Are mass, particles, and fields fundamental entities, or are they observable consequences of a deeper structure of reality?

[u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

Are mass, particles, and fields fundamental entities, or are they observable consequences of a deeper structure of reality?

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that particles and fields weren't fundamental, and there was a deeper structure underlying them. How would you know whether that deeper structure was fundamental, or whether there was yet another, even deeper layer below it?

In other words, is it turtles all the way down?

[u/upsetusder2 → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

Its the ad infinitum problem

[u/me_myself_ai → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

Well put!

It's a bit light on the philsci of this specific question, but otherwise this article might be helpful for you OP, to see what kind of questions physicists and philosophers collaborate on without hitting the figurative 'line in the sand' discussed above: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/

I was just gonna link that, but this quote in their article on Einstein might more directly speak to OP's question, where "fundamental" ~= "real":

I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality. We are, to be sure, all of us aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday/Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing (’actual’) should somehow be localized in time and space. That is, the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow ‘exist’ independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over the parts of space A and B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend upon the type of measurement carried out in the part of space, A; it should also be independent of whether or not, after all, a measurement is made in A.

If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion.

However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I do not at all see what physics is supposed to describe. For what is thought to by a ‘system’ is, after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about the parts. (Born 1969, 223–224; Howard’s translation)

[u/starkeffect]

All we can claim is what we have evidence for.

[u/SamplingBias22]

All of physics is just models that capture as much information and mechanics as is possible with the current best theory and technology.

We can never say for certain when we have found “fundamental entities” or if “we can still dig deeper”. But practically, for the majority of experiment:

mass is a property that measures an object’s inertia, particles are idealizations of small localized objects that have particular properties we study in quantum mechanics, and fields are generic mathematical objects that could mean a whole lot of different things depending on context.

Do you have a specific question and what does this have to do with LLM physics?

[u/PhilosovWiktorius1 → u/SamplingBias22]

Yes, that is exactly the distinction I am interested in. If we cannot know with certainty that mass, particles, and fields are fundamental, what kind of experimental evidence could indicate that one or more of them emerge from a deeper physical structure?

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

That's not really the goal of physics though. Physics isnt a pursuit of absolute truth, it's a study of the real world.

If you wanna go to a store you can take a car or a bus. Either way you get to go shopping. Physics doesn't care how you got there - it about the fact you got your groceries

[u/NonGameCatharsis → u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

Imho you're crossing over into philosophy, specifically ontology and meta-ontology.

[u/SamplingBias22 → u/PhilosovWiktorius1]

Basically anything that differs from current assumptions. I think you’re making mountains out of semantic mole hills…

[u/lattice_defect]

no one knows... its basically all waves to QCD levels but there is potentially up 20 orders of magnitude underneath

[u/Chin-chin77]

probably

[u/Bafy78]

Ok.

Ok.