Who is your favorite Physicist?

As you can see, an attempt is being made drag into an agreement with an ideosyncratic version of 'reality is in the mind of God', (which is merely another version of either the 'God of Spinoza' or the 'God of Berkeley) Paradigmatics is the last thing that a would be self serving proselytizer wants to hear about!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

My concept of real is. What I can sense is real. What I can't sense but can logically explain is also real. Sometimes what I can't sense is necessary to make what I can sense logical.
Mathematics are not reality. It is just one way we express our sense of reality to each other. Using complex math to explain forces in reality is helpful and good. But not being able to explain that math in pictures that you can imagine as real as the nose on your face, is a math that is in dire need of interpretation.

You experience the effect of virtual particles everyday:
when you feel gravity
when your atoms stay together
When you transmit a message through the vacuum of space.

We can't sense them because they are smaller than any sensor we can ever build to sense them.

We can imagine what they need to look like if we could get small enough to sense them. They need to look like particles that have all the properties necessary to fulfill the requirements necessary to give a structure to the space in atoms and between atoms, that also gives us the results we experience through our senses.

I believe I can do that.
I believe there are many. My question to you is, "what does your mind look like?" Is it the cells of your brain? The quarks and electrons that make up the atoms in your brain cells? Is your mind as obvious as the nose on your face? Or is it just an invisible collection of ideas that is using your brain cells?

I agree. Sorry about the sidetrack.

I do think that every great mathematician should be able to physically imagine and explain in reality what his or her math is doing at the level of the entire universe down to the smallest piece of whatever. I think Planck, Shroedinger, Maxwell and Einstein, must have been able to do that to come up with their mathematical Equations. Einstein did explain this some what. The rest are a real puzzle to me. They seemed to pull Math out of blue sky, because they don't give many explanations. I think they all probably had one though.

Dear Brian, you tell me:
"My concept of real is. What I can sense is real. What I can't sense but can logically explain is also real. Sometimes what I can't sense is necessary to make what I can sense logical."

Well, that is some concept, but I - if I may - I see it to be quite lacking in relevant focus in regard to the reality that we experience in the world outside and independent of our mind.

Perhaps you will give as example of reality the virtual particle, okay?

And wherefore scientists use the term virtual particles to distinguish them from particles without any further description, indicating to people that virtual particles need not be taken seriously as that we must be attentive in regard to them, otherwise we could get hurt, or enjoy some bodily benefit, with keeping them in mind, which is also unnecessary.

So, you do reap some emotional plus in your mind, and thus know more of things of mental speculation; well and good for you, after all what are you a scientist for?

Now, my concept of reality is anything at all which impacts on our experience of the world outside and independent of our mind, that when we don't give serious attention to it we can and do get hurt, or we stay healthy and enjoying life when we do take it seriously.

For example, the nose in our face and the presence of a concrete wall facing us.

. Are you saying, Great physicists always talk about something real you can see and relate to? What makes you say the planet is hot enough? It has been hotter and colder in the past.

. Sounds like a great concept. I strongly suggest you stick with it. It is an acceptable concept that I think most good people live by. Therefor I suggest you don't worry about virtual particles or what anybody else thinks of them. Who is your favorite physicist?

Maybe it's about the difference in useful, potentially
Productive knowledge and buckets-full of chalk-dust and marvelous words like
"quark", "boson", "dark matter"etc. X etc.

A philosophical pragmatist would argue along the lines that your phrase 'physically imagine and explain in reality' is vacuous, since most recent modelling is not open to 'picturing' and 'explanation in reality'. Such modelling is judged ultimately only to the extent that it amounts to 'successful prediction and control'. Far more important in modelling than the lay concept of 'causality' is the elegance/symmetry/Occam's Razor factor, which has been largely responsible for counter intuitive data gathering. In fact, pragmatists (like Rorty) argue that debates about 'independent reality' are futile. What matters is 'what works' which gives confidence in our limited attempts to predict and control. Note for example how the 'mathematics of confidence', i.e. probability theory, now occupies a central position in quantum paradigms.

Interesting how physics is now embracing probability and how resistent to it is biology in abiogenesis and evolution.

@All readers and posters.

What do you say, guys here, what is the distinction between an animate thing and an in-animate thing?

An example of an animate thing is man, and also the pet dog or pet cat or even the working horse.

Now, an example of an in-animate thing is a pebble.

Among animate things like humans, we humans think with our mind, and we can with our mind fantasize all kinds of things, like a creature we call a centaur.

What is a centaur?

Wait, I will look up with google dictionary what is a centaur.

. . . . . . . .

Okay, here is the concept of the word centaur from the dictionary function of google:

Do you notice, dear guys here, that a centaur is all in the mind of man.

Now, consider what is called among physicists virtual particle, or among computer software engineers, virtual reality.

In English what is virtual is not real, but ultimately it is all in our mind, and nothing of any experience of it the virtual thing in our mind - in the world outside our mind, not like experiencing it as we experience the nose in our face.

Trouble now is with people who talk as though things which they can fabricate in their minds as to observe some logic in their mind, they already insist that these things, e.g., virtual particle and virtual reality, these things are already for themselves real, like the nose in our face.

And they thus talk without making the crucial distinction about virtual particle and virtual reality, objects which are all inside their mind, that these things are not real, compared to the nose in our face: because we cannot experience them, while we experience all the time and everywhere the nose in our face.

So, dear guys here, even though you are scientists, that does not dispense you from NOT talking as though virtual particle and virtual reality are no different from the reality of the nose in our face - no matter that you can fabricate mathematically convincing in your mind, on how logical they are, inside your mind.

Now, as you are so attached to them in your mind, what you should do is really to go outside your mind, and search the universe for objects corresponding to their concepts in your mind.

Or you invent a virtual particle, or a virtual reality of a say beautiful girl, that has all the qualities of such items inside your mind, which qualities also really work i.e. function outside your mind, with your inventions of them outside and independent now of your mental fabrications of them inside your mind.

When you can’t ever produce concrete beings outside your mind corresponding to their concepts inside your mind, but with the crucial difference that these beings invented by you, once you get them into the reality that prevails outside your mind, they are already independent of your mind, in order to exist and operate outside of your mind, in the world of reality like the nose in our face, which nose we experience all the time and everywhere to be present and functioning.

So, in brief words, what is the difference between virtual things and real things?

The difference lies in the fact of whether you can and do find and thus experience these entities outside your mind, or you do not find such entities outside your mind, but you succeed to invent them.

Otherwise you can only continue to maintain them inside your mind, and tell yourselves, that insofar as you are concerned they are as real as the nose in our face - and confuse people who talk with you, but are sharp enough to notice that you are talking of fictions and fantasies - all in your mind without realizing that in fact you are thus existing in a limbo of your own mental world.

More turgid crapology? Your grasp of the concept of 'mind' is about the same as your grasp of physics. ...i.e. adolescent level.

Why isn't recent modelling open to picturing. Who decided that. I think we could imagine exactly what the Higgs field and the fields inside of atoms look like, and what it looks like when they interact. All it takes is an understanding of all the current interpretations of physics, and how they are all really looking at the same picture from a different point of view. Some math already provides a picture like Schrodinger's Equations and atomic orbitals. I belive Occam's razor is correct, and the structure of the Higgs Field, the field inside the atom, and all the other particles of physics is actually simple and fairly easy to picture. The thing that is hard to imagine is how all the order came to be.

I don't believe in an independent reality. I believe in a reality that is a complete understanding of the reality we are already observing(including both mathematically and as a physical picture or three-dimensional model) one can actually discuss like the counter top I am sitting at, which includes the internal structure of the atom and the Higgs field.

It is hard to talk about airplane wings and lift using math until you imagine what a wing looks like, and what the space between the atoms above the wing look like compared to the space between the atoms below wing provides lift because you can imagine the shape of the wing. The same is true when it comes to the space between the particles or virtual particles constructing matter and space when trying to picture gravity.

Examples of 'unpictuable' models.
1.Non euclidean n dimensional space in which 'infinity meets itself' thereby negating the concept of an 'edge' of the universe.
2. The non-locality of particles.
3. Dark matter and dark energy.

Obviously part pictures can be drawn to represent partial aspects of say 'atoms'...like heliocentric models or standing waves to account for discrete orbits. But these pictures become blurred with respect to the dominant concept of 'probability distribution'. I suggest the phrase 'same picture' which you offer, really boils down to 'same word' which stands for an agreed concept rather than an agreed picture per se BTW the concept of 'order' is an anthropocentric one as indeed is 'laws of nature'. We project 'order' like we see 'faces in clouds'...the only difference being degrees of persistence,

As far as the word 'reality' is concerned, I have stated the pragmatists scepticism about its utility outside lay usage. This impinges on the very concept of 'observation' which it is argued always involves verbal and species specific physiological processing, As Heisenberg said "we never observe nature directly, but only the results of the questions we ask of it". In that respect he was following Kant's distiction between noumena and phenomena, the pragmatists going one stage further by rejecting noumena (or 'things-in-themselves') as useless.

Okay, thanks everyone who do take notice of my posting, appreciate it very sincerely.

So, I invite all you enthusiasts of physicists as to have one your favorite physicist, take time out to think on this statement from yours truly:
“The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, for example, the nose in our face is in existence or has existence because it is a part of the default status of things in the totality of reality.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Have I heard some very hateful characters here telling everyone that the statement from me is a tautology?

See? such hateful characters are always dwelling inside their brain.

Please, you inside your brain and using it as a stopper of sorts, to stifle thinking outside your brain on the realities outside, like the nose in our face, please produce four examples of tautology in the world outside your brain, and explain why they are tautologies, okay?

Then we will have an enjoyable exchange on realities outside our brain and that they cannot be useless tautologies.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await to witness with bated breath how our resident hateful posters will react now to my post here.

But I tell you, with all that hatred in their heart and mind, it is inevitable that sooner than later, they will get bleeding ulcers.

Hehehehehehehehehehehehe.

@All readers and posters.

Dear colleagues here, enthusiasts of physics and sporting your favorite physicist, dropping names and dropping technical terms, and waxing eloquent with empty aka in-decryptable verbiage:

Here is a bonus to the anchoring of your thinking into the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence, see Annex below.

Annex

There it is, mein Führer! The end of physics as we know it! Between Frohnau and Pankow!

Unmöglich! I thought it was at Oberpfaffenhofen !
Get me Fegelein !