are all depending on another.

 

frequency = c/wavelength

so

wavelength = c/frequency

 

(h- Planck constant)

E=h*frequency

 

E=h*c/wavelength

 

p=E/c

 

E=p*c

 

Yet another is photon polarization.


As far as vision is concerned and photo receptors within the human eye's anatomy goes..

Does your same comment apply to what we see???

 

If we see light, photon has been absorbed by our eye receptors.

It disappeared from environment.

 

If photon is absorbed by some material it can't be absorbed by other.

Material is heated, accelerated, or other way storing additional energy that photon gave it.


I guess a good question would be then, is white light black???

 

Black color is lack of photons in visible spectrum (wavelengths between 380 nm to 700 nm). However they can be in other range. f.e. infra red.

White color is photons with at least red, green and blue visible spectrum.

 

Television, monitors use three diodes RGB. If they have equal power, our eye see mixture of them, white color.

 

See Newton's Color Wheel

http://www.scitechantiques.com/newtons-color-wheel/

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theories are made up then " confirmed"

 

The mathematics too?

 

The mathematics is part of the theory; you can't have a scientific theory without maths.

 

But if you mean pure maths (as opposed to maths just used as part of a theory) then that is different: that is proved exactly.

 

 

are you saying that chemistry is made up too??

 

The behaviour of chemical reactions is not made up - they are facts. Similarly evolution, gravity and the behaviour of electric charges are not made up, they are facts. What is "made up" is the theories or models that describe how they work.

 

 

On the notion of a Theory being made, why then would any scientist have a debate on something made up???

 

Wouldn't it be pointless??

 

Be careful: "made up" does not mean the same as making up a story. They are not just random imagination. They are precisely defined (i.e. mathematical) models that describe how things work.

 

Different people have different theories and models. They will argue about which best explains the evidence, which one makes predictions that can be tested, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

physics problems???

 

as in health problems too??

 

Different definition of problem.

 

"How long would it take a block to slide down this incline?" is an example of a physics problem. It require the application of a model (from Newton's laws of motion) and one can arrive at a prediction, which can potentially be matched with an experiment.

 

How about radiation therapy for cancer victims, are you saying that chemistry is made up too??

 

On the notion of a Theory being made, why then would any scientist have a debate on something made up???

 

Wouldn't it be pointless??

 

 

At one point, radiation therapy was an unknown process. Nobody knew that it would work. We use it because it has been shown to work, and we have an understanding of why it works. This is more than simply being made up, since ideas are tested and the ones that don't work are discarded. Every scientific theory has to be tested against experiment. That's the test it must pass. If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Different definition of problem.

 

"How long would it take a block to slide down this incline?" is an example of a physics problem. It require the application of a model (from Newton's laws of motion) and one can arrive at a prediction, which can potentially be matched with an experiment.

 

At one point, radiation therapy was an unknown process. Nobody knew that it would work. We use it because it has been shown to work, and we have an understanding of why it works. This is more than simply being made up, since ideas are tested and the ones that don't work are discarded. Every scientific theory has to be tested against experiment. That's the test it must pass. If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong.

Hymm I see now, the physical test prove the theory, but how many test and at the cost of what does this entail?

 

 

Does this mean that the test results are " only proven" with only that theory? Or can others come along with a better theory that is a better theory? For example here, one that actually defines " the number 1" ?

 

The mathematics is part of the theory; you can't have a scientific theory without maths.

 

But if you mean pure maths (as opposed to maths just used as part of a theory) then that is different: that is proved exactly.

 

 

The behaviour of chemical reactions is not made up - they are facts. Similarly evolution, gravity and the behaviour of electric charges are not made up, they are facts. What is "made up" is the theories or models that describe how they work.

 

 

Be careful: "made up" does not mean the same as making up a story. They are not just random imagination. They are precisely defined (i.e. mathematical) models that describe how things work.

 

Different people have different theories and models. They will argue about which best explains the evidence, which one makes predictions that can be tested, etc.

Hymm now I am even more confused here.

 

You say: "made up" does not mean the same as making up a story

 

 

I see that math would need to follow the path of a prediction in order to get something reasonable out of the theory that describes the nature of physics...

 

But wouldn't math " be a function" of something "made up and making something up"

 

I see inverses here, the waves of uncertainty, " frequency and time dilation" something relative to something else, I see

 

 

"THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM "

 

Not sure if that even sounded right... :unsure:

 

 

 

"made up" does not mean the same as making up a story

 

Hymm, are you sure???? How so???

Photons are described by their properties: energy, momentum, frequency, wavelength.

They are all depending on another.

 

frequency = c/wavelength

so

wavelength = c/frequency

 

(h- Planck constant)

E=h*frequency

 

E=h*c/wavelength

 

p=E/c

 

E=p*c

 

Yet another is photon polarization.

 

If we see light, photon has been absorbed by our eye receptors.

It disappeared from environment.

 

If photon is absorbed by some material it can't be absorbed by other.

Material is heated, accelerated, or other way storing additional energy that photon gave it.

 

Black color is lack of photons in visible spectrum (wavelengths between 380 nm to 700 nm). However they can be in other range. f.e. infra red.

White color is photons with at least red, green and blue visible spectrum.

 

Television, monitors use three diodes RGB. If they have equal power, our eye see mixture of them, white color.

 

See Newton's Color Wheel

http://www.scitechantiques.com/newtons-color-wheel/

Would you say that what we see " then" is the size of a "single photon"

 

 

For example, what ever is being reflected in these drops of water, is much much bigger, and yet the single drop fits the perimeter of the refracted or reflected image...

 

NOTE:

 

THEY ARE ALSO MULTIPLES OF 1, IN THIS CASE THE REFLECTED/ REFRACTED ORIGINAL IMAGE..

THEY ARE ALSO RANDOM IN SIZE...THE ORIGINAL "REMAINS UNCHANGED"

 

WHY???

 

It appears that distance, time and translation is also a visual representation of what we see??

In this case nothing like light photon, I mean massless photon?

 

What is "reality" if frequency information "electric field" is made up??

 

I am very confused ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Raindrops%20at%20the%20Villa%20copy-S.jp

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hymm I see now, the physical test prove the theory, but how many test and at the cost of what does this entail?

 

The physical test either supports the theory or contradicts it, to some degree. The extent to which it does depends on the details of the theory and the experiment, along with the cost. Some experiments are relatively inexpensive, some are very expensive.

 

 

Does this mean that the test results are " only proven" with only that theory? Or can others come along with a better theory that is a better theory? For example here, one that actually defines " the number 1" ?

Someone can always come along with a better theory — one that has a wider range of applicability or is more precise.

 

Defining the number 1 is math, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say: "made up" does not mean the same as making up a story

Because a story does not have to have any basis in reality. Harry Potter does not exist. There is no such thing as magic. etc.

 

However, a scientific theory or model is a representation if reality. That doesn't mean that the things in the theory (e.g. the electric field") are real. But then it isn't clear what "real" means. If the model works, then we might as well treat it as if it were real.

 

 

I see that math would need to follow the path of a prediction in order to get something reasonable out of the theory that describes the nature of physics...

 

Exactly, without the math, you cannot make testable predictions and therefore confirm (or refute) the theory.

 

 

But wouldn't math " be a function" of something "made up and making something up"

 

Math is different from scientific theory because it is provable. You can prove things to be true or false in math (which you can't do in science). So, for example, the "number 1" that you mention is not just an arbitrary invention someone made up; the properties of the natural numbers can be formally derived and proved in mathematics.

 

(This leads on to an even more difficult question about whether math exists outside of us and we discover it, or if it is a human invention. Most mathematicians seem to think we discover it. Many philosophers say that we invent it. Doesn't really matter.)

 

 

What is "reality" if frequency information "electric field" is made up??

 

The frequency information isn't made up. It is an observation; something we measure. The electric field is part of the model that explains how things work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The physical test either supports the theory or contradicts it, to some degree. The extent to which it does depends on the details of the theory and the experiment, along with the cost. Some experiments are relatively inexpensive, some are very expensive.

 

 

Someone can always come along with a better theory — one that has a wider range of applicability or is more precise.

 

Defining the number 1 is math, not science.

Defining the number 1 is math, not science?

So why does science use math??

 

Are they correlated in any way shape or form??

 

0 defines " nothing" are you saying that science is nothing??

 

 

Are these your words?

 

Defining the number 1 is math, not science.

 

Or maybe you meant to say, math defines a pre-destined path" and physics works much like a resistor ?

I'm trying to give ideas here..

 

 

 

1 " needs to be defined" otherwise you allow systems " at random" to not only share the same reference frame but also the history " IE evolution within...

 

 

Unless you are referring to the issues of " distance and exponentiation" linked to time, BUT! there is where imaginary units comes along to " help along"

Because a story does not have to have any basis in reality. Harry Potter does not exist. There is no such thing as magic. etc.

 

However, a scientific theory or model is a representation if reality. That doesn't mean that the things in the theory (e.g. the electric field") are real. But then it isn't clear what "real" means. If the model works, then we might as well treat it as if it were real.

 

 

Exactly, without the math, you cannot make testable predictions and therefore confirm (or refute) the theory.

 

 

Math is different from scientific theory because it is provable. You can prove things to be true or false in math (which you can't do in science). So, for example, the "number 1" that you mention is not just an arbitrary invention someone made up; the properties of the natural numbers can be formally derived and proved in mathematics.

 

(This leads on to an even more difficult question about whether math exists outside of us and we discover it, or if it is a human invention. Most mathematicians seem to think we discover it. Many philosophers say that we invent it. Doesn't really matter.)

 

 

The frequency information isn't made up. It is an observation; something we measure. The electric field is part of the model that explains how things work.

So then, the model " the math" the electric field.

 

What I see is:

 

 

Snells_law_wavefronts.gif

 

The static model, and the dynamic universe..Is this where magnetic waves, and stationary matter come in to explain the " causes and confusion" of why both physics and qm breakdown when it comes to applying " both" to the concept of black holes??

 

Distance" and exponentiation??? if that is the case with isotropic emissions then would the emission be " stationary?"

 

My opinion here, but there seem to be 2 complete separate subjects we are discussing..

Basically 0s and 1s, what are they>>>?

 

 

 

Remember My raindrops and refraction question?

 

For example, what ever is being reflected in these drops of water, is much much bigger, and yet the single drop fits the perimeter of the refracted or reflected image...

Not to make matters any worse, but we also have two eyeballs to deal with " um " too" :wacko:

I guess the problem is choice....

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defining the number 1 is math, not science?

So why does science use math??

 

Are they correlated in any way shape or form??

 

0 defines " nothing" are you saying that science is nothing??

 

 

Are these your words?

 

Defining the number 1 is math, not science.

 

Or maybe you meant to say, math defines a pre-destined path" and physics works much like a resistor ?

I'm trying to give ideas here..

 

 

 

I said what I meant. No need to offer up alternatives. Science is concerned with describing how nature behaves. Math is under no such restriction. We use math because it's a precise language and allows us to quantify things, but any mystery you find in the number 1 is a question of math, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I said what I meant. No need to offer up alternatives. Science is concerned with describing how nature behaves. Math is under no such restriction. We use math because it's a precise language and allows us to quantify things, but any mystery you find in the number 1 is a question of math, not science.

 

Math is under no such restriction??? YOU MUST BE KIDDING RIGHT?

 

What about the laws of algebra?

Field axioms?

Radix dot and round off errors??

 

Complex Conjugates and Constants used in math??

 

Maybe, "Math Formulas" Have a design of their own some of us are not aware of????

 

 

 

 

So as per science, not using math, why are refracted images " plural" dimensional and uniform in size from the reflected source, regardless of their " size themselves?

 

 

which images " regardless of its size" is the "original image" and if you may, without math, can we resolve the issues of indistinguishability?

 

On another note, in relation to " time and frequency" is there another method science prefers other than " the word mysterious" that describes:

 

 

Something invisible: IE: gravity

 

Something intangible IE: gravity

 

Something Parallel IE: gravity

 

Something that encapsulate the outer regions of this planet IE: gravity

 

Something that " i have been told here" that has no effects at the atomic scale IE: gravity

 

 

I am serious when I am asking these questions by the way..

 

Is there another word other than mysterious we " ponderers out here " can use that describes something invisible so we can fully understand what we are talking about??

 

 

DSC_0141-11x14.jpg

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Math is under no such restriction??? YOU MUST BE KIDDING RIGHT?

 

No, not at all. Math need no have any application to the physical world. I can have orthogonal mathematical functions that have an infinite number of dimensions. There's abstract math and weird geometries and more that people study that have no application to the physical world. That's not to say that someone won't eventually find an application, but the fields are studied for their own sake, not because there is a physical application.

 

Simple example: a Klein bottle. A 3-D entity which closes in on itself with no intersections, basically a 3D version of a Möbius strip. Impossible to physically exist, but trivial to represent in mathematical terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, not at all. Math need no have any application to the physical world. I can have orthogonal mathematical functions that have an infinite number of dimensions. There's abstract math and weird geometries and more that people study that have no application to the physical world. That's not to say that someone won't eventually find an application, but the fields are studied for their own sake, not because there is a physical application.

 

Simple example: a Klein bottle. A 3-D entity which closes in on itself with no intersections, basically a 3D version of a Möbius strip. Impossible to physically exist, but trivial to represent in mathematical terms.

NOW I 100% GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING...

 

IN THIS:

 

I can have orthogonal mathematical functions that have an infinite number of dimensions. YOU NAILED IT VERY GOOD ON THE DOT...

 

I always wondered about this very thing! And it frustrated me very much. I think I am at the level now in where I am understanding that science is way more than just numbers and mathematical relations.

 

 

So about infinite, how can we place a limit on something " physically" infinite though??? ;)

And yet expect some type of meaningful prediction?

 

The only thing I would assume would be the limit on the physical system's energy?

In this case, the mass and the diameter...I see this to be the only method we have that allows something physical described by numbers and math.

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.