The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

You've described properties. Where is the fundamental material? I'm just using the Tong video as reference, who must be wrong according to you, because he does state that what we call 'particle' is a 'bundle of energy'.

 

[Polymath257]

You've described properties. Where is the fundamental material? I'm just using the Tong video as reference.

What do you mean by the phrase 'fundamental material'? It has no meaning that I am aware of. Why is that necessary for something to be material? or matter?

The point is that things are *defined* by their properties.

 

[godnotgod]

What do you mean by the phrase 'fundamental material'? It has no meaning that I am aware of. Why is that necessary for something to be material? or matter?

The point is that things are *defined* by their properties.

What is the nature of these 'things'? And in reality, aren't you actually describing the properties of the field, since 'particles' are fluctuations of the field?

Prior to the discovery of fields, it was thought that 'particles' were the building blocks of the Universe. Tong says they are not; that fields are the source.

 

[godnotgod]

Let's just, for the moment, agree with this. Why would that 'bundle of energy' *not* be matter? Why would it *not* be 'material'? What aspect of 'material' do you think an electron lacks?

Now, in fact, a particle is NOT just a 'bundle of energy' because it has other properties than just its energy: spin, momentum, isospin, charge, rest mass, etc.

You've described properties. Where is the fundamental material? I'm just using the Tong video as reference, who must be wrong according to you, because he does state that what we call 'particle' is a 'bundle of energy'.

 

[Polymath257]

What is the nature of these 'things'? And in reality, aren't you actually describing the properties of the field, since 'particles' are fluctuations of the field?

Prior to the discovery of fields, it was thought that 'particles' were the building blocks of the Universe. Tong says they are not; that fields are the source.

The point is that there is a field-particle duality. Both fields and particles are *equally* good descriptions of what is going on. And, even in the field description, the field is quantized and the quata are what have the properties. Those quanta are the particles for the field.

I have not watched the video, but I know the physics. Fields and particles are *both* real. The particles are NOT just 'energy bundles', but have other properties. And those properties adhere to the quanta of the field, not to the overall field itself.

 

[Polymath257]

You've described properties. Where is the fundamental material? I'm just using the Tong video as reference, who must be wrong according to you, because he does state that what we call 'particle' is a 'bundle of energy'.

He was simplifying and you took him too literally.

Once again, you ask about a 'fundamental material'. Why do you think such needs to exist if things are material? And what does it even mean to be a 'fundamental material'? Perhaps the problem you are having isn't with things being 'material', but with your preconceptions about what that means.

And once again, material things are defined in terms of their properties, not in terms of their composition.

 

[godnotgod]

Q: … would you accept that despite the fact you’ve described that everything’s built up of fields and just interactions, ultimately there is there must always be some granularity and so the Greeks were essentially right?

A: No. [Laughter] Just no. There is a question … the question is at a fundamental level is nature discrete or continuous.

I see no evidence whatsoever for discreteness, or all the discreteness that we see in the world is something which emerges from an underlying continuum; so, that’s certainly a correct statement about the laws of physics as we currently understand it.

Now it may be that you go to a deeper level the discreteness takes over again. I don’t think so. Yeah you know … I wrote an article in Scientific American actually that elaborates on this in some detail. No, the quanta are emergent. So, for example, if you look at you know the Schrodinger equation is the equation of quantum mechanics and it’s what spits out the quanta of quantum mechanics — the fact that energy levels come in in discrete bits. There’s nothing discrete about the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is something to do with a smooth field like like wave function. The discreteness is something which emerges when you solve the Schrodinger equation, so it’s not built into the heart of nature.

David Tong, theoretical physicist

https://www.physicssayswhat.com/visualizations/online-video/

 

[Polymath257]

What is the nature of these 'things'? And in reality, aren't you actually describing the properties of the field, since 'particles' are fluctuations of the field?

No, these are not properties of the field (except that they are properties of the particles, which are the quanta of the field).

Prior to the discovery of fields, it was thought that 'particles' were the building blocks of the Universe. Tong says they are not; that fields are the source.

There is a dual way of looking at these things: the particle description and the field description. They are completely equivalent. You can think of the fields as being made of particles or the particles as being quanta of the fields.

And you are wrong in other details. For example, people talked about fields of gravity and didn't think they were made of anything LONG before the 20th century. Nobody thought that particles were the building blocks of gravity.

 

[godnotgod]

He was simplifying and you took him too literally.

Once again, you ask about a 'fundamental material'. Why do you think such needs to exist if things are material? And what does it even mean to be a 'fundamental material'? Perhaps the problem you are having isn't with things being 'material', but with your preconceptions about what that means.

And once again, material things are defined in terms of their properties, not in terms of their composition.

What 'material things' are you referring to?

I am not the one making the claim of a material universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Q: … would you accept that despite the fact you’ve described that everything’s built up of fields and just interactions, ultimately there is there must always be some granularity and so the Greeks were essentially right?

A: No. [Laughter] Just no. There is a question … the question is at a fundamental level is nature discrete or continuous.

I see no evidence whatsoever for discreteness, or all the discreteness that we see in the world is something which emerges from an underlying continuum; so, that’s certainly a correct statement about the laws of physics as we currently understand it.

Now it may be that you go to a deeper level the discreteness takes over again. I don’t think so. Yeah you know … I wrote an article in Scientific American actually that elaborates on this in some detail. No, the quanta are emergent. So, for example, if you look at you know the Schrodinger equation is the equation of quantum mechanics and it’s what spits out the quanta of quantum mechanics — the fact that energy levels come in in discrete bits. There’s nothing discrete about the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is something to do with a smooth field like like wave function. The discreteness is something which emerges when you solve the Schrodinger equation, so it’s not built into the heart of nature.

David Tong, theoretical physicist

https://www.physicssayswhat.com/visualizations/online-video/

And yet, the solutions of the Schrodinger equation can be written as *discrete* sums of solutions involving those quanta. The continuous aspect isn't fundamental. The discreteness of the spectrum is.

 

[Polymath257]

What 'material things' are you referring to?

I am not the one making the claim of a material universe.

Electrons, for example, are material. By any reasonable definition.

But *you* are the one that seems to have some preconceptions about what it means to be material. What do *you* think it would mean to be material? Why do you think there ust be a 'fundamental material' if there are things that are material?

It is possible to consider the Schrodinger equation as purely an operator equation in some Hilbert space. It is the discreteness of the spectrum of that operator that is fundamental, not the continuity of a particular representation.

 

[godnotgod]

Electrons, for example, are material. By any reasonable definition.

That tells me nothing. What is 'material' about electrons?

 

[godnotgod]

And yet, the solutions of the Schrodinger equation can be written as *discrete* sums of solutions involving those quanta. The continuous aspect isn't fundamental. The discreteness of the spectrum is.

He is saying that the quanta is an emergent property, and not fundamental. You disagree?

 

[godnotgod]

No, these are not properties of the field (except that they are properties of the particles, which are the quanta of the field).

...which Tong says are emergent, and not existing in nature.

There is a dual way of looking at these things: the particle description and the field description. They are completely equivalent. You can think of the fields as being made of particles or the particles as being quanta of the fields.

...and yet, it is the particle which emerges from the field, or the interaction of fields. The field is present in the Quantum vacuum, which is, as Tong tells us, 'absolutely nothing'., and that means devoid of particles.

[/QUOTE]And you are wrong in other details. For example, people talked about fields of gravity and didn't think they were made of anything LONG before the 20th century. Nobody thought that particles were the building blocks of gravity.[/QUOTE]

But gravity is not considered to be 'material'. People did think, and still do today, that there is some fundamental material particle that represents the building blocks of the material world. Tong is saying otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

That tells me nothing. What is 'material' about electrons?

Well, once again, what do you mean by the word 'material'?

They are detected in an all-or-nothing mode, They have properties like mass, charge, spin, etc. They are components of larger things like atoms. That's enough for me to call them material.

 

[Polymath257]

He is saying that the quanta is an emergent property, and not fundamental. You disagree?

Yes. I do. The continuous aspect of the field is less fundamental than the spectrum of the operators, which is invariant from formulation. The discreteness of the spectrum, also known as having quanta, is basic.

I understand what he is saying, but truthfully that is a relatively low-level understanding of what is going on. He needs to go to the next level where everything is an operator and the properties of the oeprators are fundamental, not those of the underlying manifold.

 

[Polymath257]

...which Tong says are emergent, and not existing in nature.

Emergent phenomena still exist in nature.

...and yet, it is the particle which emerges from the field, or the interaction of fields. The field is present in the Quantum vacuum, which is, as Tong tells us, 'absolutely nothing'., and that means devoid of particles.

In that context, the 'feild' is simply a state of the system. It isn't a classical feild by any stretch of the imagination. In particular, it isn't a continuous function on spacetime.

And you are wrong in other details. For example, people talked about fields of gravity and didn't think they were made of anything LONG before the 20th century. Nobody thought that particles were the building blocks of gravity.

But gravity is not considered to be 'material'. People did think, and still do today, that there is some fundamental material particle that represents the building blocks of the material world. Tong is saying otherwise.

Who thinks this? There are fundamental particles, like electrons and quarks, from which everything else is made. But there isn't a *single* fundamental material. That's an invention of your fantasy.

And once again, both the particle description and the field description are valid: they are like two sides of the same coin. Each can be translated into the other. The field is quantized, which means it is made of particles. Each type of particle has a corresponding field that gives, among othe rhitngs, the probability of detecting the particle. particles come in all-or-nothing lumps: you will never detect half and electron. This shows that they ren't just 'bundles of energy' since if they were, you could get half of one. They are real aspects of the universe. But so are fields.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, once again, what do you mean by the word 'material'?

They are detected in an all-or-nothing mode, They have properties like mass, charge, spin, etc. They are components of larger things like atoms. That's enough for me to call them material.

You vacillate between avoiding and using the term 'material'. You now call something 'material'. What exactly is 'material'? Using Tong as a reference, what you are detecting are 'bundles of energy', that you call 'particles'.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. I do. The continuous aspect of the field is less fundamental than the spectrum of the operators, which is invariant from formulation. The discreteness of the spectrum, also known as having quanta, is basic.

I understand what he is saying, but truthfully that is a relatively low-level understanding of what is going on. He needs to go to the next level where everything is an operator and the properties of the oeprators are fundamental, not those of the underlying manifold.

So this discreteness, or quanta: what is it's origin?

Tong was clear to say that the fields are present in the Quantum vacuum, but fields are energy, not of a material nature.

So it appears to me that you are saying that discreteness emerges from the fields, but underneath the field level, are discrete quanta. Tong says there is no evidence of this underlying discreteness.

 

[Polymath257]

You vacillate between avoiding and using the term 'material'. You now call something 'material'. What exactly is 'material'? Using Tong as a reference, what you are detecting are 'bundles of energy', that you call 'particles'.

The word 'material' is one I don't usually use. that is why I have been asking *you* for the definition *you* use.

And if those 'bundles of energy' are, for example, electrons, then those *are* material in any reasonable definition of the term, as far as I can see.