Can a Non-Tangible Thing Effect a Tangible thing in the Physical World Directly?.

The Question Is that of the Title. In-Tangible effecting Tangible.


Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My metaphysics works awesome for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

tan·gi·ble
tan-juh-buhl
–adjective

1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.

Which "tangible" do you mean?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is more of a follow up question on my "3 Questions about Photons" Thread,

Fraggle Got me thinking on what the real quation I was asking really was at it's root, This was the conclusion for the next question.


In the Context of "Photons/Light" Fraggle refuted my train of thought with a statement of Light not actualy being a Tangible Mass so it is M=0.


So MY question in this context is If Light In not Tangible then How could It have effect on the Tangible Mass in existence.




Peace.

 

Except that light is "tangible".

pete listed 4 but i think it is mainly something you cant touch. you cant touch the sun but it can touch you, in a tangible way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Light has energy and interacts with electrons.

 

which is the same for any light source.

 

Complete intangible cannot affect the tangible, as they would be perfect opposites, which is also the problem with the notion of a soul, for the intangible would have to speak the tangible's language in order for there to be an effect. If this is still insisted on, then there would no be conservation of energy, anyway, for such a supposed transaction. So, DesCartes was before Horace.

The non-material is still physical. Take space, for example, if absolute in some sense. It exists, for what has a quantity has existence, and space's quantity is volume. One might say that space is physical, but not material, and that it is quite inert to any material, but it is still not intangible.

I would hold that nothing at all is really intangible, but grant that things like dark matter or neutrinos, which are still tangible, may not usually cause much of a stir.

 

Sure, first we have to prove the intangible exists. But then wouldnt you consider the intangible then tangible?

 

Then it wasn't really intangible in the first place. All is physical, and some of that is also material.

"Immaterial," says the judge, and so he disallows it. Now all believers must disregard it. Can't make a case of what ain't there.

 

I answered yes, because gravity directly affects tangible objects, and there's no proof that the graviton exists (and even if it does, I am not sure it meets the definition of "tangible").

 

Sure, why not? Physical laws aren't tangible...

 

Of course. Two of the most important ones being value [or money] and time.

...and what Chipz said.

 

Good detective work paying attention to small prints and details im impressed you would be so useful if you passed the faith test.

I put that "Directly" in for a reason to stop people saying abstract words and numbers become tangible when a person manifests those thoughs into physical actions. or simular themed arguments that waste time.


Peace

 

And what about magnetic field?

 

Michael Faraday introduced one of the most radical ideas in science. They thought that he had, for once, gone too far. Particles became rather irrelevant, being mere spigots through which forces flowed. The real stuff of reality was the forces flowing, the particles being only the source. The burden of reality had shifted, for the space between particles became primary. Particles were only the intersection of the forces that wove the universe.

Forces create stresses in space, a superhighway of how to get from here to there. An electron wiggles in the sun, tweaking the E/M field; the ripples travel for 8 minutes then tickle an electron in your eye. You see the light; light is a tweak.

Physics has never been the same since. The field concept became real, the idea being the same as the thing, fudging forever the difference between something and nothing; yet, fields are made of something real, for they have energy. Einstein called the field that “A change in the concept of reality… the most profound and fruitful one that has come to physics since Newton.”

Matter, then, is simply a place where some of the field happens to be concentrated. Matter travels like a wave in a rope, but, the rope itself does not travel. The field is not so much something in space, but more like of space. This is why all particles of a type are identical; for they are each manifestations of their fields everywhere the same. The field takes on a life of its own, even when the object that created it is gone. The traveling kinks continue; they propagate endlessly.

Where the vacuum is free of matter it is not free of field, but filled with it. Energy and mass are the same stuff, but it takes a whole lot of energy to make mass. Field is thus the bridge between matter and empty space. Fields can’t go away, as they’re part of the structure of the vacuum; when in their quietest possible state they are the vacuum. This is about as close to nothing as anything ever gets.

Forces act on things, while matter is acted upon; you can walk through a field, but you cannot walk through a wall. Kinks in fields can pile atop one another; kinks in matter hold each other at arm’s length. Yet, somehow, beneath it all, they are kindred spirits. Faraday made fields real; Quantum mechanics made them magic—and lumpy—the currency of QM.

Everything melts, via uncertainty, as when we try to measure a quantum property. But this, too, means that no quantum property can ever be zero, for zero is a precise amount, that is, it is that motion can never cease. Try to pin down an electron, such as putting it in a box, and it increasingly moves about, ever faster. It is heads or tails while it is still spinning? Well, it is just a fuzzy ‘both’ yet neither.

In a way, QM eliminated the very idea of zero from the physical world, as ‘nothing’ never sleeps, but is ever up to something.

 

Why do you assume that zero mass implies intangible?

The good science says that even though light has no rest mass, it does have momentum and energy. This means it can push on things, so by definition 1, something with zero mass can be tangible.

Zero mass doesn't seem to directly imply that something is imaginary or purely visionary rather than real or actual, so definition 2 also seems to allow tangibility without mass.

Definitions 3 and 4 apply to concepts and financial entities rather than physical things, so I think they don't apply here.

 

The forever fields of reality… are the fields.

 

Minds are not intangible, they are physical. There is only the illusion of a persistent self, like the way a movie looks real, but it's made of 24 still frames per second. The mind seems real, but it is made of separate thoughts, the products of a physical computing system.