How do fields co-exist physically?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












How do we actually visualize the effect of two fields interacting in the same region of space?



If fields are just mathematical formulations to explain things that have no physical meaning, how are field interactions formulated and studied theoretically that can explain practical observations?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    How do we actually visualize the effect of two fields interacting in the same region of space?



    If fields are just mathematical formulations to explain things that have no physical meaning, how are field interactions formulated and studied theoretically that can explain practical observations?










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      How do we actually visualize the effect of two fields interacting in the same region of space?



      If fields are just mathematical formulations to explain things that have no physical meaning, how are field interactions formulated and studied theoretically that can explain practical observations?










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      How do we actually visualize the effect of two fields interacting in the same region of space?



      If fields are just mathematical formulations to explain things that have no physical meaning, how are field interactions formulated and studied theoretically that can explain practical observations?







      field-theory






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Qmechanic♦

      98.5k121741074




      98.5k121741074






      New contributor




      Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 1 hour ago









      Gokul NC

      1193




      1193




      New contributor




      Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Gokul NC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          First you suggest fields are somewhere specific, raising the question of how they can share locations. Then you suggest fields don't describe real physics, raising the question of how they can exhibit cause and effect. Neither way of thinking about fields is right. They're functions, and each has a value everywhere. Just as $x^2$ doesn't have a location, nor does $A_mu$; just as $f^2+g^2=1,,f=g'$ constrain two functions, so field equations constrain the functions we call fields.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Good question.



            Almost all practical and scientific progress in high energy physics in the last decades has been related to lattice regularization of field theories.



            (If you have access to it, see Kogut's article)



            Not only has this direction brought about genuine accurate predictions in high energy physics but it provides an intuitive connection to statistical mechanics via the Feynman path integral. In this framework fields live on sites, links, etc... of a space-time lattice. Interactions can be seen with your eyes plain as day in terms like: $phi^dagger_x U_x, mu phi_x+mu$, which shows an interaction between two fields on neighboring sites ($phi_x$ and $phi_x+mu$) via a gauge field on the connecting link ($U_x,mu$).



            I would say if you are interested in making contact with reality in field theory to look into ``lattice field theory'' and start reading papers from the late '70s.



            As for whether such a model has ``no physical meaning'', this is a question of philosophy, and you can ask it on SE philosophy, but keep in mind the practical quality of holding a belief that your successful model is actually a reflection of reality: you gain intuition about how the natural world interacts and behaves and as such you may be able to even improve your understanding and make progress in explaining un-explained phenomena.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















              Your Answer




              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "151"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );






              Gokul NC is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437186%2fhow-do-fields-co-exist-physically%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              2
              down vote













              First you suggest fields are somewhere specific, raising the question of how they can share locations. Then you suggest fields don't describe real physics, raising the question of how they can exhibit cause and effect. Neither way of thinking about fields is right. They're functions, and each has a value everywhere. Just as $x^2$ doesn't have a location, nor does $A_mu$; just as $f^2+g^2=1,,f=g'$ constrain two functions, so field equations constrain the functions we call fields.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                First you suggest fields are somewhere specific, raising the question of how they can share locations. Then you suggest fields don't describe real physics, raising the question of how they can exhibit cause and effect. Neither way of thinking about fields is right. They're functions, and each has a value everywhere. Just as $x^2$ doesn't have a location, nor does $A_mu$; just as $f^2+g^2=1,,f=g'$ constrain two functions, so field equations constrain the functions we call fields.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  First you suggest fields are somewhere specific, raising the question of how they can share locations. Then you suggest fields don't describe real physics, raising the question of how they can exhibit cause and effect. Neither way of thinking about fields is right. They're functions, and each has a value everywhere. Just as $x^2$ doesn't have a location, nor does $A_mu$; just as $f^2+g^2=1,,f=g'$ constrain two functions, so field equations constrain the functions we call fields.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  First you suggest fields are somewhere specific, raising the question of how they can share locations. Then you suggest fields don't describe real physics, raising the question of how they can exhibit cause and effect. Neither way of thinking about fields is right. They're functions, and each has a value everywhere. Just as $x^2$ doesn't have a location, nor does $A_mu$; just as $f^2+g^2=1,,f=g'$ constrain two functions, so field equations constrain the functions we call fields.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  J.G.

                  8,48421225




                  8,48421225




















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      Good question.



                      Almost all practical and scientific progress in high energy physics in the last decades has been related to lattice regularization of field theories.



                      (If you have access to it, see Kogut's article)



                      Not only has this direction brought about genuine accurate predictions in high energy physics but it provides an intuitive connection to statistical mechanics via the Feynman path integral. In this framework fields live on sites, links, etc... of a space-time lattice. Interactions can be seen with your eyes plain as day in terms like: $phi^dagger_x U_x, mu phi_x+mu$, which shows an interaction between two fields on neighboring sites ($phi_x$ and $phi_x+mu$) via a gauge field on the connecting link ($U_x,mu$).



                      I would say if you are interested in making contact with reality in field theory to look into ``lattice field theory'' and start reading papers from the late '70s.



                      As for whether such a model has ``no physical meaning'', this is a question of philosophy, and you can ask it on SE philosophy, but keep in mind the practical quality of holding a belief that your successful model is actually a reflection of reality: you gain intuition about how the natural world interacts and behaves and as such you may be able to even improve your understanding and make progress in explaining un-explained phenomena.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        Good question.



                        Almost all practical and scientific progress in high energy physics in the last decades has been related to lattice regularization of field theories.



                        (If you have access to it, see Kogut's article)



                        Not only has this direction brought about genuine accurate predictions in high energy physics but it provides an intuitive connection to statistical mechanics via the Feynman path integral. In this framework fields live on sites, links, etc... of a space-time lattice. Interactions can be seen with your eyes plain as day in terms like: $phi^dagger_x U_x, mu phi_x+mu$, which shows an interaction between two fields on neighboring sites ($phi_x$ and $phi_x+mu$) via a gauge field on the connecting link ($U_x,mu$).



                        I would say if you are interested in making contact with reality in field theory to look into ``lattice field theory'' and start reading papers from the late '70s.



                        As for whether such a model has ``no physical meaning'', this is a question of philosophy, and you can ask it on SE philosophy, but keep in mind the practical quality of holding a belief that your successful model is actually a reflection of reality: you gain intuition about how the natural world interacts and behaves and as such you may be able to even improve your understanding and make progress in explaining un-explained phenomena.






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          Good question.



                          Almost all practical and scientific progress in high energy physics in the last decades has been related to lattice regularization of field theories.



                          (If you have access to it, see Kogut's article)



                          Not only has this direction brought about genuine accurate predictions in high energy physics but it provides an intuitive connection to statistical mechanics via the Feynman path integral. In this framework fields live on sites, links, etc... of a space-time lattice. Interactions can be seen with your eyes plain as day in terms like: $phi^dagger_x U_x, mu phi_x+mu$, which shows an interaction between two fields on neighboring sites ($phi_x$ and $phi_x+mu$) via a gauge field on the connecting link ($U_x,mu$).



                          I would say if you are interested in making contact with reality in field theory to look into ``lattice field theory'' and start reading papers from the late '70s.



                          As for whether such a model has ``no physical meaning'', this is a question of philosophy, and you can ask it on SE philosophy, but keep in mind the practical quality of holding a belief that your successful model is actually a reflection of reality: you gain intuition about how the natural world interacts and behaves and as such you may be able to even improve your understanding and make progress in explaining un-explained phenomena.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          Good question.



                          Almost all practical and scientific progress in high energy physics in the last decades has been related to lattice regularization of field theories.



                          (If you have access to it, see Kogut's article)



                          Not only has this direction brought about genuine accurate predictions in high energy physics but it provides an intuitive connection to statistical mechanics via the Feynman path integral. In this framework fields live on sites, links, etc... of a space-time lattice. Interactions can be seen with your eyes plain as day in terms like: $phi^dagger_x U_x, mu phi_x+mu$, which shows an interaction between two fields on neighboring sites ($phi_x$ and $phi_x+mu$) via a gauge field on the connecting link ($U_x,mu$).



                          I would say if you are interested in making contact with reality in field theory to look into ``lattice field theory'' and start reading papers from the late '70s.



                          As for whether such a model has ``no physical meaning'', this is a question of philosophy, and you can ask it on SE philosophy, but keep in mind the practical quality of holding a belief that your successful model is actually a reflection of reality: you gain intuition about how the natural world interacts and behaves and as such you may be able to even improve your understanding and make progress in explaining un-explained phenomena.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 42 mins ago









                          kηives

                          2,3111020




                          2,3111020




















                              Gokul NC is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded


















                              Gokul NC is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              Gokul NC is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                              Gokul NC is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437186%2fhow-do-fields-co-exist-physically%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                              Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                              How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?