New answers tagged

0

Logical modalities are usually expressed through relational semantics for modal logic developed by Saul Kripke and André Joyal in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In this semantics, formulas are assigned truth values relative to a possible world. A formula's truth value at one possible world can depend on the truth values of other formulas at other ...


0

What you need is the concept of invariance in physics. A good example is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is the same in all inertial (non-accelerating) frames of reference. This invariant speed doesn't cause conflicts with our experiences & our intuitions, until we approach speeds of the order of magnitude of light. When that happens, we find time ...


1

Reason provides us of a biased model of nature: knowledge, which helps survival. The model is biased because it is adapted to the purpose of the subject. So, eating bones is not healthy for me because it is healthy for hyenas. Scientific knowledge is just some kind of knowledge (obtained by the scientific method, etc.), which means it is still biased by the ...


1

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict ...


0

The analogy I generally use is that particles are like knots or purls in a fabric. If you think of an energy field as a smooth continuum (a three-dimensional equivalent of a two-dimensional sheet of fabric), and then imagine that somehow the fabric got snagged or tangled into a lump than, well... that lump seems like something different than the surrounding ...


2

The way you asked the questions seems to imply that you subscribe to a substance metaphysics. But it seems to me that the way modern physics has progressed, it presents us with a manifestly process-based metaphysics. Thus, as a general rule of thumb, if you're asking really fundamental questions like "what is a particle" physicists will not be able ...


0

Quantum entities completely break our intuition when we try to understand them (reason for which Feynman stated in a lecture that "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"). It is quite difficult to define what is a quantum entity. Like a sphere is something that is not the rest of the space delimited ...


2

Nobody knows. We model them as wave-like perturbations of the appropriate zero-point field for the characteristics we are interested in. But a zero-point field is just a label to hang the basic mathematics on, we have no idea whether that makes any ontological sense either. And as I have been discovering on the Physics SE, there are many fundamental ...


0

Quantum particles are modeled as excitations of the underlying quantum field. So an electron is an excitation of the electron field, a muon is an excitation of the muon field, and so on. This is called quantum field theory and is a well-developed branch of physics.


Top 50 recent answers are included