Who is your favorite Physicist?

Only one?

Appreciate that, carry on.

I think candidate mark1 has been out-trolled here!
I see that the two wall flowers tried a bit of consolation dancing together, but it didn't last !
(BTW Note the last word obsession )

Dear fresco, honestly, is there something I can learn from you, and you are happy to teach me?

You will tell me, that you want to teach me how to name drop and how to technical terms drop in every post you write.

Tell you what, you teach me how to name drop and how to techical terms drop, and I teach you how to think from your very own personal brain resources.

Is that all right with you?

Okay, readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for fresco to react to my proposal about we he and me teach each other, each one's expertise.

How could you pick one. Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, Maxwell, Borde, Guth, Viliken. Einstein wasn't the greatest mathematician, but he could see how the first four's work tied together. Now we have Erik Verinde. All these men saw patterns in the physical world they could mathematically represent nearly perfectly with measured observation. I chose Planck, Shroedinger, and Einstein. Worst is Hawkins. Hopefully Borde Guth and Viliken theory will correct Hawkings' wrong assumptions about the Big Bang.

Dear Brian, you are into the drag race of names dropping and eventually technical terms dropping; see my post immediately preceding yours here, to get some idea on something more useful to readers, than names dropping and technical terms dropping.

Anyway, I will save you the touble by just bringing it to you as follows below; however focus your attention on the line I put in bold - and please, no hatred to me because I am spoiling your gambit for some vanity tripping from your part.

Just answering the question. I thought the people I listed were brilliant mathematicians, and really contributed to physics in a way that radically changed the physics world with their work. I liked reading their work. And agree with their assumptions. I don't agree with Hawkings. I don't think his theory fits with entropic gravity, and I think entropic gravity is going to unite relativity and quantum mechanics.

Thanks, Brian, for your nice attitude to not get mad at me.

Now, tell me as you know the physics dealt with by scientists like Hawking, is there something existing in the space between two subatomic particles?

Either particles interact directly with nothing between them, like the quarks inside an atom, or their is a field. (Electromagnetic field, or Higgs Field for example)

Julius Sumner Miller

Dear Brian, again I want to commend you for not getting mad and hateful toward me, as most posters here do, because I see them to be into shallowness.

Now, and I hope you continue to be not mad and hateful toward me, but what I see in threads like Who is your favorite Physicist, is that posters there are talking from nowhere to nowhere, all in limbo.

You reply to me on "is there something existing in the space between two subatomic particles?" thus, namely:

"@Susmariosep,
Either particles interact directly with nothing between them, like the quarks inside an atom, or their is a field. (Electromagnetic field, or Higgs Field for example)."

Bear with me as I try to rewrite your text, as follows:

Instead of this text from you:
"@Susmariosep,
Either particles interact directly with nothing between them, like the quarks inside an atom, or their is a field. (Electromagnetic field, or Higgs Field for example)."

I will rewrite it thus, below, and hope that I express your thought better, of course also that I understand you better than you yourself understand your text, as follows.

"@Susmariosep,
Yes, there is something in the space between two subatomic particles like for example between two quarks inside an atom; there is the Electromagnetic field, or Higgs Field for example, in the space between them, and they do interact between them in the space between them which space is a field."

Is that rewriting from me correct?

Now, may I propose that you pick up just one idea of your one favorite physicist, and talk about that idea as to enlighten folks like yours truly, who is not a physicist but is literate enough to understand everyday's English.

Annex

Shroedinger and Planck provided the mathematical framework that established that particles of matter that interact with each other in fields made up of particles and virtual particles. I think a physical interpretation of Shroedinger's Equation, shows there is a virtual particle structure to the vacuum of space now known as the Higgs field, constructed of virtual particles that can be loosened from the field with a particle accelerator. When this happens a real Higgs Boson is observed.

Dear Brian, can't commend you too much for your goodness.

Now is my chance to get a lot of education from you and guys like you, on my questions in re existence of particles of the in particular subatomic kinds.

You say:
"Shroedinger and Planck provided the mathematical framework that established that particles of matter that interact with each other in fields made up of particles and virtual particles."

Three, I notice your phrase, "particles and virtual particles".

So, as I always dwell on the ideas that:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, and also
2. existence is from oneself or from another, and as well that
3. existence is in the mind and/or outside of and independent of the mind...

What is the difference between particle and virtual particle, which one is existing outside and independent of the mind, and which exists only in the mind - understanding mind as in the mind of man: so that if a man is mindless then he cannot have something in his mind because he has no mind.

Can a man happen to have no mind?

Certainly, otherwise how come we have the adjective applied to humans described as mindless.

An example of a man without a mind is when he lost his mind, as when he is crazy, so you and I cannot communicate with him as to get linked up with him at all.

Dear Brian, which particle: particle as such (no further description) or particle described as virtual particle, exists in reality that is independent of the mind, and which exists only in the mind.

Virtual particles are particles that really exist. Virtual is the word used by physicists to describe them, because they don't know, and still argue, if they exist at all times, or do the exist only when we detect them. I think they exist all the time, and that so-called "empty space" is made up of interlocking pulsating so-called "virtual" particles. (See quantum gravity, and entropic gravity). As long as the particles of space pulsate as a group of interlocking particles they act as one particle filling the whole space-time continuum of a universe. (See Higgs Field). Matter disturbs this field, thus temporarily releasing particles from this field that can be sensed. But, they being reabsorbed back into the field nearly instantly. So, that is when a virtual particle becomes a real particle, when we can sense it as a separate particle from the rest of the virtual particles constructing the field.

Dear Brian, I fear you have not dealt with what I am after, namely, what is the difference between particle [without any further description] and virtual particle, namely, in terms of which one is existing in objective reality outside and independent of our mind, and which only in our mind.

Consider my thought, namely:

Perhaps scientists have come to what is the role of virtual particles in the universe, when there was no human around yet.

Wherefore no mind for an environment in which they exist as virtual particles, instead of existing just like particles [without further description like with the word, virtual].

1. The physical world is where all existence becomes real.
2. The existence of oneself from one another is defined by our individual thoughts and ideas being separate from everyone else's. Our thoughts are separated from everyone else's by each of us having separate physical bodies. But, my existence came from another, even though my thoughts are my own.
3. A thought is not physical, but is revealed in the physical world through our mind and body. So, our thoughts which are not physical, are revealed to everyone else physically through our mind, which is physical.

If you are asking if existence is independent of the mind? I would say yes. I would also say that the ability to think of an idea is necessary for existence. I don't think the body is necessary to think of an idea, but the body is necessary if you want to share the idea, because the body is needed to transmit the word that the idea expresses. I also believe the word can exist even if the idea is thought of but can't be/ or isn't shared.

Thanks Brian for your reply.

Now, you say:
"1. The physical world is where all existence becomes real."

I like very much to know what you understand by the word real, and please give examples of real.

Here is what I am saying all the time, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Notice the word reality, it means something that is real as opposed to something that is not real.

Examples of something that is real is the nose in our face, or the one dollar bill in my pocket, or the moon in the sky, or the smoke coming forth from a cigarette smoker's mouth.

Please see if you care to tell me what you understand by the word real, and give four examples.

Then we will try to work together to understand what is virtual as in virtual particle, as opposed to particle without any description, but all by itself, the word particle: is that particle all by itself without any description, is it real particle or what, unreal particle? but it is not virtual particle, or is it(?).

I think "virtual particles" are as real as "real particles". My nose is real. Air molecules are real. Atmospheric pressure is real.

The physics world has been realizing for years that all fields are made up of something. We can't call them particles, because particles basically are defined as having mass, and volume, and make up matter. If space is a field (Higgs Field maybe) made up of something like particles that are interacting, we can't call them particles, because that definition has already been used for particles of matter that have defined properties. Because we can't easily detect the particles that construct the Higgs Field (Higgs Bosons maybe), even though we know that they are surrounding us and interacting with matter to hold it together through the nuclear and electromagnetic forces. (This could be likened to the atmosphere keeping a balloon from overinflating.) So now with the introduction of theories that give a structure to space (Higgs field) that is probably made up of particles (Higgs bosons) that are probably really always there, but the have little to no mass and only carry forces or give a medium for information to travel through, we have to give them a different name besides particles, thus the name virtual particles. Now scientists being who they are (which is very precise in verbiage and limiting speculation without definite proof) will only admit the existence of these force carrying particles when they can detect them (they are detectable a for very short periods of time) and in mathematical constructs like Feynman diagrams. The big argument today in physics is, do they exist when they interlock with the rest of the particles making up the field and are no longer detectable by us or not. If they do exist that means we are surrounded by a Higgs Field constructed of Higgs Bosons that is a highly orderednearly undetectable, near zero viscosity super fluid.

The bad thing is, if the field does exist, figuring out how this highly ordered super fluid came to be presents a lot of problems Physicists including changing some long held assumptions about the origins and structure of the universe.

The good thing is, if it does exist, (and virtual particles are really poorly named real pieces of what we thought was "empty space" and are as real as molecules of air) as many are speculating, it creates a whole new set of problems for physicists with a whole new set of answers, that can change some long held assumptions.

If it doesn't exist I can't see how we are ever going to explain where the nuclear forces and gravity (physically and really) originate from. It appears to be a mathematical figment of our imagination.

Atmospheric pressure is real. Air molecules are real. When a hole is cut in an airliner flying at a high altitude, the difference in atmospheric pressure between the outside of the airliner and the inside becomes painfully obvious as everyone is sucked out the whole. Once the pressure evens out the hole in the airliner has very little to do with your ability to stay on the plane, and atmospheric pressure is basically undetectable. While the airliner is intact and the air pressure is stable the atmosphere can be ignored. Let's use the physics world's use of the term "virtual" to describe this. When the hole is cut and the change in atmospheric pressure is relevant, the atmosphere appears as a virtual atmosphere until the pressures even out and the atmosphere is no longer detectable as a force or wind trying to suck you out. When it is no longer relevant physicists would say it no longer exists, instead of trying to explain something you can't detect. The problem is the atmosphere still exists and it gives us wind and barometric pressure. The problem is the Higgs field exists and gives us barometric pressure as the electro nuclear forces, and wind as gravity. (See entropic gravity)

Dear Brian, thanks a lot for your reply.

Now, you tell me that:
"I think "virtual particles" are as real as "real particles". My nose is real. Air molecules are real. Atmospheric pressure is real."

You think but you are not sure virtual particles are real like the nose in our face is real.

You see, you and I and everybody can point to his nose and everyone's else nose, but can you point to any virtual particle at all?

Perhaps you will see that virtual particle is all in your mind, but outside and independent of your mind, there is no virtual particle.