On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 1:47:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > Vic wasn't right about everything. An elementary particle is an element > of a mathematical theory to. And the fact that particles appear simply as > a consequence of assuming an accelerated coordinate system, argues for > regarding them as excitations of a field which is then more fundamental. > What is considered real isn't some deep question to be answered by > meta-physical contemplation. It's just a choice, part of choosing a > theory. Vic emphasized operational the importance of operational > definitions; and the operational definition of "real" was it kicks back > when you kick it. But what counts as kicking and kicking back is also > theory dependent. > > Brent > >
Is there an example of a field (in theory) with no associated particle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness ? @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d54f1db-a8ae-413c-a89b-d02a64624ed3%40googlegroups.com.
