Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   The word field is unscientific

    The seasoned physicist may stubbornly insist that the foregoing arguments are strictly semantic. After all,
    it has been observed that an offending particle somehow suffers behavioral changes when it crosses the
    space surrounding an object. How, then, should we refer to this region?

    The answer is that we can call the region X, Y, or Z, or just region, it wouldn't matter. It is simply irrational to
    affirm that a concept accelerates an object. Moreover, it would be conceptually incorrect to say that a physical
    medium such as an ocean accelerated a fish although acceptable to say that the ocean accelerated a sailboat.
    In the latter case we are implicitly referring to the surface of a medium pushing up against the sailboat whereas
    in the case of the fish, the word ocean is used in a metaphorical sense. What actually accelerated the fish is an
    internal current of water.

    Likewise, assuming the mathematical field were a medium, the prosecutor can say that a particle rebounded
    off the edge of the field, but not that the field accelerated the particle found within its interior. And to twist this
    around and say that the particle accelerated through the field can only have the purpose of a cosmetic or
    political purpose. The insinuation remains that the particle is traversing an invisible ocean when we have just
    shown that a field cannot be conceptualized as a medium. The prosecutor can say that the particle accelerates
    with respect to its starting point or its destination, but not with respect to or because of a concept that serves
    as a makeshift medium. It is logically inconsistent for the word field to be introduced as a concept only to
    convert later into a physical object during the explanation of the theory. It is this duality of treating field
    alternately as a concept and as an object that enables the presenter to escape through loopholes when the
    press asks tough questions at the end of the presentation.

    Indeed, there is a simple test to show that field is a meaningless word. We replace the word field with the word
    soul throughout the scientific paper. Has the jury's understanding improved?

    2.0   The word field belongs in religion

    And this brings up the issue of whether there is any difference between the word field and mystical words
    routinely used in religion. Here I draw a parallel between the words field and heaven just to illustrate how
    sorely misused the word field is in Physics.

    In order to explain certain concepts, theories, and arguments theologians of antiquity were compelled to
    invent the strategic word heaven. The word heaven shares with the word field that it is a mystical place and
    concept. It is also very old and very 'useful':

    “heaven: a concept...that describes a place "not of this world". [1]

    It is during the course of the theological seminar that prosecutor converts the word heaven into a material

    Likewise, the prosecutors of relativity and quantum define a field as a non-structural 'region' or as a
    mathematical concept. It is when the prosecutors explain their theories that the word field suffers its
    structural metamorphosis.

      Examples where the concept field morphs into a physical object

    " the shape of receptive fields" [2]
    " The penumbral magnetic field has an intricate and unexpected interlocking-comb
      structure" [3]
    " The penumbral magnetic field has a fluted structure" [4]
    " the geometry of the magnetic field" [5]
    " An unusual magnetic field structure was detected" [6]
    " a region of size R filled with magnetic field B" [7]

      Examples where the external surface of a field interferes with physical objects

    " [the] electric field inevitably accelerates the particle" [8]
    " It is the effective electric field ′E|| which accelerates electrons..." [9]
    " an energetic particle will still loose energy radiatively while moving through magnetic
      and electric fields which confine and accelerate this particle." [7]
    " the light-ray trajectory perturbed by the gravitational field..." [10]
    " the null colliding fields..." [11]
    " gravitational fields (produced by matter) change the geometry of space-time, causing
      it to become curved." [12]

    The mathematicians may in retrospect claim that the word field was intended as a metaphor.

    So? What did they really mean? What other interpretation can one give to the alleged metaphor: "the field
    accelerates a particle"?

    Hence, despite that the word field is presented under the guise of science, the candid usage by authors
    reveals its true nature. The word field turns out to have no more scientific justification than the word heaven
    of religion.

    3.0        Are we going to eliminate the word field after all these years of usage

    The seasoned physicist may now try one of several last-ditch, emotional tactics:

    1.  Am I proposing to do away with the word field after all these years? (The Tradition Argument)

    2.  The word field is deeply ingrained in our vocabulary. It is used by practically everyone who is
        someone in Physics, from leading researchers to Nobel Prize winners. (The Authority Argument)

    3.  Everyone in the scientific community was brought up on and uses the word field. The majority
         of scientists would likely oppose such a move. (The Democracy Argument)

    4.  We send rockets to the moon and parted the atom thanks to our understanding of Physics. The
        usefulness of the word field is self-evident. (The Pragmatic Argument)

    The physicist who falls back on these arguments is obviously not aware of their pitfalls. We need only quote
    from authority for this one instance to answer the first three arguments:

    “Securus judicat orbis terrarum.”

    (The verdict of the world is conclusive: the entire world can't be wrong.)

    St. Augustine said these words when the entire mass of 'scientists' believed that the Earth was flat and that
    the Sun revolved around it. Should we perchance be required to explain chemistry today in terms of the
    Greek's four fundamental elements? Should we continue to attach Ptolemaic epicycles to Kepler's celestial
    orbits? And should we continue explaining physical phenomena with Faraday's candid 'field' proposal for
    another 170 years?

    With respect to technology, let’s first recall that theorists have no idea what a field is. Therefore, it does not
    follow that because we toy with a magnet and demonstrate how it picks up iron dust we know the nature of
    a magnetic field. In fact, technology is the antithesis of Theoretical Physics. One is empirical; the other,
    conceptual. There is no question that we can build integrated circuits and TVs. Technology advances
    primarily by trial and error. What we need to do now is come up with the right physical explanation. For this
    we absolutely need to define what light, electrons and fields are. If the word field stands in the way of our
    understanding, we must stop doing business as usual. The word field can still remain in Mathematics for
    whatever nonsense the mathematicians use it. I am saying it has no business in Physics or in Science.

    4.0        Conclusions with respect to the word field

    Since Faraday coined the word 170 years ago, field has morphed from a pure concept to a physical object.
    To say that a field accelerates a particle or that a particle accelerates through a field – hinting by this that the
    alleged medium was responsible for the change in behavior of the particle – is to mislead the jury. Field is
    not an interface that can be used alternatively as an abstract concept and as a physical medium at the will
    of the theorist. If the particle accelerates as a result of some physical property in the vicinity of an object, the
    prosecutor has yet to tell the jury ‘why’. The theorist can say that for unknown reasons a particle suffers a
    change in behavior when it crosses the region around an object, but it is wholly deceitful and inaccurate to
    even hint that a particle accelerates as a result that it crosses an alleged medium labeled as field. The word
    field is defined strictly as a concept.  No one has authority to use it as a physical entity. It is the abuse of this
    explain-it-all word that continues to prevent theorists from understanding what is happening in the region
    surrounding an object. This crutch has no more scientific purpose than the word heaven of religion and
    should therefore be removed from the dictionary of Physics. It should occupy its rightful place next to now
    forlorn terms that were once used to prop up Ptolemaic theories.

    Here are appropriate closing arguments:

    “ Perhaps the most decisive defeat of the scientific spirit in antiquity had been the loss
      of the sense of history. History is the most fundamental science, for there is no human
      knowledge which cannot lose its scientific character when men forget the conditions
      under which it originated, the questions which it answered, and the functions it was
      created to serve. A great part of the mysticism and superstition of educated men
      consists of knowledge which has broken loose from its historical moorings.” [13]

    The mathematicians have forgotten that they created the word field not as an answer, but as a question.
    The word field, like the popular contemporary terms dark matter, dark energy, and black hole, originated
    in ignorance and not in momentous discovery. The word field was invented to allude to an unknown. The
    researcher had no idea what he was observing or talking about. The mathematicians have long ago forgotten
    why they created this explain-it-all word, and today casually point to gravitational, electric, and magnetic
    fields as if they know all about their physical natures.
The word
belongs in religion


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 05/21/08

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
I fooled around a bit in my days, so
one day God cursed me and
blessed Mary. He made me old and
condemned me to hobble for the
rest of my life in public with this
plate upon my head while ringing a
bell. God restored her virginity, and
she gets to fly in circles around me
in her energy field.