/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11868565
where you grow things

>>11868565
commutative division rings

>>11868565
>inb4 muh numbers defined over vector spaces
OP, a field is something that permeates the world we experience, not just here but throughout the universe. we live inside these fields and we can interact with them. an analogy is like how fish live in water. we are basically living in an aquarium called the “universe” and it is filled with fields

>>11868577
Your definition is scientifically meaningless

>>11868577
>something that permeates the world we experience, not just here but throughout the universe

>>11868583
fields are "everywhere" at once, tough. are they not?

>>11868583
no it isn’t.

>>11868584
the gravitational, electroweak, and strong nuclear fields exist everywhere in our universe without exception

>>11868583
You might want to read this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/

>>11868588
i think that's really weird

>>11868586
That doesn't define what a field actually is though. Fields are regions where each point is effected by a specific force. I suppose that if fields such as gravity and electromagnetism really do stretch out infinitely you are not wrong, but I am just saying that it wasn't a good defninition.
>>11868588
>the gravitational, electroweak, and strong nuclear fields exist everywhere in our universe without exception
See above, that isn't a definition. It is a description of an aspect of fields, but not a definition.

>>11868599
it kinda is at first thought but it makes sense. if forces exist (like the gravity that holds the moon in orbit around the earth) then a field makes more sense than “spooky action at a distance”

>>11868592
>fucking quanta
that source doesnt even give a definition for a field, why did you post it

>>11868610
Post a source with a definition for "field" then. I'll wait.

>>11868574
Fancy way of saying an array of numbers

>>11868610
I got time. I will wait. Well?

>>11868601
>t is a description of an aspect of fields, but not a definition.
science is not interested in definitions. geologists don’t “define” mountains, they describe them. solar system astronomers don’t “define” the solar system. those things just exist and science’s basis is measurement which is the art of accurate description. just to follow up, when solar system astronomers made a sad attempt to “define” the word “planet” they ended up looking like idiots due to pluto and ceres. this is an example of why “definitions” are not scientific

>>11868614
Not him but https://www.britannica.com/science/field-physics I was the poster you initially responded to with a link/ called the definition meaningless

>>11868616
Two apples are not made of the number "2". They are made of "stuff". But what is this "stuff"? No one seems to know.

>>11868619
you waited 2 whole minutes before posting again, have a little patience next time
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_01.html#Ch1-S2
A field is just a function from space to something.
t. Feynmann, someone who knows more physics than you do.

>>11868620
There most certainly are definintions in science you mong. Just because the world is nuanced doesn't mean we don't define and catagorise it. Any scientific term will have definitions. How accurate they are is not guaranteed but you can't just sit there and type that science is not interested in definitions

>>11868621
this isn't helping
i need to know what i'm made of
now

>>11868628
Yes, Feynman basically gives a non-answer
He doesn't know
No one knows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

>>11868632
On a fundamental level we really still have no idea what we are "made of". It's certainly unsettling

>>11868628
>[Math Processing Error]
what the fuck is wrong with your link?

>>11868628
>>11868637
Feynman takes fields as literal physical objects (because they are) in his lectures. I don't know what you're talking about.

>>11868637
Youre missing the entire point of that video
That has nothing to do with the definition of a field
describing what "causes" magnets to react is a totally separate matter to describing what the magnetic field is/does
Hes not avoiding the question of "what a field is" because thats not what the interviewer even fucking asked.

>>11868648
Theres literally nothing wrong with my link

>>11868629
you are right that scientists create definitions that they agree on as a means to communicate. however, structuring definitions is not their goal (as it is for mathematicians) and the definitions shift and change over time to adapt to the language—and the language itself changes because of what nature reveals and we see through measurements.

as an example, i use the word “muon” and i classify it as a “lepton”. but i’ve met a few old professors who call it a “mu meson”. if i were to overthink their language, i would think they are alzheimer’s because muons are leptons whereas mesons are hadrons, i.e. basically the opposite of leptons. so if you get caught up on definitions you are never going to learn anything or understand anything. OTOH if you just know the actual THINGS people refer to with their crap terminology, then you are actually using your brain instead of being a stickler

>>11868652
yes, he treats a field as its output values at their corresponding point
what the fuck is your point retard

>>11868652
I didn't say they weren't physical objects. What?

>>11868662
>A field is just a function from space to something
Math definition, fields are literally real beyond just their utility as mathematical descriptions.

>>11868656
Ok, maybe we are getting bogged down in semantics. Definition or description or whatever, the third post in this thread is simply not a good answer to "What are fields?". If anything, it is more an answer of "where are fields?", and also as a description only clarifies one aspect of what fields are. Saying "they are everywhere" is not really defining or describing what it actually is.

>>11868667
well then you want. better definition of “field” besides what i said about they are the stuff that permeates everywhere? then i suggest you go to a lab and shake around some stuff and think about what propagates their influences on detectors

>>11868666
>>A field is just a function from space to something
That is me
>>11868662
is another anon

Yes, but physicists talk about fields as functions from space.
I dont care about your "but what does it meaeaann????"
Theyre functions from space, and if you disagree then I can just take Your definition of a field and use it to make a function with my definition, so it doesnt matter what you want to replace my definition with, since i can still use mine over yours.

>>11868678
I don't care what it means, all I'm saying is that Feynman believed (correctly) that fields are literal physical objects. Whether its more efficacious to rely on the mathematical construct (it is) and to not worry about the literal thing-in-itself (not good for scientific reasoning) is irrelevant since it is in line with the results of 20th century physics, and Feynman well understood this, that they are real and do permeate throughout space.

>>11868565
No one knows. But it's provocative.

>>11868710
correct.

for your good post, i award you a rare witten, pic related.

>>11868565
The place where sage goes.

>>11868627
>Apples, how do they work?
>Scientists still don't know.

>>11868710
>do not worry about the thing-in-itself
You just triggered my Kant-mind
Kant will fuck your shit up
He will fuck it right up

>>11868821
>Kant
>>>/lit/

>>11868827
this is why /sci/ is illiterate

All fields are featherless bipeds

>>11868834
no anon, if Kant had anything useful to say about science it would have been incorporated centuries ago. maybe it has been! in any case citing Kant in a /sci/ discussion is the equivalent of me saying Wittgenstein proved conclusively all of philosophy was bullshit in Tractatus

>>11868847
yea he did honestly

>>11868846
this is probably the first time a post on this board made me laugh in a few years
thanks

>>11868583
Suck a dick numberfag.
Mathfags have utterly ruined science.

>>11868871
How so?

>>11868565
A field is some property that takes on a numerical value at every point in space, The field strength determines how much quantum force is exerted on another field or particle