Are you asserting that space is a real physical thing? You cannot simultaneously deny the physical existence of space, and assert that space has something physically measurable about it.
Yes. I endorse full-plenum metaphysics, space is not actually an empty void. I currently would go so far as to say space does not have fields, space is fields.
Yes. I endorse full-plenum metaphysics, space is not actually an empty void. I currently would go so far as to say space does not have fields, space is fields.
How could one go about connecting the plenum notion of space to, say, Big Bang inflation, in which “space itself” was supposed to have expanded (at faster than the speed of light)? If space is just particles bumping into eachother, how does space “expand” without causing physical particles to travel faster than c?
How could one go about connecting the plenum notion of space to, say, Big Bang inflation, in which “space itself” was supposed to have expanded (at faster than the speed of light)? If space is just particles bumping into eachother, how does space “expand” without causing physical particles to travel faster than c?
Hell I don’t know. I will note the wiki article posits inflaton fields, not particles. Your question also has the problem that when space is expanding the physical objects within it do not travel greater than c in their local frame of reference even if it appears to be greater than c from an omniscient viewpoint. There is no special relativity violation.
I’m still not getting what a “field” is. A field of what? Of measurements? The examples you give of temperature and force depend on the presence of particles to convey that energy and motion. But the effects of fields in “empty” space - e.g. virtual particles, vacuum energy, etc - how are those to be understood? Are we simply measuring the effects of particles we have yet to discover?
And if you believe the plenum notion, then “empty” space must actually be completely full of particles. Saying “space is fields” does not make it any more physical, since a “field” is also an abstract concept - we do measurements at various points in empty space, and abstract from that the concept of a field - it exists in our minds as a mental picture of a 3D volume with values at different points in the volume.
I’m still not getting what a “field” is. A field of what? Of measurements?
A field of some existent, with an intrinsic attribute comprising its identity.
The examples you give of temperature and force depend on the presence of particles to convey that energy and motion.
So? Measurements always require two of something, that does not transform the intrinsic character of the attribute being measured into a relative attribute.
But the effects of fields in “empty” space - e.g. virtual particles, vacuum energy, etc - how are those to be understood? Are we simply measuring the effects of particles we have yet to discover?
I don’t know.
And if you believe the plenum notion, then “empty” space must actually be completely full of particles.
I like fields because then space does not have to be full of particles to avoid the problem of a void. At least one particle we know of (photon) is a field and nothing else. Perhaps more are. Perhaps they all have field equivalents.
Saying “space is fields” does not make it any more physical, since a “field” is also an abstract concept - we do measurements at various points in empty space, and abstract from that the concept of a field - it exists in our minds as a mental picture of a 3D volume with values at different points in the volume.
Force fields are abstract only because we cannot perceive them directly. They are real entities, they are physical. If they were not physical they would have no measurable effects on anything. Fields make space physical.