Originally posted by humyHow would you go about defining what space 'is' without regard to its properties and relation with other things? At this point I'm not sure whether I should ask you to define the word 'define', or the word 'is' 😕
That is incorrect; I can say much about it except saying much about what what it is. I can say much about its properties and relations with other things, such as distances, areas, volumes, spacetime etc; but that by itself isn't a definition.If a definition (any definition) of space doesn't allow for distances
Whether we have really pro ...[text shortened]... easure distances. Measurements don't depend on a good definition of what it is we are measuring.
Originally posted by humyAll that exists in this universe that we know about is matter/energy. Empty space isn't nothing you say. We know it isn't any type of matter.
The kind of answer to that question you want doesn't exist. It isn't possible to fully define the meaning of literally each and every word in the language without getting into invalid meaningless circular definitions (defining x only as its relation to y but then define y only as its relation to x thus define neither x or y) for those of the most basic concepts ...[text shortened]... what you are really asking is 'what is it' beyond what we experience of it or how we measure it.
Therefore it must be a type of energy.
You are welcome. Now stop that silly dance.
Originally posted by lemon limeI WOULD 'define' space in relation to properties and relation with other things because there is no other kind of 'define'.
How would you go about defining what space 'is' without regard to its properties and relation with other things?
But what I am saying is that you would be disappointed with the resulting definition because you would think it doesn't 'define' anything given the kind of answer you are looking for.
Originally posted by apathistNot true at all;
All that exists in this universe that we know about is matter/energy.
There is space, time, spacetime, gravity, forces, dimensions, speed (not, of course, to be confused with kinetic energy), acceleration, rotation, frames of reference, distances, shapes (of things), probability, etc. We do know about these things in our universe, right? I hope you agree that those things are not themselves matter/energy but at best merely have certain relationships with matter/energy. You are using a false premise.
originally posted by humy
There is space, time, spacetime, gravity, forces, dimensions, speed (not, of course, to be confused with kinetic energy), acceleration, rotation, frames of reference, distances, shapes (of things), probability, etc. We do know about these things in our universe, right?
Those things seem to be mental concepts about the behavior of m/e. If all m/e were somehow removed from our universe, which in that list would still exist?
I hope you agree that those things are not themselves matter/energy but at best merely have certain relationships with matter/energy.
I think so. Those relationships of course are that they are concepts about m/e.
You are using a false premise.
I don't think you've shown that. Tackle the question above. Remove all m/e and there'd be no more brains and so no more minds and so no more mental concepts, right? There'd be no more m/e and so no more behavior of m/e, right? What in your list would survive such a culling?
Spacetime and dimensions are mathematical representations, so they'd be gone. Time is just a measurement of change, and all change would be gone, so time would be gone.
Space? The subject we're discussing. You've claimed that our space is different from whatever is outside of our universe. If there was no m/e at all in our universe, what would the difference between space and uberspace be exactly? If there were no m/e, would it make sense to think our universe still exists?
This stuff is fun, isn't it. I'm getting an endorphin rush, being able to talk about it with someone who may be able to help clarify my thinking.
Originally posted by apathistwhat is an "energy field"? I have studied physics at university and I can tell you "energy field" is not a scientific technical term and is a term only used in science fiction and certain pseudo-sciences (esp the so called "human energy field" crap ).
If space is something rather than nothing, then it must be some sort of energy field.
I think it's called vacuum energy,
Then you are wrong; vacuum energy wouldn't be called an "energy field", whatever that's supposed to mean, in any accepted terminology of physics.
In physics, a "field" means any one of one of these things;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
typically though, it refers to a force field, such as an electric field, or sometimes a magnetic field, the meaning of either of which doesn't imply energy being within it in particular so "energy field" is just nonsense.
Vacuum energy, being in space (obviously), doesn't imply some sort of 'field' let alone "energy field". See;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
originally posted by humy
what is an "energy field"?
From your linked site:
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 eliminates a true vacuum.[6]
So that is what I'm talking about.
Vacuum energy, being in space (obviously), doesn't imply some sort of 'field' let alone "energy field".
From your linked site:
Thus, according to the [Quantum field] theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.
So that is what I'm talking about.
why would that be?
I asked you questions to help us get on the same page, but you ignored them.
Originally posted by apathistYou make some strange interpretations;
originally posted by [b]humy
what is an "energy field"?
From your linked site: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 eliminates a true vacuum.[6]
So that is what I'm talking about.
Vacuum energy ...[text shortened]... would that be?
I asked you questions to help us get on the same page, but you ignored them.[/b]
what is an "energy field"?
From your linked site:
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 eliminates a true vacuum.[6]
How does this imply space is (or could be) an "energy field"? It clearly doesn't.
And that quote was from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics) link, not the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy link thus has little connection to what space is because that isn't anything like what the link was supposed to be about at all.
Vacuum energy, being in space (obviously), doesn't imply some sort of 'field' let alone "energy field".
From your linked site:
Thus, according to the [Quantum field] theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.
So that is what I'm talking about.
How does it relate to what you are talking about? That quote doesn't even mention "energy" let alone "energy field". It only mentions "field" and implies nothing about whether space is an "energy field", whatever that's supposed to mean. It mentions "field" in the term "quantum field theory", and on the same link it explains clearly;
Quantum field theory states that all fundamental fields, such as the electromagnetic field, must be quantized at each and every point in space
Thus quantum field theory implies nothing about whether space is (or could be) an "energy field", whatever that's supposed to mean. It is only a theory that all fields must be quantized, which, at least in itself and by itself, has nothing to do with "energy field".
originally posted by humy
You make some strange interpretations;
I asked questions based on your assertions. Why won't you address them.
"energy field" "energy field" "energy field" "energy field" "energy field"
I'm not a physicist. The term makes you think of human auras or something, so since then I haven't used it. I explained what I meant, using the wiki sites you linked to. The sites have no issue claiming a field can contain energy. A layman can be excused for using the term loosely to capture that concept, don't you think, especially considering he hasn't used the term since you complained about it.
Empty your cup and tackle the questions.
Originally posted by humyCan there theoretically be some kind of field without energy? Magnetic fields have energy in the field itself, same with electric fields, electromagnetic fields contains energy, gravitational fields contains energy as does gravity waves.
You make some strange interpretations;
what is an "energy field"?
From your linked site:
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 eliminates a true vacuum.[6]
How does this imply space is (or could be) an "e ...[text shortened]... st be quantized, which, at least in itself and by itself, has nothing to do with "energy field".
How can there be any kind of 'field' that contains no energy?
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree you cannot have any 'field' that has no involvement of energy; but that wasn't what he was saying. He was saying that specifically space is (or could be) an 'energy field', whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. My criticism was that that is gibberish to anyone that understands basic physics and, more specifically, understands the physics basics and physics terminology of 'space' and 'energy' and 'field'. At first I thought he may have simply got seriously muddled up with the concept of zero-point energy and its terminology which does contain the three technical terms "zero-point energy" and "vacuum energy" and "quantum field theory", until it transpired he understands nothing about any of that.
Can there theoretically be some kind of field without energy? Magnetic fields have energy in the field itself, same with electric fields, electromagnetic fields contains energy, gravitational fields contains energy as does gravity waves.
How can there be any kind of 'field' that contains no energy?
With physics, just like with any other subject matters, one really needs to have at least some basic understanding of the subject before commenting on it.
I googled "energy field" just in case I missed something fundamental in my physics classes only to find all I got is a load of pseudo-scientific crap about the "Human Energy Field"
https://heartofhealing.net/energy-healing/human-energy-field/
-makes me wonder what prompted him to say space could be an 'energy field'.