tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post4253979689066737852..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: What is more fundamental, field or particles?Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-21485007282269736552019-04-29T19:56:13.769-07:002019-04-29T19:56:13.769-07:00Right. All the confusion about mass-energy equival...Right. All the confusion about mass-energy equivalence disappears after you finally understand what Maxwell's E=mc2 equation means (see: Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].) In essence, it describes the transfer of internal motion to the macrocosm, which must contain aether particles to receive that motion.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-80766591200987428982019-04-29T18:50:41.874-07:002019-04-29T18:50:41.874-07:00I agree with everything you wrote in response to t...I agree with everything you wrote in response to the Wikipedia quote.I had the same thoughts when I read that the field "contains" energy. Orthodox physicists consider energy to be substantial. Here is what wikipedia states:<br />"In physics, mass–energy equivalence states that anything having mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa, with these fundamental quantities directly relating to one another by Albert Einstein's famous formula e=Mc2."<br /><br />I am puzzled by physicists who believe that something can "possess" momentum. But as these are the same people who have no trouble accepting the absurd concept of motion without matter, I probably should not be surprised by anything orthodox physicists say.George Coynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05437030688390128534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-61911006418959632582019-04-29T18:25:30.767-07:002019-04-29T18:25:30.767-07:00George:
Thanks. Let me comment on your Wikipedia ...George:<br /><br />Thanks. Let me comment on your Wikipedia quote: "In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space [GB: i.e., there needs to be microcosms with xyz dimensions, that is, "aether" particles] contains energy [GB: this is the typical regressive usage of the term "energy", the field cannot "contain" energy. Contents are always microcosms in motion, things with xyz dimensions. Energy does not exist, it is a calculation describing the behavior of that matter in motion and the motion of that matter.] and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum." [GB: This is a bow to the aether concept, which is theoretically required. Even Einstein admitted in 1920 there must be an aether, although he did not see it as theoretically required.] This has led physicists to consider electromagnetic fields to be a physical entity, making the field concept a supporting paradigm of the edifice of modern physics. "The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy [GB: Microcosms in motion can be described by the matter-motion terms, but they cannot "possess" momentum or energy.] makes it very real ... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have.”<br />Could not the same be said about aether? GB: Yes, as amended above.]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-79064164093635282582019-04-29T17:43:30.991-07:002019-04-29T17:43:30.991-07:00Here is what Wikipeida states regarding fields:“In...Here is what Wikipeida states regarding fields:“In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum." This has led physicists to consider electromagnetic fields to be a physical entity, making the field concept a supporting paradigm of the edifice of modern physics. "The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real ... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have.”<br /><br />Could not the same could be said about aether?George Coynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05437030688390128534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-57151943555132052782019-04-29T17:42:33.949-07:002019-04-29T17:42:33.949-07:00Here is what Wikipeida states regarding fields:“In...Here is what Wikipeida states regarding fields:“In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum." This has led physicists to consider electromagnetic fields to be a physical entity, making the field concept a supporting paradigm of the edifice of modern physics. "The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real ... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have.”<br />Could not the same could be said about aether?George Coynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05437030688390128534noreply@blogger.com