Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Photons act pretty much like waves, not like BBs at all.

Agreed, but don't people treat the experiment as though it shows the entire particle being in two places at the same time?

ETA:

The page you referred to on the relativity denial site operates on the assumption that when mainstream experiments failed to show evidence of aether, the experiments were somehow interpreted wrong, so he's claiming that there is a luminiferous aether after all.

Just to be clear, I'm not interested in the relativity denial stuff. I know that motion is relative. I also hate that luminiferous aether term, it makes me think of that rarefied gas stuff and I don't buy that aether theory. I'm curious about the possibility of a different kind though, I guess.

If space is a field of ground state vacuum energy (as a minimum?) can light be the product of the quantized energy/wave packet/ propagating through disturbing/waving the field so to speak?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
The wave packet is all over the place, it covers millions of places, not just two. So you could think of it as being a million or more places at the same time. It's just that in the double slit experiment it only has two slits that it can go through so it goes through both as long as you don't "collapse the wave function".

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
If space is a field of ground state vacuum energy (as a minimum?) can light be the product of the quantized energy/wave packet/ propagating through disturbing/waving the field so to speak?

I don't really know, and can't speak too confidently about vacuum energy with issues like the vacuum catastrophe and the fact that we don't understand why the vacuum energy has the value we measure, but I think of light as being more self propagating, with such propagation being distorted by distortions in space-time from gravity. Maybe dragonridr or Eros can shed some light on that question that I can't.

I can tell you that Einstein referred to what we now call "space-time" as a "new aether", but the term never stuck.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Photons act pretty much like waves, not like BBs at all.

Agreed, but don't people treat the experiment as though it shows the entire particle being in two places at the same time?

ETA:

The page you referred to on the relativity denial site operates on the assumption that when mainstream experiments failed to show evidence of aether, the experiments were somehow interpreted wrong, so he's claiming that there is a luminiferous aether after all.

Just to be clear, I'm not interested in the relativity denial stuff. I know that motion is relative. I also hate that luminiferous aether term, it makes me think of that rarefied gas stuff and I don't buy that aether theory. I'm curious about the possibility of a different kind though, I guess.

If space is a field of ground state vacuum energy (as a minimum?) can light be the product of the quantized energy/wave packet/ propagating through disturbing/waving the field so to speak?

Your not going to like the answer but yes light travels through a field and no it doesnt isnt science fun. Think about it lights is a wave in order to travel a wave has to disturb something in our case its energy.But i want you to understand this in in QFT not the standard model for example. Ok how to explain this i guess lets start with all matter in the universe is surrounded by 2-Dimensional space.In our universe 2-Dimensional space (Electromagnetic Vacuum) produces a Tension around our Galaxy, it envelopes the Milky way, whilst the 3-Dimensional matter contained in our Galaxy offset this tension with a Photon Pressure (3-Dimensional outward pouring of light/particles), the only thing that can travel through the E-M-V is waves!

The configuration of 3-Dimensional Particles are collapsed through the Vacuum 2-D space, until it meets the outward Photon pressure of another 3-D object, and so the energy of Macro 3-Dimensional matter can be seen to be travelling through a un-observed medium (2-D Vacuum) which contracts the Matter into waves, and then through interactions is 'expanded' or transformed back into visible and full 3-D energy's like particles.This is lorentz transformations at its most basic.

This is the point i have been trying to find a way for people to understand it all comes back to vacuum energy which is everywhere at every point in space. In QFT its this energy that allows fields to propagate so you cant really say its a field more its energy that creates the fields the fields is our way of explaining the interactions. Does that make some sense to you?


en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: dragonridr

... lets start with all matter in the universe is surrounded by 2-Dimensional space.

please explain further...
how space is 2D ? or what do you mean by that ?

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

... lets start with all matter in the universe is surrounded by 2-Dimensional space.

please explain further...
how space is 2D ? or what do you mean by that ?

Well its what would be called 2 dimensional vectors in fact its what defines the maximum speed of light one. one space unit per one time unit this is the “speed of light” in this 2-D. The photon has no other properties while traveling through 2 d space remember its a wave. What we can’t get with two dimensions are particles. In two dimensions any effect always propagates at the speed of light. Now space has whats called vectors simply a point in space. These vectors think of them as energy sitting in a point at space each have there own value. There most basic interaction is 2-Dimensional light acting as a wave function. But we can interact 3D objects with these vectors forcing them to act 3 dimensional as well. Such as measuring the location of a particle like a photon.Ill explain better laterim on my phone makes this alot harder.

a reply to: dragonridr
No rush, we got time.

One more question to add. How many 2D planes would equal the thickness dimension of a single layer of graphene?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr
No rush, we got time.

One more question to add. How many 2D planes would equal the thickness dimension of a single layer of graphene?

Ok you misunderstand what i mean by 2 D space so lets set that aside for a minute just realize this is a way for us to show math of light propagating throughout empty space as a wave.We show it as values in vectored space. This is why i said the answer is right and wrong earlier math wise indeed it travels through a field but in the real world no it doesn't need a field. Lets talk about that energy i was talking about anyone who read science knows about the virtual particles in a vacuum state. We would see this as a virtual photon like mentioned earlier in our discussions. This has to do with duality i also mentioned earlier particles can be waves or particles. Now in particle interactions this becomes important namely electron transfers for example.

Now back to 2 D space the reason its referenced as 2 D is not like your thinking you picture an alternate dimension but its not its part of our universe a sub space if you will. As all other particles, photons obey rules of quantum mechanics. These rules basically say that propagation of particles in space is (to a certain degree) random. Generally, it is not possible to predict at which point in space the photon will be found if we decided to measure its position.The wave function should not be imagined as some kind of "substance" propagating in space. Actually, wave functions are just mathematical abstractions, whose only purpose is in assisting our calculations of probabilities of observed physical events (like detection of photons at a certain position in space). Since wave functions are not material "substances", there is no point to invent any "medium" for their propagation.



This changes when we place matter into the picture two particles use a photon to transfer energy at its most basic that all EM is just energy.This is where that latent energy of the universe enters the picture it helps this energy transfer between two particles. This is light propagating through a medium. The thing is with light its unusual when people hear well it acts like a particle or it acts like a wave skip that light has its own properties some actions it acts like a particle others it acts like a wave. Key word acts like it has its own distinct properties. Now the fields we talk about are numbers at a point in space a vector. These vectors show us the amount of energy at a point like between to particles we can cause this energy to temporarily increase without ever violating any laws because the reactions are so quick (this is the virtual part i hate the name it leads to confusion).Im going to have to find a better way to explain this problem is talking with physics majors i can walk you through it but attempting this without the background is a challenge. Realize equations require years of study to completely understand and even then there is still confusion and arguments. ill come back to this im thinking i need to present this more as step by step process.

a reply to: dragonridr
Here are my questions about this topic. First let me post a source that may partially explain why I was reluctant to attempt to answer DenyObfuscation's question:

plato.stanford.edu...

...non-relativistic QM, although it cannot be the correct theory in the end, has its empirical successes. But it can never be the appropriate framework for electromagnetic phenomena because electrodynamics, which prominently encompasses a description of the behavior of light, is already relativistically invariant and therefore incompatible with QM. Scattering experiments are another context in which QM fails. Since the involved particles are often accelerated almost up to the speed of light, relativistic effects can no longer be neglected. For that reason scattering experiments can only be correctly grasped by QFT.

Unfortunately, the catchy characterization of QFT as the successful merging of QM and SRT has its limits.

Then it goes on to describe the limits which I'm not sure I understand all that well and that's one reason i wasn't confident in answering. Can you dumb those limits down a little bit or at least put the uncertainty of the model in context with respect to the difficulty in merging quantum and relativity models, and also the following issues?

Prior to 1998 most everybody seemed to agree with Einstein's admission that the cosmological constant for relativity was his biggest blunder, but after the discovery of dark energy in 1998 people started saying maybe Einstein was right after all and the cosmological constant has a non-zero value which represents the newly discovered form of vacuum energy. What bearing if any does this have on the model and our confidence in its accuracy?

How about the vacuum catastrophe? Does that cast any doubts on our confidence of the quantum field theory model, and if so, how much, and if not, how can it not?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Getting ready to go to bed so this will be quick but im more than familiar with the vacuum catastrophe physics studenta are fascinated by it.So i can quickly explain Quantum mechanics predicts a very large energy density for a vacuum. According to quantum field theory the energy of empty space can’t quite be zero. In fact, QFT gives us an exact value for how much energy empty space should have. Although we can never access that energy, it does have a gravitational effect. This goes back to energy = mass well Voyager probes allowed us to estimate how strong those gravitational effects are. Unfortunately, they determined that the theoretical predictions are wrong and not by a little bit i think it was 10-29 anyway we have alot less energy than we thought because gravity tells us we do. now theres people out there that argue the probe is just wrong for various reasons i wont go into but i dont believe that to be the case. i guess ill quickly explain why gravity tells us the energy is wrong ok lets use an example i need to talk about ground states.

So there’s a ground state energy for each frequency of light. Looking at all the frequencies up to Omega you find that the ground state energy density is proportional to Omega^4.Now there is a large amont of frequencies in fact we dont know where the upper limit is. As far as we know there may be no upper limit, which would imply that the ground state energy is infinite.Now as i said there our multiple guesses if you will just how hi a frequency can go based on highest energy photon observed or created by cern for example.But this tells usthe upper limit is so large that zero point energy should just be mind bendingly huge. Now with all this energy well thats going to effect the universe we should see the effects in gravity.what are we looking for? Well you’d expect the velocity of orbiting objects to all be about the same, regardless of the size of the orbit. But, to the best of our ability to measure (which is pretty good), no effect has been seen at all in terms of the movement of stars and planets and so forth.And when its all said and done you have to fall back on observation, so something about our favorite theory is wrong.

So why not just abandon the whole zero point energy idea? Why not say it’s clearly not around, so let’s move on? Well we can detect it we know its there i know the ultimate contradiction right? So, just like quantum field theory predicted, there is some ground state energy (QFT shoots and scores) . However, the theory also predicts that there should be so much energy that its gravitational effects would overwhelm the gravity of everything else big fail (Shoots and misses the court ).So what it means is were missing something problem is were not sure where is it in gravity are math or something that effects gravity? Now ill say its not a big deal will figure it out eventually the only reason people make a huge deal of it is frankly all the successes we have had in predicting results in the past couple of decades. But this is nothing new in Einsteins day practically every experiment they ran gave unusual results so its a stumbling bloc but the only reason we even notice is because until this all the predictions have been dead on. As they say cant win every time.Mostlikely were justmissing something we didnt put inot the calculations but for now we havnt a clue what it is only that its damn important.

Did that help you any?

a reply to: dragonridr
I guess I asked too much at once. I pretty much already understood most of what you said and agree that the observational data of dark energy which may be vacuum energy shows a small non-zero value many orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by QFT, and I suppose the popular view is that there might be something cancelling out the huge predicted value to yield the small non-zero value we measure, but we don't know what is cancelling it out.

So I guess the answer I was looking for was something much shorter and simpler along the lines of "yes we know about that but here are the reasons we still have confidence in the model in spite of that (list reasons); and yes QFT has been claimed to successfully unite QM and SRT though it really hasn't because of these limitations (clarify limitations) which only affect special cases like black holes (or whatever) so it we still have a high confidence in its applicability to the propagation of light in spite of those (if we do)." I'm not saying that's the answer I want just that type of content, even if the conclusions are different from those stated in the example.

Did you follow that quote I posted from the Stanford source; did that make sense to you?

a reply to: dragonridr

Ok you misunderstand what i mean by 2 D space

Do I? You are speaking of it as though it's real. I am not surrounded by 2D space. 2D is fine for math but problems can arise when abstractions become considered real. This is just a minor example.

Is it possible to discuss this without abstractions? Like you said, wave function is not a substance. I don't even think a photon is real. It only exists in math. In reality, we don't say a water molecule is a particle and a wave (as in the wave of water). Of course a molecule is defined but I don't know and haven't found details about how a photon is defined.

Maybe this will help me, how is a photon/wave packet/discrete bundle quantified? Is it a set inseparable "energy value"?

When a photon is said to pass through both slits are you saying the entire quantity of the photon does so through each slit?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
I don't even think a photon is real. It only exists in math.

A photon must be real or you wouldn't be able to read what you're reading on this message board.

Maybe this will help me, how is a photon/wave packet/discrete bundle quantified? Is it a set inseparable "energy value"?

I partially answered that question with the diagram in this post, at the top of page 36, near the bottom of the post.

It shows an electron getting excited from the "ground state" orbital to some higher energy level orbital. Then when it goes back to the ground state, it loses an amount of energy specifically defined by the difference in those two orbitals. The diagram shows several higher orbitals and each one has a different energy level.

The energy of the emitted photon is exactly equal to the energy lost by the electron when it goes to the lower orbital. The photons can for example be different colors corresponding to different energy levels (each color has a different frequency and hence energy level).

It's helpful to study spectroscopy which shows specific lines for these specific energy levels between different electron orbitals, and this is how we can identify the composition of matter because each element has a different set of spectral lines, a unique signature of different available photon energy levels, as shown here:

When the electron falls from a higher energy lever to a lower energy level it will release the energy by emitting light with this energy. Since every kind of atom has a different electronic configuration, the wavelengths of light absorbed or emitted by an element are unique to that element. It is like an atomic fingerprint. The fingerprint recorded by measuring which types of light an atom absorbs is called the Atomic Absorption Spectrum. The fingerprint recorded by looking at which wavelengths of light an atom emits is called the Atomic Emission Spectrum.

This is one of the coolest things in science to me, that we can tell what distant stars are made of without having to go collect a sample of them.

When a photon is said to pass through both slits are you saying the entire quantity of the photon does so through each slit?

It's impossible to measure this because when you try to measure what the photon does, the "wave function collapses" and the entire photon goes through only one slit. I'd guess that on average about half the energy passes through each slit if it's still a wave, though could be 60/40 one time and 40/60 the next time (percent of energy through each slit), but I'm not sure and like I said it can't be measured, because it's always 100% through one slit and 0% through the other slit if you try to measure it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
I guess I asked too much at once. I pretty much already understood most of what you said and agree that the observational data of dark energy which may be vacuum energy shows a small non-zero value many orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by QFT, and I suppose the popular view is that there might be something cancelling out the huge predicted value to yield the small non-zero value we measure, but we don't know what is cancelling it out.

So I guess the answer I was looking for was something much shorter and simpler along the lines of "yes we know about that but here are the reasons we still have confidence in the model in spite of that (list reasons); and yes QFT has been claimed to successfully unite QM and SRT though it really hasn't because of these limitations (clarify limitations) which only affect special cases like black holes (or whatever) so it we still have a high confidence in its applicability to the propagation of light in spite of those (if we do)." I'm not saying that's the answer I want just that type of content, even if the conclusions are different from those stated in the example.

Did you follow that quote I posted from the Stanford source; did that make sense to you?

Did you notice earlier i made a distinction between particle interactions and light traveling through 2 D space?The reason is one is relativity the other is QFT. QFT isnt good at explaining photons actions by any means because we have to add something into the equation that causes it to fall apart and that something is time itself. QFT doesnt attempt to model the the effects of time and well to be honest it cant. When a photon is moving at the speed of light remember time stops for that photon. Just this one factor alters its interactions yhis is the basis of probability. When time is irrelevant a photon can be anywhere and everywhere. For example like the double slit experiment what crashes the wave function the act of trying to make light be at a particular place at a particular time. Will we ever merge them maybe but i always look at them as not as being incomplete more like parts of the correct answer we do know. Making them incredibly useful in figuring out the parts we dont. The final theory isnt going to be based on either one ill bet but relativity will turn out to be a branch of the larger theory much like QFT is a branch of QM. As far as your Stanford paper very confusing its almost like the author had a debate with himself. Im thinking this is more philosophical than i like dealing with lol. Lets just say did you notice how he continually makes a premise then starts backtracking from it? If i were grading it for a student were talking d he never actually gets to his point.

a reply to: dragonridr
Thanks for that reply which was way more helpful than the previous one; though I appreciate both, it's just that the previous reply told me things I already knew and the latest reply expanded my understanding.

I am not enough of an expert to evaluate the technical content of the Stanford paper (though at least some of what he says is consistent with my limited understanding), but personally I didn't have a problem with the writing style. I think the mark of a good scientist is that he or she will play "devils advocate" and try to find all the holes or flaws in their own hypothesis, theory or interpretation of experimental results even more vigorously than their critics will do, so they can be better prepared to defend them or at least recognize the vulnerabilities and do all they can to address them. So what you see as maybe indecisiveness or "waffling", I see as looking at pros and cons.

Probably one of my favorite examples of presenting multiple viewpoints is from John Baez, which is quite relevant since we're discussing vacuum energy. He addresses the question of the energy density of the vacuum, and presents 5 different answers using 5 different calculation methods. You may see it as waffling to the max but at least he does say which answer he thinks is probably correct:

What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?

Personally I find it very helpful that he lists 4 answers that he thinks are wrong in addition to the right one, including the "vacuum castrophe" figure as one of those.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr

Ok you misunderstand what i mean by 2 D space

Do I? You are speaking of it as though it's real. I am not surrounded by 2D space. 2D is fine for math but problems can arise when abstractions become considered real. This is just a minor example.

Is it possible to discuss this without abstractions? Like you said, wave function is not a substance. I don't even think a photon is real. It only exists in math. In reality, we don't say a water molecule is a particle and a wave (as in the wave of water). Of course a molecule is defined but I don't know and haven't found details about how a photon is defined.

Maybe this will help me, how is a photon/wave packet/discrete bundle quantified? Is it a set inseparable "energy value"?

At its most basic form a photon is energy think of it as its own system with its own ground state. It turns out that every frequency of the EM field, at every point in space, is its own tiny system. This is where we get the term Quanta from meaning a very small energy packet. Photons are nothing more than the movement of energy from one place to another it just has certain properties depending on what it encounters.The key to light is simply frequency think of it as a frequency first people are familiar with radio waves and there frequency light is no different.

When a photon is said to pass through both slits are you saying the entire quantity of the photon does so through each slit?

No Its not a partial energy thing either. See the problem with this experiment is it told us the universe isnt what it seems. and the problem with answering this question is anyone that tells you they know is lying. its easier to tell you what we did learn from it. The wave function of the electron always spreads out throughout the universe, although with very little amplitude where it is very unlikely to be. Much like throwing a rock in the middle of a lake the waves radiate outward anywhere in this area could be are photon even more confusing is its everywhere in that area. This is that trick of time i mentioned earlier time is irrelevant to our photon remember hes traveling at the speed of light. And what happens when you travel at the speed of light time stops for you relative to the rest of the universe.

In our double slit experiment we have to move to probability to explain it because time is involved are particle passed through both slits it also didnt pass through either and also only passed through one. Remember photons dont care about time we do only when we try to make a photon adhere to are time do we see one of the possible interactions. Now why this occurs well we have theories the best i guess being the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. However there is another theory i do like involving quantum entanglement which i think were going to find is the answer to the problem so instead of just being able to model what is happening we may learn why.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Where are the fields, what do they look like, what do they appear as to themselves, if one could see and feel and observe everything that exists, what does the EM field appear as, and how does it work, step by step, planck length by planck length and planck time by planck time.... how long is a light Electric field until it turns into a magnetic field, and how long is it a magnetic field till it turns to electric field? Thats related to its amplitude and wavelength I suppose. Is light destroyed by local magnetic or electric fields? Not destroyed you know, but absorbed?

You know, there are these things called "physics textbooks" and they talk about this subject. I 've told you about a very good one for intuitive understanding---but others can be good as well. They have equations of motion and diagrams demonstrating their effects. There are also educational simulations about what you want as well.

Time to deny ignorance and work.

m or gif, of what the smartest physicists in the world think it looks like for an electron to be accelerated, and then subsequent, EM radiation to be propagated from that point, and the most detailed showing, of how that EM radiation propagates from the electron, what it appears as.

Because I know we cant see it as it propagates, we only see and detect when we finally end the propagation of EM radiation, but if they are claiming to know how it behaves, what it is, how it works... Please... find me that diagram.

It should be the simplest thing to find. Hundred years of knowing physics,I feel this isnt much to ask for. I dont care if you answer anything else in this reply or of me ever again. Thats all I want you to read of this post, the 'show me a diagram' sentence right above. Physicistspeed.

How about trying Google?

www.falstad.com...

www.ph.utexas.edu...

There was one applet which I can't find now which let you shake a charge around with a mouse and you would see the propagating fields as a consequence.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Is it possible to discuss this without abstractions?

No.

Like you said, wave function is not a substance. I don't even think a photon is real. It only exists in math.

The human word and conceptual framework is in human minds, and represented mathematically.

However, this mathematical framework leads to exceptionally powerful predictions of what is observed to happen---and that's as good a practical definition of "real" as any other used in human experience.

In reality, we don't say a water molecule is a particle and a wave (as in the wave of water). Of course a molecule is defined but I don't know and haven't found details about how a photon is defined.

Maybe this will help me, how is a photon/wave packet/discrete bundle quantified? Is it a set inseparable "energy value"?

Do you know basic electromagnetics? Fourier representations? Think of representations of functions (in this case the electromagnetic fields) as sums of 'basis' functions. Roughly a photon represents the elementary single 'term' in a huge series expansion, necessary to be able to encode properties which represent the physical fact which is that in some ways the electromagnetic field has properties not describable by the continuous linear differential equations of Maxwell, but that there is some extra constraints on the 'basis' functions and how they work.



In Maxwell's equations in free space you don't need any 'eigenfunctions' to build up your solution (though you could use them), you can write down solutions as entire continuous values. But with quantum mechanics the nature of the eigenfunctions of electromagnetism (Photons) become important, even in free space.

Think of JPEG compression vs a perfect continuous color scene (not even pixels on a monitor). Changing certain bits of JPEG represntation means that "stuff happens" in the image space, and there is not complete freedom with a finite number of JPEG bits to represent any possible color scene, but you can build up an approximation. Photons are useful because there are in effect laws of of physics which are more simply represented and predictive in a 'photon space', like making transformations on the "JPEG bits", the compressed representation.

Photons in full quantum optics are not easy to visualize at all. There's the second consideration that you have to apply quantum mechanics--- so there are 'eigenfunctions' of fields on account of being quantum mechanics of fields, just like going from point classical mechanical particles to QM means adding a 'function' layer.

originally posted by: mbkennel


You know, there are these things called "physics textbooks" and they talk about this subject. I 've told you about a very good one for intuitive understanding---but others can be good as well. They have equations of motion and diagrams demonstrating their effects. There are also educational simulations about what you want as well.

Time to deny ignorance and work.

How about trying Google?

www.falstad.com...

www.ph.utexas.edu...

There was one applet which I can't find now which let you shake a charge around with a mouse and you would see the propagating fields as a consequence.

That settles it for me then, you believe the fundamental fields of reality ( for example EM field) is made of pure line. The electron is coupled to pure absolute graph, that when the electron moves the graph lines change and this is called radiation, and the local graph doesnt stay changed, so its called a wave, the graph waves. Reality is a line graph, 3d one might ask? One might be told to read a book one might suppose. It is now known that reality is a digital calculator. Energy is pure line. The line is made of line. The graph is made of graph. Field is field, field is graph, field is line. Electron is point. 1d, its made of energy, energy is line, energy is point. Energy is graph. Graph waves. Graph is made of pure point. Points are pure lines. Lines are made of points. Graphs are made of points and lines. A field is pure points and pure lines. Energy is a field that is a graph that is pure lines and pure points. Everything is pure everything which is a graph.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

That settles it for me then, you believe the fundamental fields of reality ( for example EM field) is made of pure line. The electron is coupled to pure absolute graph, that when the electron moves the graph lines change and this is called radiation, and the local graph doesnt stay changed, so its called a wave, the graph waves.

I have no idea what that means. I believe, justified by experiment, that for intensities sufficiently large that the quantum nature of light is irrelevant, that Maxwell's equations adequately and predictively define classical electrodynamics.

The 'fields of reality' are described by coupled equations of motion on partial differential equations. I don't know what 'pure line" and "pure absolute graph" means. The graphics you see on the applications are various visualization techniques for vector fields.

Reality is a line graph, 3d one might ask? One might be told to read a book one might suppose. It is now known that reality is a digital calculator.

No not at all. Maxwell's equations are continous partial differential equations, as are equations of motion for "quantum computers" which are a fundamentally different class of computational model than classical digital calculators (Turing machines). Somewhat contrary to the name, 'quantum computers' work as they do because of the apparently near continuous (and very high/infinite dimensional) evolution of wavefunctions (as described in Schroedinger representation, operator evolution in Heisenberg) which is distinct from a digital finite state machine.

Energy is pure line. The line is made of line. The graph is made of graph. Field is field, field is graph, field is line. Electron is point. 1d, its made of energy, energy is line, energy is point. Energy is graph. Graph waves. Graph is made of pure point. Points are pure lines. Lines are made of points. Graphs are made of points and lines. A field is pure points and pure lines. Energy is a field that is a graph that is pure lines and pure points. Everything is pure everything which is a graph.

I am the walrus, goo goo ga joob?

How about learning about 1-d wave equation and then classical acoustics first, it's simpler then EM having only a scalar pressure field.

OK, let's start more basic. Do you know what an ordinary differential equation is? In particular, an initial-value problem for describing equations of motion? Do you understand the concept of a 'differential equation of motion' in physics? If not, start there before complaining about how to intuitively grok quantum field theory.

originally posted by: mbkennel

How about learning about 1-d wave equation and then classical acoustics first, it's simpler then EM having only a scalar pressure field.

OK, let's start more basic. Do you know what an ordinary differential equation is? In particular, an initial-value problem for describing equations of motion? Do you understand the concept of a 'differential equation of motion' in physics? If not, start there before complaining about how to intuitively grok quantum field theory.

Is reality composed of differential equations of motion? And that is the quantitative comprehension of the quality of what is doing the motion? And then the particle and field aspect is the attempt to ascribe a qualitative understanding to the bare raw symbolism the math provides?

Im just very concerned for the state of physics that it cant tell me what 'that which exists in/as empty space' is. It is said empty space is pure fields. EM field, gravity field. So do you imagine that in space there are lines, field lines, that are made of EM? And the gravity field is field lines made of gravity essence?

How do these 2 fields exist in relation to each other? Holographically on top? next to? Entwined?

How does one field exist as itself. What is in between the field lines? Or are the field lines all touching, as to make a field fabric or sheet? Are they touching length wise and height wise and width wise? Are the field lines made of particles?

If the field lines are not touching, how are they held together? What exists between them?