SkriVanTek t1_iy4u9di wrote
Reply to comment by RLDSXD in Depictions of atomic nuclei often show distinct and individual protons and neutrons, is this accurate? by ZTYTHYZ
one nit pick
in the beginning you point out that particles are not physical things
i strongly disagree with that notion
what else but physical things could particles be?
change the word to solid things if you like but as it stands it is factually incorrect
RLDSXD t1_iy4v1di wrote
They’re suspected to be excitations in the underlying quantum field corresponding to that particle. I.e. There are no electrons, just excitations in the electron field. Are the ripples on the surface of a pond physical structures distinct from the pond itself?
SkriVanTek t1_iy5hzjo wrote
that's not the question
the question is if the ripples itself are physical things at all. and of course they are
n3wb33Farm3r t1_iy5u07k wrote
If the ripple is a physical thing does it add mass when it's occurring and decrease the same mass once the ripple is over?
SkriVanTek t1_iy7ge3b wrote
what’s that got to do with it?
it’s not like only things with mass are physical things
[deleted] t1_iy5jvu1 wrote
[removed]
blandrys t1_iy760o7 wrote
You are just playing around with the definition of the word "thing". And sure, if that definition is "everything is a thing" then yes, of course everything is a thing. An energy field is "a thing", that field moving in a particular way is "a thing" and so on. the question is what value there is to be extracted from such a definition. "everything is a thing" is more philosophy than science.
[deleted] t1_iy7grw8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy5dzhd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iy5iav9 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments