What is the electric field?

[schizo]

My physics teacher said some pretty shocking things today. First of all she didn't understand why rainbows are always curved. I tried to explain to her the thing about the angles and the water droplets and that it's actually the top part of a circle. She didn't understand me.
Then at the end of the lesson where she taught us about the electric and magnetic field she hypothized that "i dunno, maybe there is also a bio-field of some sorts? You know like the people on TV who use telekinesis and so on use it." And that wasn't meant as a joke. I remained silent as I didn't want to turn the lesson into a flamewar.

But there was also another thing that she said and that I was skeptical about, but to what I didn't have an answer myself because I'm not the wisest myself. She claimed that "Scientists still don't know until this day what the electric field actually is." Now these kinds of "Nobody knows", "everybody knows" or "It is generally known" kinds of sentences always set off a little alert in my head. I knew that I have read about electromagnetism and what the electric field was, but I can't find my sources anymore. And I mean down to the quantum level. What IS the electric field? What is it composed of? Or is it composed of something at all?

[Neverfly]

My physics teacher said some pretty shocking things today. First of all she didn't understand why rainbows are always curved. I tried to explain to her the thing about the angles and the water droplets and that it's actually the top part of a circle. She didn't understand me.
Then at the end of the lesson where she taught us about the electric and magnetic field she hypothized that "i dunno, maybe there is also a bio-field of some sorts? You know like the people on TV who use telekinesis and so on use it." And that wasn't meant as a joke. I remained silent as I didn't want to turn the lesson into a flamewar.

But there was also another thing that she said and that I was skeptical about, but to what I didn't have an answer myself because I'm not the wisest myself. She claimed that "Scientists still don't know until this day what the electric field actually is." Now these kinds of "Nobody knows", "everybody knows" or "It is generally known" kinds of sentences always set off a little alert in my head. I knew that I have read about electromagnetism and what the electric field was, but I can't find my sources anymore. And I mean down to the quantum level. What IS the electric field? What is it composed of? Or is it composed of something at all?

Uhhh... First order of business is to approach your School Administration about that teacher

She sounds like she's going to do more harm than good. Even if she's only temporary...

You're wise to have that alert inside your head.

As far as answering the OP - the nature of electric fields- I'll leave that to the smarter folks here as I'm likely to bungle it myself.

Just needed to comment on your telekinetic teacher...

[Lepton]

My physics teacher said some pretty shocking things today. First of all she didn't understand why rainbows are always curved. I tried to explain to her the thing about the angles and the water droplets and that it's actually the top part of a circle. She didn't understand me.
Then at the end of the lesson where she taught us about the electric and magnetic field she hypothized that "i dunno, maybe there is also a bio-field of some sorts? You know like the people on TV who use telekinesis and so on use it." And that wasn't meant as a joke. I remained silent as I didn't want to turn the lesson into a flamewar.

But there was also another thing that she said and that I was skeptical about, but to what I didn't have an answer myself because I'm not the wisest myself. She claimed that "Scientists still don't know until this day what the electric field actually is." Now these kinds of "Nobody knows", "everybody knows" or "It is generally known" kinds of sentences always set off a little alert in my head. I knew that I have read about electromagnetism and what the electric field was, but I can't find my sources anymore. And I mean down to the quantum level. What IS the electric field? What is it composed of? Or is it composed of something at all?

To put it simply an electric field is a magnetic field that varies with time.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Welcome to BAUTForum!

My physics teacher said some pretty shocking things today. First of all she didn't understand why rainbows are always curved. [Snip!] Then at the end of the lesson where she taught us about the electric and magnetic field she hypothesized that "I dunno, maybe there is also a bio-field of some sorts? You know like the people on TV who use telekinesis and so on use it." [Snip!]

Yes, this is bad. But I don't know if going to the school administration or the school board as Neverfly suggests is a good idea. No telling what foolishness they subscribe to!

But there was also another thing that she said and that I was skeptical about, but to what I didn't have an answer myself because I'm not the wisest myself. She claimed that "Scientists still don't know until this day what the electric field actually is."

The problem with this sort of statement is that in reality we don't know what anything is truly made of. Everything that has smaller parts is made up of these smaller things. Eventually we get to fundamental particles and fields that cannot be subdivided, and without being able to subdivide we cannot say what it is made up of. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons (except H¹, of course) and electrons, for example, but electrons are not made up out of anything else. They just are what they are, electrons, and we just don't know what they might be made of. But this doesn't stop us from measuring their properties such as mass, electric charge, etc. and using this description to describe and measure the properties of the things that contain electrons.

Now these kinds of "Nobody knows", "everybody knows" or "It is generally known" kinds of sentences always set off a little alert in my head. I knew that I have read about electromagnetism and what the electric field was, but I can't find my sources anymore. And I mean down to the quantum level. What IS the electric field? What is it composed of? Or is it composed of something at all?

To reiterate what Neverfly has told you, you are right to be skeptical of anything starting with "nobody knows", etc. In answer to your question, I would say that the electromagnetic field is one of these fundamental entities that is not made up of anything more fundamental. It is what it is and it has the properties that we have observed.

You'll notice I said "electromagnetic field" rather than electric or magnetic, because the two fields are linked and inseparable. I hope this helps.

[Ken G]

She claimed that "Scientists still don't know until this day what the electric field actually is."

I'd say the basic problem here is, not only does she have little in the way of critical thinking skills, she also has no idea what science is. Good scientists know exactly what the electric (actually, electromagnetic, but let's not quibble) field is-- it is a mathematical mental construct created by scientists to understand, organize, and predict the action of charged particles on other charged particles. Of course, charged particles are themselves mental constructs, and so forth.

You see, she does not even understand the purpose of science (though she teaches it)-- it is to try to find ways to understand (and quantitatively test that understanding) what is going on around us, not to try to "know" what is going on around us (we haven't figured out any widely agreed way to do that). She seems to think that the electromagnetic field is some real thing that we are still learning about, but that reverses the correct logic for what science does-- it does not come up with theories and then look at experiments to try and figure out what the theory "really is", it looks at experiments and tries to figure out theories that successfully model what happens.

[schizo]

Thanks for all the great answers, but now I'll make my question a little more specific.

Quantum theory suggests that gravity is the interchanging of gravitons, if my memory is correct (leave out GR). What does it say about electromagnetism? I heard that the interchanging particles in electromagnetism are photons (visual light and all), so can I correctly claim that the electric field is actually photons behaving in a specific manner?

[trinitree88]

My physics teacher said some pretty shocking things today. First of all she didn't understand why rainbows are always curved. I tried to explain to her the thing about the angles and the water droplets and that it's actually the top part of a circle. She didn't understand me.
Then at the end of the lesson where she taught us about the electric and magnetic field she hypothized that "i dunno, maybe there is also a bio-field of some sorts? You know like the people on TV who use telekinesis and so on use it." And that wasn't meant as a joke. I remained silent as I didn't want to turn the lesson into a flamewar.

But there was also another thing that she said and that I was skeptical about, but to what I didn't have an answer myself because I'm not the wisest myself. She claimed that "Scientists still don't know until this day what the electric field actually is." Now these kinds of "Nobody knows", "everybody knows" or "It is generally known" kinds of sentences always set off a little alert in my head. I knew that I have read about electromagnetism and what the electric field was, but I can't find my sources anymore. And I mean down to the quantum level. What IS the electric field? What is it composed of? Or is it composed of something at all?

schizo. You can also view the field as due to the force carrier of the electromagnetic force...the photon. Picture two battleships exchanging cannon barrages...pushing each other away. With two electrons, virtual photons are exchanged similarly to the battleships, repelling like charges. Changing the signs produces mathematical expressions that produce attractive forces as well. Like running through a machine-gun spray, close proximity produces more hits...inverse square law...etc. pete

[DrRocket]

Thanks for all the great answers, but now I'll make my question a little more specific.

Quantum theory suggests that gravity is the interchanging of gravitons, if my memory is correct (leave out GR). What does it say about electromagnetism? I heard that the interchanging particles in electromagnetism are photons (visual light and all), so can I correctly claim that the electric field is actually photons behaving in a specific manner?

You can claim that the electric field is photons, behaving as photons always behave. In fact an electric field is the manifestation of a lot of photons.

But the real gist the notion is what Ken G told you. The electric field is a construct that allows scientists to predict natural phenomena in the presence of charged and moving charged particles. It is not really a "something" -- you can't go get a pound of it. And to say that it is composed of photons is accurate, but rather begs the question of what a photon is and what "it is made of". At some point you come back to the costruction of theories, almost always based on mathematics, that provide a prediction of what will actually be measured in some physical circumstances.

Quantum theory is actually silent on the notion of gravitons at the moment. There is no current viable quantum theory of gravity, but there is a lot of research being conducted to try to formulate such a theory. what has been agreed on is the name for the particle that carries the force, if it exists -- the graviton. In fact the notion of a graviton is based on an analogy to the photon being the carrier of the electromagnetic force. The photon is a known particle and the physics surrounding it are known.

I sympathize with your predicament regarding your science teacher. MANY years ago, as a high school freshman, I had a "science" teacher (unfortunately not temporary) who tried to tell us that:
1. An ion is radioactive iodine.
2. The rotation of the earth is responsible for winds, but not particularly related to night and day. (I actually had to hold a flashlight and spin the globe to convince him to accept "night and day" as an acceptable test answer).

So, my advice is bear with it, and don't let the fool get you sidetracked. You can learn science with or without a teacher (with is better but not absolutely necessary). When you get more advanced you will find that the best a teacher can do is guide you, but you have to learn the subject for yourself anyway.

[schizo]

schizo. You can also view the field as due to the force carrier of the electromagnetic force...the photon. Picture two battleships exchanging cannon barrages...pushing each other away. With two electrons, virtual photons are exchanged similarly to the battleships, repelling like charges. Changing the signs produces mathematical expressions that produce attractive forces as well. Like running through a machine-gun spray, close proximity produces more hits...inverse square law...etc. pete

So.. can I claim that the electromagnetic field is actually a concept that we humans have made up to explain the behaviour of photons? Like we have made up the concept of waves in liquids to explain the behaviour of atoms pushing against each other.

[DrRocket]

So.. can I claim that the electromagnetic field is actually a concept that we humans have made up to explain the behaviour of photons? Like we have made up the concept of waves in liquids to explain the behaviour of atoms pushing against each other.

That is a good way to look at it.

It might help a bit if you explained the nature of this physics class that your are taking. Is it a high school or a college clas ? What level of mathematics is being used -- calculus or just algebra? Is there a text book and if so what is it?

[Lepton]

So.. can I claim that the electromagnetic field is actually a concept that we humans have made up to explain the behaviour of photons? Like we have made up the concept of waves in liquids to explain the behaviour of atoms pushing against each other.

Waves in liquids are made up? Wouldn't that put a crimp in surfing? BTW, I bet all the people that died in Tsunamis would be happy to know that waves are a made up concept.

[schizo]

Thank you guys for all the great anwers, especially DrRocket and trinitree88 for being so specific. I think I have found the asnwer to my original question now.
And as for the teacher I will not contact the school administrators, because that teacher is still very good at the proffession related stuff that we have to learn, regarding electrical schematics and the physics behind electricity. It would also be a real mental weight for me to know that I am responsible for the unemployement of somebody. The best path is to just bear it, as DrRocket said.

1. An ion is radioactive iodine.
2. The rotation of the earth is responsible for winds, but not particularly related to night and day. (I actually had to hold a flashlight and spin the globe to convince him to accept "night and day" as an acceptable test answer).

Oh lawd, I have to tell this to my friends!

That is a good way to look at it.

It might help a bit if you explained the nature of this physics class that your are taking. Is it a high school or a college clas ? What level of mathematics is being used -- calculus or just algebra? Is there a text book and if so what is it?

I'm in a.. I think I don't remember the English name for my school (in estonian it's Tartu Kutsehariduskeskus). Vocational Education Cetre of Tartu, if I do remember correctly. It's not university level. In Estonia you have the elementary school (4 years), intermediate school (5 years, something like junior high), secondary school (3 years, something like senior high). So I had to finish 12 years and make exams to get into this school, which is very profession related (cooking, metalcrafting, building.. and I'm in the web specialist section, which is just a fancy word for webmaster). So the things they teach us should be at least a bit higher than say senior high, but not as high as university level, as it is very specifically profession oriented.

Also as English is not my first language I don't know how to answer your second question. What's the difference between algebra and calculus?

[Neverfly]

For English being a second language, you most certainly seem very adept at it.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] I'm in a ... I think I don't remember the English name for my school (in estonian it's Tartu Kutsehariduskeskus). Vocational Education Cetre of Tartu, if I do remember correctly. It's not university level. In Estonia you have the elementary school (4 years), intermediate school (5 years, something like junior high), secondary school (3 years, something like senior high). So I had to finish 12 years and make exams to get into this school, which is very profession related (cooking, metalcrafting, building.. and I'm in the web specialist section, which is just a fancy word for webmaster). So the things they teach us should be at least a bit higher than say senior high, but not as high as university level, as it is very specifically profession oriented. [Snip!]

The closest terms I can think of for this type of school include trade school, vocational school, technical school, technical college, and junior college. Collectively with the four-year colleges and universities they are called "post-secondary education". Technical and junior colleges usually grant a degree called an "associate degree" of lesser status than the "bachelor's degree" granted by colleges and universities. The other schools listed might not grant a degree as such but will provide some diploma or other certificate of successful completion of their program. I hope this helps.

[Lepton]

The closest terms I can think of for this type of school include trade school, vocational school, technical school, technical college, and junior college. Collectively with the four-year colleges and universities they are called "post-secondary education". Technical and junior colleges usually grant a degree called an "associate degree" of lesser status than the "bachelor's degree" granted by colleges and universities. The other schools listed might not grant a degree as such but will provide some diploma or other certificate of successful completion of their program. I hope this helps.

They are? I knew of vocational high schools which were centered on trade and did not have "normal" academic high school classes. As a matter of fact, there is one right here in Michigan and I know of a few out east.

[Sam5]

Let me ask a general question here, and anyone can feel free to answer it.

Isn't the term "field" just a single word that early in the 19th Century consisted of two words called a "force field", meaning an "area of space" that contained some kind of "force" that was directly related to either electricity, magnetism, or gravity?

[Ken G]

So.. can I claim that the electromagnetic field is actually a concept that we humans have made up to explain the behaviour of photons?

You could say that, but frankly I really wouldn't put it quite that way, you are still basically asking "which of these concepts is the real one, and which is just a meta-concept that explains the real one". But they are all concepts, they just have to work together. So I'd say the electric field is a concept we invented to explain the behavior of charged particles in the presence of other charged particles, and when the concept of "photon" later came along, it was found that the theory could also be expressed that way too, self-consistently. For one thing, electromagnetic fields were postulated, and found useful, some decades before it was even known that light came in quanta. So if it had not been true that light came in quanta, we'd still have electric fields!

The bottom line is, physical theories are not one united thing, they are a bunch of separate things that we select for any situation, that need to work together. You can think of physics theories as like a carpenter's tools, and all they need to do is work-- but they also have to work consistently together. This means you don't necessarily have to be able to use a saw in a situation where a hammer would work much better, but you do have to be able to put a saw and a hammer into the same toolbox without the saw cutting the hammer in half or the hammer bashing dents in the saw. That's what we mean by "consistency"-- and when we don't have it (such as in quantum mechanics and gravity), it has to "not matter" much (as in that case).

Like we have made up the concept of waves in liquids to explain the behaviour of atoms pushing against each other.

Interestingly, the concept of a "wave" has a kind of identity of its own, independent of the details of how the atoms push on each other. Indeed, in quantum mechanics we find we need the concept of wave even before we can understand how atoms push on each other! So it's another classic example of how all these ideas, waves and atoms, are just concepts that have to work together for us to feel we are using a good description.

[korjik]

So.. can I claim that the electromagnetic field is actually a concept that we humans have made up to explain the behaviour of photons? Like we have made up the concept of waves in liquids to explain the behaviour of atoms pushing against each other.

Actually, if there was only gravity, and collisions between particles, you could lift waves in water without atoms pushing against one another. It has to do with how that specific instability causes waves.

[Ken G]

Waves in liquids are made up?

Of course "waves in liquids" are made up. Those are three words, each with its own made up meaning, in combination-- and what else is a word but something made up? The words are made up to model something that is real, but the words never become the something that they model. (And tsunami victims prior to the invention of the concept of a "wave" were just as unfortunate as those after.) Science must make a distinction there, or it is just kidding itself. You might think that's a "quibble", but in fact the failure to recognize this self-evident fact has led to scientists having egg in their faces on quite a few historical occasions. Indeed, a classic example of one such occasion comes exactly from the situation surrounding the "waves in liquid" concept-- when physicists assumed that light waves must propagate through an aether. It was a classic case of thinking that the way a theory pictured the truth had to be the same thing as the truth itself.

[mugaliens]

What is an electric field? This one's easy! Particularly if you've every experienced static electricity.

Friction between two dissimilar materials causes the electrons on the material which has less of an affinity for electrons to move to the material which has a greater affinity for electrons. This is called the "triboelectric effect." The material which winds up with an excess of electrons is negatively charged. This is static electricity.

Tell your teacher that static electricity was first known as early as the 6th century BC, as attested to by the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Thales of Miletus.

Back to static fields...

Ever have your hair stand on end due to static electricity? That's a static field. You (and your hair) are either positively charged, or negatively charged. Regardless, you're charged, and your hair has the same charge.

Like charges replease, unlike charges attract.

On to magnetism...

Charges in motion produce a magnetic field. Thus, a simple monopole antenna works by rapidly alternating the charge in the antenna from positive to negative. Each oscillation results in a magnetic field, and the rapidly oscillating magnetic field radiates away. This is electromagnetic radiation.

We could achieve a similar effect by rapidly spinning a bar magnet. However, while similar, it's not the same, as we'd be missing the electric field part of the electromagnetic radiation.

[Neverfly]

oKokokokkk...

Since everyone else is giving these wordy answers that look all smart and brainy and stuff- I wanna play too.

Electrical fields are the fields of employment in which a person chooses a career in electrical engineering.

[DrRocket]

Thank you guys for all the great anwers, especially DrRocket and trinitree88 for being so specific. I think I have found the asnwer to my original question now.
And as for the teacher I will not contact the school administrators, because that teacher is still very good at the proffession related stuff that we have to learn, regarding electrical schematics and the physics behind electricity. It would also be a real mental weight for me to know that I am responsible for the unemployement of somebody. The best path is to just bear it, as DrRocket said.


Oh lawd, I have to tell this to my friends!


I'm in a.. I think I don't remember the English name for my school (in estonian it's Tartu Kutsehariduskeskus). Vocational Education Cetre of Tartu, if I do remember correctly. It's not university level. In Estonia you have the elementary school (4 years), intermediate school (5 years, something like junior high), secondary school (3 years, something like senior high). So I had to finish 12 years and make exams to get into this school, which is very profession related (cooking, metalcrafting, building.. and I'm in the web specialist section, which is just a fancy word for webmaster). So the things they teach us should be at least a bit higher than say senior high, but not as high as university level, as it is very specifically profession oriented.

Also as English is not my first language I don't know how to answer your second question. What's the difference between algebra and calculus?

Your English is a lot better than my Estonian.

Algebra is basically arithmetic done with letters in place of numerals. It allows you to handle some quantities as unknown variables.

Calculus is a subject in mathematics that sometimes follows algebra. It is the study of functions using tools called "derivatives" and "integrals". If those terms are not familiar to you then you are not using calculus in your physics class.

[Ken G]

(I actually had to hold a flashlight and spin the globe to convince him to accept "night and day" as an acceptable test answer).

Yeah, that's just unbelievable.

You can learn science with or without a teacher (with is better but not absolutely necessary). When you get more advanced you will find that the best a teacher can do is guide you, but you have to learn the subject for yourself anyway.

That is so true. On another thread, it was pointed out that John Wheeler once said that he teaches only so that he can learn himself. I think he was intimating that students also have to be teachers in order to learn-- even if they are simply teaching themselves.

[DrRocket]

Yeah, that's just unbelievable.
That is so true. On another thread, it was pointed out that John Wheeler once said that he teaches only so that he can learn himself. I think he was intimating that students also have to be teachers in order to learn-- even if they are simply teaching themselves.

Some of the classes that I enjoyed the most were mathematics classes taught using the "Moore method". In Moore method classes, the students are given the defintiions, theorems and examples, but nothing is worked out. The students are required to prove all of the theorems and work out all of the examples, using no references and without consultation with anyone (including the other students). Class time is spent presenting the proofs and worked-out examples. Basically the students get to do all of the teaching. Other classes used a text, but still required the students to do virtually all of the presentations.

My least favorite classes were classical lectures. Fortunately there were not many of those in graduate school.

[Ken G]

The students are required to prove all of the theorems and work out all of the examples, using no references and without consultation with anyone (including the other students).

I knew a teacher once who taught by a simple rule-- he himself was never allowed to touch chalk.

[William]

Originally posted by DrRocket: You can claim that the electric field is photons, behaving as photons always behave. In fact an electric field is the manifestation of a lot of photons.

But the real gist the notion is what Ken G told you. The electric field is a construct that allows scientists to predict natural phenomena in the presence of charged and moving charged particles. It is not really a "something" -- you can't go get a pound of it. And to say that it is composed of photons is accurate, but rather begs the question of what a photon is and what "it is made of". At some point you come back to the costruction of theories, almost always based on mathematics, that provide a prediction of what will actually be measured in some physical circumstances.

Quantum theory is actually silent on the notion of gravitons at the moment. There is no current viable quantum theory of gravity, but there is a lot of research being conducted to try to formulate such a theory. what has been agreed on is the name for the particle that carries the force, if it exists -- the graviton. In fact the notion of a graviton is based on an analogy to the photon being the carrier of the electromagnetic force. The photon is a known particle and the physics surrounding it are known.

I support these comments. This is to further clarify.

Certain phenomena can be analyzed and predictions made using Maxwell's model. We do not know what is an electron or what is the connection of an electron to physical space. There are basic fundamental theoretical problems with Maxwell's model. There is no explanation as to what holds 'charge' together. A simple calculation shows the amount of force required to hold charge together is infinite which cannot be correct for obvious reasons. The concept of charge which can create an electric field or a magnetic field and the relationship of the two fields is defined by Maxwell's model. Physically what is happening is different.

The question what holds charge together is not a important physical question if 'charge' does not physically exist. i.e. A model that is physically based would likely not have 'charge'.

The concept of moving force into space (Maxwell's model's field is a field of force) is an extrapolation of the mathematical techniques that Newton used.

Maxwell's model is a curve fitting model, rather than a physical model. A physical model would explain what is physically observed and be ontologically correct (One to one relationship of the primitives in the model to fundamental physical entities). For example, there are obvious similarities and difference between an electron and proton which have no explanation. There is no explanation as to why electrons and protons have an intrinsic magnetic field. When I use the term 'magnetic field' to describe a certain property or phenomena, that is a distortion of what is physically happening or physically exists.

For example the term 'particle' something that carries the mathematical properties through the empty mathematical space is a theoretical concept. It is very likely electrons and protons are not physical entities that carry properties through empty space. (i.e. A physical electron does not carry charge through space, where charge can create a field of force in space.)

Quantum theory is an on top of model. It does not correct the problems with Maxwell's model, but rather adds additional model factors which again allows certain phenomena to be analyzed and predictions made.

When we say light is both a particle and wave, that is not correct. The word 'is' is used when assigning ontological identity and in this case implies an answer to the physical problem.

Based on observations and consistent with the fundamental reason why the Quantum mechanics model can make predictions: Light is a time varying bounded entity. Electrons and protons are also time varying bounded entities. It appears based on observations that electrons, protons, and light are not separate from physical space. (i.e. There is no surface which separates physical space from an electron, photon, or proton.)

[Ken G]

The question what holds charge together is not a important physical question if 'charge' does not physically exist. i.e. A model that is physically based would likely not have 'charge'.

I agree, except for the implication that there is any such thing as a "physically based" model in the way you suggest. In my view, either all models are physically based, or none are, but there is no point in cherry picking which models qualify and which ones don't.

A physical model would explain what is physically observed and be ontologically correct (One to one relationship of the primitives in the model to fundamental physical entities).

I do not believe there is any example of what you imagine would be a "physically based model". So what is the point of defining a phrase that has no meaning via examples? Perhaps as a kind of philosophical ideal, but it may have nothing at all to do with science, as it hasn't yet. (Note I'm not one who maintains that philosophy has no connection to science, I merely point out that the way you are applying philosophy here has no connection to science that I am aware of.)

There is no explanation as to why electrons and protons have an intrinsic magnetic field. When I use the term 'magnetic field' to describe a certain property or phenomena, that is a distortion of what is physically happening or physically exists.

Again I basically agree, but again I point out that this is what science always is. The term "distortion" is loaded-- it carries an untrue connotation of loss of usefulness or the introduction of unwanted error. But the only way the word applies to science is like in the sentence "the goal of science is to distort reality enough so that we can understand it."

Based on observations and consistent with the fundamental reason why the Quantum mechanics model can make predictions: Light is a time varying bounded entity.

Your use of "is" fails the same test as the other use you quote. The fact is, when we assert what something "is" in science, in any context meant to convey ontology, we are using somewhat lazy language. In actuality, any word you use in a sentence like "word X is..." can only be followed correctly by "... a concept invented by scientists and imbued with the following attributes to model the following observed real behavior," not by "a time varying bounded entity" any more than "a particle and a wave".

It appears based on observations that electrons, protons, and light are not separate from physical space. (i.e. There is no surface which separates physical space from an electron, photon, or proton.)

The proton is not a point particle, so does have a concept of volume associated with it (essentially the volume in which the quarks are bound). But I'd say the "take-home message" is that everything is a model, including electrons, photons, protons... and space itself. None of these should be taken too seriously, as that would always tend to imbue a theory with extraneous and undue characteristics. Which brings us full circle back to the OP.

[HenrikOlsen]

I've moved Extractor's hijack attempt from this thread and over to ATM where it's subject belongs.

Extractor, please keep discussions of EU ideas in the ATM forum. This is an official warning.

[mugaliens]

Some of the classes that I enjoyed the most were mathematics classes taught using the "Moore method". In Moore method classes, the students are given the defintiions, theorems and examples, but nothing is worked out. The students are required to prove all of the theorems and work out all of the examples, using no references and without consultation with anyone (including the other students). Class time is spent presenting the proofs and worked-out examples.

If this approach had been used in college, it would have taken all year to get through just one of the twenty-four chapters in our five-hour calc class.

Having said that, I think it's a great idea to have students use this approach periodically, but no more than, say, a third of the time. The Moore method really does go a long way to break the cycle of rote memorization and non-understanding regurgitation.

I used to hate it when I'd tutor other students who hadn't a clue, no real feel, for the nature of and applications for the math they were learning, but who would then ace the test while I'd crack a B.

I've some consolation in that I work with other engineers, supposedly who learned statistics, who nevertheless resort, constantly, to the sort of "statistics" practiced by those who've never gone beyond the concept of a mean. That they draw conclusions from, and make sweeping (and often incorrect) decisions based on their efforts is unfathomable, but understandable if they got through college on the "monkey see, monkey do" principle."

Pass the banana...

[Ken G]

Having said that, I think it's a great idea to have students use this approach periodically, but no more than, say, a third of the time. The Moore method really does go a long way to break the cycle of rote memorization and non-understanding regurgitation.

Yes, I think some sort of compromise between "depth" and "breadth" is a good idea. The Moore method might be a good way to teach students how to do math, and once you've given them that, then you can spend the rest of the course trying to "cover" more material. But it is certainly a mistake to do all of the latter and none of the former-- recall the question teachers always ask: "Did you cover such-and-such in your last class?" Usually, the response was dead silence, because no one knows whether or not they "covered" something, only whether or not they understand something.