What is a field made of?

Let's talk about one of the most controversial claims in physics and try to figure out whether it is true that a field is a special form of matter, and if so, what it is made of.

[@douglasstrother6584]

I have never heard or read that the electromagnetic field consists of a special form of matter.

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

It seems that author studied physics in a Russian school/Uni where field is usually defined as "Электрическое поле это особая форма материи, посредством которой осуществляется взаимодействие электрически заряженных частиц." which can be translated to English as "An electric field is a special form of matter through which the interaction of electrically charged particles occurs." It is indeed uncommon to see this definition in any English literature.

[@civildiscourse2000]

I was about to say the same thing, down to the word.

[@civildiscourse2000]

​@@piranhaofserengheti4878Thanks sincerely for the insight.

[@jryde421]

This is the same shit Terrence Howard was watching to come up with 1*1=2 lol

[@douglasstrother6584]

@@piranhaofserengheti4878 Very interesting. My only exposure to Russian Physics is from Landau & Lifshitz's "Course on Theoretical Physics".

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

For anyone wondering what field has to do with matter, the author is Russian and Russian physics textbooks and even Wikipedia articles divide Matter (Материя) into Substance (Вещество) and Field (Поле), therefore Field is a special form of the Matter that "has no internal voids and has absolute density."

[@HuygensOptics]

I think the images around 9:00 showing photon interactions with charge are quite misleading. It looks like charge is rapidly emitting photons, but that would mean an isolated charge would also constantly lose energy. BTW, in my opinion QED explains very little, it just describes. It's non-convergent and in principle allows the calculation of every answer you want.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

I agree with you. I also agree with that fields in them selves do not exist except in mathematics. I there fore don't like the idea about fluctuations in a zero quantum field however much mathematical sense it makes. Mathematics is a toll - not reality. In one of your videos (HuygensOptics Videos) you where flirting with the idea that particles are standing waves. I agree with that. I have also heard of that a particles wave function when calculated actually stretch to infinity although very weak. This makes sense in the way that electrons in an atom is influenced by and is influencing forces outside the atom. I am there fore suggesting that it is actually a part of the particle wave that is stretching out and pushing against each other. Particle attraction (when positive and negative attract) is when the frequency of the particles are out of phase and there fore when working together need less energy by being together. This is not my theory but something I have found on the net. It appears to me that everything is trying to get to a lowest energy state. I have this thing against suction. I believe it is really always a pushing effect like it is the air pressure that makes a vacuum machine work and the dust is really pushed into the machine. I have there fore looked around for ideas that could explain every thing with pushing instead of pulling. I have found explanations for both electric and magnetic attraction that makes sense to me and also for gravity but for gravity it has some problems so the explanation that I have found is probably incorrect. These pushing forces may be Photons but they always return to where they come from so no energy is lost or gained.

[@wafflepotato]

So if charges interact via photons, but photons are not just constantly emitted like shown, does that mean that photons are only emitted when there is, in fact, something nearby to interact with? would it be inaccurate to say that these particles emit probability clouds of photons that collapse only when they find something sufficiently nearby?

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

@@wafflepotato That is probably something like I would say except it is not "probability" but real photon clouds that just don't really leave the particle and there fore don't drain energy. I would think that they are just like hanging out like a cloud that get's thinner and thinner the further away it get's. In my opinion a photon can not get away without taking some energy with it (like emitted light). If it comes out and then back in again all the energy must stay there so no lost energy. Conservation of energy is important I believe. That would also correspond to any static charge of electricity. It influences it's surroundings but don't drain any energy until it actually performs work. A capacitor doesn't get discharged until a current flows yet the voltage potential is there all the time until discharged. I am an electronic engineer - not a physician - but the physics of electricity must be the same regardless of my education.

[@HuygensOptics]

@@wafflepotato my main concern with the representation is that the particles are only emitting energy quanta, whereas in any realistic scenario approximately equal amount of quanta should be emitted and absorbed.

[@5ty717]

Mathematically speaking QED is Cauchy convergent … which non convergence are u referring to. Love ur insights btw.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

In a nutshell it seems that the main idea of this video is that there's a difference between a mathematical entity, such as a field, and the physical concept that the mathematical entity describes, such as the wind velocity at a specific location. Well that's true for each mathematical application to the physical world.

[@Nightscape_]

This is one of the best descriptions I have seen on fields maybe ever.

[@user-ht9db6bc9t]

Yeah, and it is incorrect

[@mzterzi]

Why? ​@@user-ht9db6bc9t

[@raminsedighian7664]

We have no choice but to return to the modern Aether, which is nonlocal and has no wind. 😄

[@cristig243]

Maxwell, Faraday,Tesla, Sagnac and covertly Feinman agree with you ("There is no relativity in rotation"). Physics is rigged since 🤡stein .

[@DrDeuteron]

it's an aether, it's just a Lorentz covariant aether, so it has no rest frame, so its basically not "The Aether" of yore.

[@mrhassell]

Aether is "Galilean invariant", having a material medium, does not accommodates "Special Relativity Theory", with a preferred frame of rest. Fields are "Lorentz invariant", are mathematical abstractions, describing physical phenomena, which accommodates "Special Relativity Theory", without a preferred frame of rest. Modern Aether, is an intriguing concept in and of itself. The concept of aether is no longer accepted in modern physics, although it played a significant role in the historical development of our understanding, today. The concept of a "preferred frame of rest", is fundamental in physics, especially in the context of special relativity. Also consider the fact, this is the most well established theory, perhaps to ever have been created and without the amazing potential its creation has brought about, its not only the Atomic Clock, we would loose. You could kiss goodbye to so much of the current World, we would be literally be back in the "dark ages", by comparison. The principle of relativity, states that the laws of physics, are the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. However, when we consider relative motion, we need to choose a "reference frame", to describe the physical phenomena. This reference frame, is often called the frame of rest or "preferred frame of rest". Special relativity does not actually prefer any specific frame. Rather, it emphasizes there is no absolute rest frame and all inertial frames, as valid to describe physical phenomena. In other words, there is no universal “preferred” frame of rest, in the sense that one frame, being any more special than others. My point of view, is as valid as yours, or your wife's. If you want to return to the Aether, and describe physical phenomena as all belonging to a uniform, material medium with a preferred frame of rest, which has not only been discredited, it destroys so many other possibilities, you would be better off keeping your ideas or suggestions on the matter, to anyone who is female and right now about 100 years old. It changed their lives, giving them a voice for a start and was in part created by Milea Maric while lover of Albert Einstein, both studying at ETH Zurich together. She sacrificed her studies to work on the creation of Special Relativity, also Einstein handed over all money from the Nobel prize award to her, and not just to help her raise their two boys. Aether is not only nonlocal, has no wind, having a preferred frame of rest and is anything but modern. Its an insult to intelligence and only a fool would even say such a stupid and backward thing. Modern Aether. Throw yourself off a bridge and see if the Aether will save you. Indeed, it doesn't exist, only the road below. Good luck with that, you'll be needing it.

[@cristig243]

@@mrhassell Of course Clownstein . You make zero sense, you have zero experimental proof, but you certainly have a loud mouth full of shit .

[@jaybingham3711]

​@@mrhassellI align greatly with many of your sentiments about the original ether and the great problems of any kind of modern revitalizing/repackaging of it. If I'm not mistaken though, I think the OP may have just been using the term loosely/generally as a way to poke at the underbelly of QFT. Though we can work with and do fine things with the modelling of our universe as one comprised of numerous quantum fields, there still remains a desire for more understanding. What gives rise to the quantum fields? What mechanism underpins the functioning of virtual particles in a vacuum such that it always exists at some level of non-zero energy? How do fields become calibrated such that a perturbation threshold exists with regard to a particle forming in the field? There of course are no answers to these kind of questions. So I think many offer ether as a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek (non) answer.

[@sdutta8]

The current “fashion” seems to be explain every action at a distance by invoking a “force-carrying particle”, like money sent by Zelle, if you pardon the analogy. There is now even expected to be a Graviton (so far undetected) to carry the effect of Gravity, although why something that is posited not to be a “force” needs one I do not understand. It seems to me that progress on the WHY of physics is still far behind its HOW, where progress has been stellar.

[@TerraPhysica]

it's not a "fasion", it's quantum field theory formalism

[@alberthill2753]

Just call it magic!!

[@mauricegold9377]

@@TerraPhysica It can be called anything you wish, but the 'shut up and calculate' odour is stronger than ever. Is anyone ever going to talk about the 'source' of these fields, what maintains them; what does it mean for fields in an expanding universe that one might imagine would 'dilute' their intensity. Where does one have to go to get some sense behind the postulation?

[@DrDeuteron]

because gravitation is a field theory, where the field is the metric of spacetime, and 'forces' are deviations from flat spacetime. If those deviations are quantized, then that's a graviton. Note that LIGO's 1st detection of gravitational waves, which moved a 40 kg mirror 1/1000 (iirc) the diameter of proton, was a wave involving 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 gravitons (if they exists).

[@DrDeuteron]

@@mauricegold9377 the fields come with new space. it;s like bundling. Space expands, you get more EM, quark, electron/mu/tau, neutrino, W/Z, gluon, higgs, and whatever else there is.

[@Feynman_Fries]

I'm an electrical engineer, and now a physics professor, and never in my academic life as a student or as a teacher, have I come across that definition of field. A field is an agent of non contact force, an influence. Its better defined as the force per unit physical property that extends rhat field. Nothing to do with matter. Edit: I added the above comment after watching the first few seconds of the video. As the video progressed i realised how beautifully you've explained fields. Kudos.

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

I already explained to other commenter that it comes from Russian physics textbooks, not going to repeat it here again

[@Feynman_Fries]

​@@piranhaofserengheti4878why are the Russian textbooks written that way? Also more importantly, I believe the creator of this video may be a physics professor (for me to take them seriously), in that scenario it's appalling that they haven't read books or text from outside Russia. No one simply restricts themselves to their own local science textbooks at the premiere level.

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

@@Feynman_Fries ​ Creator of this video is a Russian speaking journalist who had his Bachelors degree in Physics about 15 years ago and working as a journalist since then. There's Russian version of this channel @physiovisio with all his details. This channel is just an English AI translation of original videos narrated in Russian. Regarding why Russian high-school level Physics textbooks are written this way is hard to tell but I believe it stems from the very first attempts of Michael Faraday to explain magnetic field he observed, but I'm not going into this rabbit hole. It'll be enough to say that this definition is so ubiquitous that it's even in Russian Wikipedia article on Field (physics). If you look at Russian version of Wikipedia article on Matter (physics) they divide Matter into Substance and Field where "The field, unlike matter, has no internal voids and has absolute density." I have no idea what that supposed to mean.

[@rileybobbert6527]

what are fields made of? crops, silly!

[@alberthill2753]

LOL !!

[@mauricegold9377]

Quote: The answer lies in the soil: Rambling Sid Rumpo or J. Peasmold Gruntfuttock, (I forget which), with Dame Celia Molestrangler.

[@mrhassell]

Nn ancient of Moo Moo! I couldn't see the cows, for the.. all I could hear was more like a smell, than a sound.. 🐮💩 - may the force, be with you! To infinity and beyond.... 8-)

[@VottotoIono]

Any field exists only in our minds as abstraction, not the matter itself. But all matter itself consist of atoms which consists of quants which are just fields (again) of probability distribution, etc. So, there's no _matter_ how we used to think of it. Everything is math abstraction that only exists in our minds. Not to say we most likely are just imaginary friends of Boltzmann brain that exists instead of reality (and produces it and us as it's own hallucination): 10^10^52 is the time duration for probability of Boltzmann brain (energy structure that have all inner qualities of human brain) appearing spontaneously among nowhere due to quantum fluctuations becomes =1 aka 100%; 10^10^56 is the time duration for probability of universe as we perceive it appears through big bang (and all that evolution of matter and life) becomeы =1 aka 100%... So existence is 10^10^4 times more probably hallucination of Boltzmann brain than "bigbangandalltherest".

[@reydelostontos7131]

Like others here, I never heard a field described as matter.

[@lucasbrelivet5238]

Thankfully this is my first time hearing that the electromagnetic field is matter 😅

[@mrhassell]

Matter of BS.. lol

[@GRay-fp2kb]

Best everyday example of effect without physical contact is that of a person crossing a road, suddenly noticing a highly speeding car approach him. Actually the scalar and vector quantities associated with a field indicate "subtle" or virtual matter as it is not apparent as normal matter i.e. particles or waves

[@RichardLucas]

Fields are abstract objects. That's all I needed, thanks. They can't possibly interact with brute matter because they are only abstract. Got it. But ...

[@mauricegold9377]

Yes, but if you accept that, you will hear that certain particles are 'just an excitation' of their particular fields. Whatever the hell that means, and suggests that matter is just a temporary aspect of the real deal, 'the fields'. I don't know about anyone else but I don't have access to anything sensibly explanatory written about the fields, that would describe their origins and persistence. I think that modern field theory has just swapped the old Aether for a multiplicity of aethers of differing properties. I also have issues about space and space-time, where the nothingness of space is distorted by the various particle-fields that allegedly constitute matter. And space and space-time are supposed, singly or together, to be the 'arena' in which events happen. I do hope that someone knows what is going on with all that. I'm not at ease by wishing away matter and replacing it with these fields.

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

But then you have a photon of light that travels through electromagnetic field pretty much indefinitely even in total absence of any matter or charge that can produce that field and think... hmm, something is not right here.

[@davedsilva]

The speaker may be confusing field with non material field like a map.

[@RichardLucas]

@@davedsilva Sounds like it. There's a rupture in the membrane between abstract and phenomenal _somewhere_ in this scheme, lol.

[@davedsilva]

@@RichardLucasAgreed. The author may or may not know she is oversimplifying to the point of misleading. She may benefit talking to a PhD in quantum physics.

[@ardidsonriente2223]

Imagine people mixing the current meaning for the words "field" and "map" just to sound smart.

[@mrhassell]

Here is a map of a field. Go!

[@ralphhennen5769]

As a mathematician having worked with physicists on various research projects I find it most disconcerting that there exists a wide discrepancy in terms like: fields, maps, etc. which mean very different things in each discipline. One would think that something like physics being ultimately reliant on math would need to reduce this ambiguity. This video uses related numbers as an instance of fields, but apply numbers to fields in math really arrives at a very different conceptual end point.

[@AisleEpe-oz8kf]

So the photon field is the inertial field in magnetism? Locality breeds capacity by volume? Potentially extremely higgs bosun dense? Which is the relative darkmatter here?

[@ready1fire1aim1]

⨀ - The Quintessence or Ether, representing the zeronoumenal substrate. Ties to vacuum energy equations and quantum field theories describing spacetime curvature and virtual particles.

[@mrhassell]

I like that word. Not Ether though I think you mean Aether.. I could be persuaded by some Ether... lol

[@mrhassell]

Quintessence - Pure. Hardly anyone ever uses that word... such a great word! I actually somehow even agree with what you are saying in a strangely symmetrical way, I feel it maybe entangling me..

[@TheMysticPete]

Helpful! But still confused about what’s called, “quantum fields.” For instance it is said that the “Higgs field” gives quantum particles mass. So, is it a mathematical abstraction or is there a substantive thing that confers mass? Also, are all the quantum fields (one for each quantum particle) overlapping and permeating the entire universe? Trying to make sense of this one. 🤔

[@mrhassell]

This is one of the best videos of recent, in the scientific field - boom!

[@OzGoober]

I've been looking for an explanation of fields. An isolated non rotating charge has a static field. If another similar charge approaches the first, do the exchanging forces act via virtual photons? So perhaps the electric field density is related to some "virtual particle" density?

[@DrDeuteron]

virtual photons are just a things used to calculate fields, and the whole idea of exchanging them is part of the approximation.

[@mrhassell]

Go into the country and look for a bunch of cows. Walk up to the fence, you are now standing in front of a field. Take any measure, you now have a unit of that field, as a frame of reference. Was that hard?

[@lewebusl]

Every "thing" that interacts with matter is also matter. Therefore electrical, magnetics, gravitational fields are also matter. Not a special kind of matter, just simply matter.

[@skalderman]

It is called atomism

[@mrhassell]

No, just no. Charged particles-such as electrons and protons-create electromagnetic fields when they move, and these fields transport the type of energy we call electromagnetic radiation, or light. They are NOT matter... whats the matter you.. eh.. gotta no respect... eh.. it's a not so bad.. its a nice a day... lol haha

[@mrhassell]

@@skalderman divide by 0.

[@weylguy]

Fields usually arise from from some kind of matter residing space. But how about the Riemann scalar R? Is it also a field, or just a consequence of curved spacetime?

[@HealthcareBlockchain]

Do you have a video that discusses or refers to vaccum fields? Even something that refers to one. I have wondered about this for many years. I will subscribe so I can see your answer if you chose to respond. Nice job on this one. Thank you

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Probably you have to wait many decades to get answer to your question, because modern physics has no answer to what Energy is, what Field is, what Electromagnetism is. There is a bunch of conflicting theories which cannot provide a clear picture of the physical reality of our Universe. The best place to find an answer to your question is to find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"... but won't be easy, because you have to learn shocking things. Regards

[@HealthcareBlockchain]

Thanks for your response. I have often wondered if there can be a differentiater with vacuums such as age or boundary that would allow comparisons of 2 things instead of 1 sterile thing. I don't even know if it is possible to have a complete vacuum.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

@@HealthcareBlockchain There is no such things as a complete vacuum. Space by self is constructed of Dimensions which are multi-directional oriented energy field - something as the Light, which is composed by different oriented waves and by polarized glasses we can eliminate some of them. "Something" to carry and propagate waves must be physical. Complete vacuum cannot propagate anything. On the same way where is no air, the sound waves cannot propagate. For the scale of the components of the Universe can judge from the understanding that in one cubic centimeter is more energy than the energy which contain all the mass of the visible Universe. Probably, better to get my book. - There is explained on easy language how the fundamental elements of the Universe works. Regards

[@williamwalker39]

Related to this topic is what is the speed of an electromagnetic field. The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *KZbin presentation of above arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

[@samo4003]

In other words, the interaction between two charge particles is not instantaneous but occur at the speed of light. Is that correct? If yes, has this been proven?

[@mrhassell]

No it has not. It's Bulls**t and won't ever be proven. That's someone who has their head, up their backside and has been their for so long, all they can think is turning to sh*t and everything they say, is tainted in the same way. People are great at talking shi* and believing it themselves. Don't ever allow them, to attempt to or even try to convince you. You can detect BS, or your alarm wouldn't have activated and you wouldn't have the BS Police, charging the author of this, as a crime against reality. Abhorrent and an abomination against science. Watch the PBS, Einsteins Quantum Riddle, which will demonstrate why, using entangled photons, over cosmic distances, proving that entanglement is instantaneous and possible over immensely vast distances, beyond the speed of light, instant, not slowed down to crawling along with some old photons.. lol Another note, on same old subjecto.. Nobel Prize 2022 in Physics, demonstrated non-locality, violated Bell's Inequalities and a whole bunch of really cool things are implied by what this ridonkulous talker of fecal matter, would try to persuade you about.. I am so glad, you questioned it and in so doing, put it to the entire Universe, whoever would say "the interaction between two charge particles is not instantaneous but occur at the speed of light." - is an absolute fuc**ng douch* bag and talking absolute cr*p!

[@juliavixen176]

yes

[@samo4003]

@@juliavixen176 Could you provide the link to the paper on the experiment that proved this?

[@caricue]

That seemed like a really good explanation of the current paradigm of fields but it was quite unsatisfying. I get that everything can't necessarily be explained in human level terms, but invisible photons spewing out of random object just seems a little screwy. I'm not saying that it is wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to find another equally credible video with a completely different explanation, and if we could jump a thousand years into the future, something tells me that this would not be the reigning paradigm of the 3000's.

[@helicalactual]

Ether is entanglement. The answer is a gauge field. It carry's the charge.

[@deliyomgam7382]

Better than people who thinks or don't want to discuss that space is real n materialistic

[@paulnolan4971]

I think my fave field is the Higgs. Where would I be without it.

[@mrhassell]

The scalar boson field, that is Higgs, is indeed extremely interesting, it's almost poetic. Giving a distinct value, invariant across elemental form. Quite unique and bewildering, but isn't everything on this scale, so deeply profound, that becoming entangled with the symmetry of it all... maybe its not even a matter of choice, so one we are given, in equal measures.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Energy Field is not a vectors or numbers. Everybody knows that is a Space saturated with Energy, but this concept is forbidden, because is against the incorrect fundamental principled adapted by the "Standard Model" There is one rare book which is shading light on this subject - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@mrhassell]

Valentin Malinov - Best $25 or so you'll blow on reading matterial that doesn't make your eyes glow.. but don't forget.. you get what you pay for.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

@@mrhassell Thank you very much. The people which judging books before reading them are natural born geniuses. I believe that you are on top of them.

[@eliphasphiri4090]

A field is physical as shown by iron fillings around a magnet or repulsion of like poles of magnets. To me fiields is the area in which which potential electric or magnetic energy is stored. It's like a stretched elastic band

[@PrivateSi]

Unfortunately I've never heard of the electric field / EM field as a 'special type of matter'.. Here's what it is to me... This is the more static, 'Polectron Field' but it' similar to the more flowing, more analogue 'electro-positronic field' of +ve cells bound by free-flowing -ve 'electro-gas' ) -- POLECTRON FIELD: cell: a + & a - particle split by Full Split Energy as a positron+ & electron-. Bonds to 12 neighbours MATTER: p+ / e- = half cell (& a cell as +-+ / -+-)? Polarises field as + & - shells. SPIN: centre polarisation axis LECKY: absolute charge. MASS: particle lecky. INERTIA: rebalancing field kicks mass. STRONG GRAVITY: field repels mass MOND: lecky density slows acceleration/TIME and shrinks cells, loss to gravity gradients grows voids, aids acceleration BIG BANG: more proton-antiproton pairs malformed as proton-muon than antiproton-antimuon so hydrogen beat antihydrogen POSITRONIUM: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs. BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e. BETA+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons. ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by interaction? Physical link? BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as higher mass tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell? PHOTON: cell polarisation/lateral shift wave. LONGITUDINAL WAVE: gravitational wave, neutrino: 1 to 3 cell wave DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides ENTROPY: simplicity. Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest

[@stephenwilson9872]

Going. Into divisions. Then. You have separate ranges (field)

[@billynomates920]

great video, tp!

[@stephenwilson9872]

No matter what it will be at mercy of the fields. Of the star

[@juliavixen176]

Physical contact never actually happens with material objects. When you push your hand against a table or something, the force stopping your hand from passing through the solid material is electrostatic repulsion between the atoms of your hand and the atoms of the material. The electric force field.

[@jatigre1]

First you need to go back 130 years and rotate the Michelson interferometer vertically, this time.

[@walterbrownstone8017]

A field of particles obviously. And there is no electromagnetic field. Magnetism is just the electric force doing exactly what the math says the electric force does.

[@briancornish2076]

Maybe a field is just what has to exist to prevent everything occupying the same point in space and time. It's what enables relation. Explaining just what a field is appears to be outside the territory of physics. It's a question like why does anything exist. Language is more clearly and comprehensibly a field than the physical world because it is capable of infinite nuance in the practice of speakers and writers. I'm afraid this video didn't cast any light. A field is not any kind of material or matter and like others I've never heard it so described. That sounds like a desperate oversimplification to save scientism from perdition.

[@kimsahl8555]

The electromagnetic field is = the property of the potential space.

[@stephenwilson9872]

Where is your hypothetical field

[@mrhassell]

lol hypothesisyzing itself into a matter of furct... dude is talking utter crutter from de gutter.. propaah nutter..

[@ericsonhazeltine5064]

What about the Higgs Field?

[@ihmejakki2731]

Hmm, I always figured that the quantum fields describe values of different kinds of energies in spacetime. Then the physical quantity described by the fields is energy and the thing they exist in is spacetime. Is this intuition completely wrong?

[@DrDeuteron]

idk, what does it mean?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them? Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How? * ADDED NOTE: My current TOE idea can potentially answer all of these above items, and more, in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. And wouldn't one expect the true TOE of existence itself to be able to do that? What other TOE idea in known existence can currently do that? Surely not the General or Special Relativity Models nor even the Standard Model of Particle Physics. TOE IDEA: (Short version): [currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test]: The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe. The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. I am open to any and all theory of everything ideas that can potentially answer all those above items in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. Currently, as far as I am currently aware of, there are no others but my own. GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version): Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)

[@lbgstzockt8493]

Almost none of what you write is true. The electric universe theory has been disproven countless times and does not agree at all with experimental evidence and mathematical predictions, unlike other valid theories. I recommend you visit or listen to some university physics lectures, it will be enlightening and actually correct.

[@mrhassell]

In fact, most and if not all of what you are saying, have actually already been answered, systems devised, theories created, answers provided and is in fact, quite well known. It appears that you, are lacking some answers and I hasten to add, your barking up the wrong tree on KZbin, looking for answers, without first being able to form the questions correctly and if you did, having learned how to form these questions, you would no longer be presenting them, as you would have answered your own questions, found that number theory happened a long time ago, the energy in the universe might move around from place to place but its amount remains constant.. just.. give that a shot. Thank you.. good luck, ur going to be needing it and more.

[@RayPerkins01]

A: Mostly dirt, with a topping of grass

[@mrhassell]

Lot of stuff that came from the back of cows too!

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

Said a man outstanding in his field.

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

Science changes our understanding, "magical attraction forces" don't exist. The Planck field is a physical quantity (a resting state of angular momentum quanta), therefore field requires a system to move through. The wave function is a excitation of the Planck field (hbar). Mapping of the field uses vector fields and scalar fields (that is a abstraction that only tracks proportions/PlanckEnergy), and that rationalizes the Planck field away to focus on a specific quantity in the field. There is no magic, energy density = the same everywhere. There is also no attractive forces, they are all local pushing forces (non-locality doesn't exist). You don't need either, as planck energy is already in the equations, therefore you either dissagree with the equations or agree.

[@davidarvingumazon5024]

I'd need AI to understand your comment. **Keyboard Cat typing meme**

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

@@davidarvingumazon5024 My bad. At the fundamental scale, there are angular motions (they are all the same size), all of physics uses these to compute physics, it is the foundation of the fabric of space. Charge is the energy flux pressure acting between these angular motions (expansion of pressure between 2 of them), when they experience charge or angular motion of other doughnuts they oscillate and those oscillations is the radiation spectrum. Just imagine a bunch of doughnuts, where they intermediate each other through pressure differentials and oscillations.

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

You lost me right there when you called wave function (mathematical abstraction) an excitation of the Planck field (physical quantity). Pick one and stick to it.

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

@@piranhaofserengheti4878 It's both, but the wave function in quantum mechanics may not capture all the features (gravitational effects) (plank angular spin reorientation), and it's used as a strictly a probability tool. I think the answer is that the measurement instrument is already propagating ambient changes in the Planck field before a charge polarization like a particle enters the detector. I think the true Mass Energy relationship is mass*PlanckEnergy/PlanckEnergy, where the Planck Energy counteracts it's self, leaving mass as the detectable quantity (the differential in charge, magnetic field, gravity field).

[@mrhassell]

The collapse of the wave function, maybe a better cause for creation of the universe, that any "primeval atom" or "fireworks theory", could ever pretend to be, while also observing the laws of physics and not violating the speed of light. Obviously it point for point and measure for measure, far more agreeable and palatable to consider there is more variety, or flavours to taste and explore, in a culinary sense but one must not forget, the subject remains, food and drink. Changing in the middle to song and dance, would have us dancing with fruit and singing in our own p*ss.

[@enherden1353]

Amazing

[@clevelandsavage]

You kind of treat the "facts" disproving the aether as a black box here. Those facts ( Mike- Morley etc.) disproved a very specific TYPE of aether.

[@TerraPhysica]

Are there any facts that prove any type of aether?

[@mauricegold9377]

@@TerraPhysica You could replace the single Aether 'field' with modern 'field theory', swapping one field-type for many. Essentially though, it seems not too dissimilar. Also echoes of Platonic ideas here.

[@juliavixen176]

Dare I ask: What other type of aether is there?

[@juliavixen176]

​@@mauricegold9377 It is _very dissimilar_ These theories are nothing alike.

[@clevelandsavage]

@TerraPhysica there's many experiments pointing to a field of particles beyond current means of detection; helium nuclei expansion, axion nature of dark matter, even the vacuum catastrophe. The fact that a particle can pertub an electron shell...and then pop out of 'existence' runs into some pretty obvious conservation issues. An aether is the only explanation of this that doesn't create more questions than it answers.

[@jaybingham3711]

9:08 "Vacuum is a special form of matter." I have never ran across this claim. Is this just a personal perspective? Citations please if it is related to musings of others.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

It's like the sound of one hand clapping. Or perhaps a better example is electrical current, it's not the electrons, it's where there are no electrons.

[@user-ys3ev5sh3w]

Of course, magnetic field is a special form of matter(space). 1d amplitude (space=1); 2d amplitude(mass) (space=2); 3d amplitude(gravity) (space=3); 4d amplitude(quintessence) (space=4) It is 0d-vector(scalar) magnetic field. ; 5d amplitude(6-essence) (space=5) It is 1d-vector magnetic field. ; 6d amplitude(7-essence) (space=6) It is 2d-vector magnetic field. ; .... Likewise. Electric field is a special form of matter (dof). 1f amplitude (dof=1); 2f amplitude (electric mass, circular DC,) (dof=2); 3f amplitude (electric gravity, spiral DC, triple accelerated) (dof=3); 4f amplitude(electric quintessence, 4-accelerated) (dof=4) It is 0f-vector(scalar) electric field. ; 5f amplitude(electric 6-essence, 5-accelerated) (dof=5) It is 1f-vector electric field. ; 6f amplitude(electric 7-essence, 6-accelerated) (dof=6) It is 2f-vector electric field. ; ....

[@mrhassell]

Stop it! You will go blind...

[@____uncompetative]

Tensors.

[@davedsilva]

It's incorrect to say fields are not physical objects. The fields you described are not physical objects.

[@stephenwilson9872]

Possible earth if on earth

[@rabaaquest5787]

So an electric-magnetic field is mathematical. Can someone please elaborate.

[@DrDeuteron]

she was talking about the electro magnetic "potential" field, which is what is used in calculations. It's not unique, so it's hard to imagine it's a physical thing.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Mathematics is a tool for calculation. Mathematics has no meaning of physical form; In short - Field is a Space saturated with Energy, but this description is "Tabu" for Them. If you are interested to find the right answers, I will recommend the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@davidwatson7604]

Algo boost!

[@rahulkushwaha7896]

But, still all fields has some physical things which give the value at that point, even the potato price field, still has to have the potato there In each point with some price with it, so that its possible to interact with the field, here photon emission gives the much needed explanation of the value, if not photon then there could be some strance substance which could give the value, which might be cause by some other phemonan.

[@cristig243]

Don't bother ! They know it alright . Their point is to confuse the sheeple .

[@piranhaofserengheti4878]

I just want to note how good modern text to speech programs are. I bet not many even noticed it was AI narrated.

[@meteor09]

I think this was authored by an AI as well.

[@everythingisalllies2141]

Well there is more that just one definition of the word field. This one is abstract maths. But a magnetic field for example must have a totally non mathematical definition which has nothing to do with math. Its some sort of radiating energy that has an origin at the magnet. Same for an electric field, it can have a mathematical sense, but it also a real energy that surrounds a conductor that has a current flowing through it. It doesn't need to be made of any matter. Quantum's explanation is totally nonsensical.

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

Fields are made out of possible information.

[@paulnolan4971]

Grass.

[@DrDeuteron]

Grassmann.

[@mrhassell]

Moo ... 💩

[@RiteGuy]

I’m not sure how to respond to this video. Based on your description of a field, it’s simply information and depending on where you look, the information may or may not be different. Since you were so math heavy in the video, i have to conclude that to you, information = math. Humans need to realize that mathematics is a human made tool and is only universal to the human race. The universe came into being without mathematics. I could go on, but there was so much I take issue with and then remembered that you, the information source, is based on classical scientific foundations which cling to rigid and long standing theories that are now referred to as “facts”. That’s why cosmologists are getting kicked in their teeth by new discoveries every day. Physics is in the same boat!

[@conflict_monitor]

Fields are nade of maths

[@mykrahmaan3408]

Unless the use of the term FIELD finally shows how stems, leaves, flowers and fruits appear in real wheat, paddy, cotton and apple fields, the entire system is a blatant misuse of the word, and a sheer waste of time, efforts and funds.

[@user-qn2bg7zb9s]

Calm down! Field is also a mathematical word: Growth hormone field is a mathematically valid field

[@user-qn2bg7zb9s]

So it could map the growth of plants and even explain why they sometimes grow in Lucas or Fibonacci ratios

[@mykrahmaan3408]

@@user-qn2bg7zb9s PRACTICAL APPLICABILITY for "satisfaction of the needs of beings" should be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of ALL KNOWLEDGE. Current purpose free science with the misguided ideal "knowledge for its own sake out of curiosity", along with its even more misguided criterion of proof "PREDICTIONS tallying with results of experiments and/or observations", is yet to provide in its entire history a mathematical model for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when the phenomenon could harm life function, let alone PREVENT such. PREVENTION of EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH) is not found even in the vocabulary of science. That is why scientists enjoy the same harlot's prerogative (authority without responsibility) that the priests of conventional religions enjoy. Due to its enormous practical applicability, hence its convincing power, science serves to explain, justify and perpetuate all the evil as immutable, inevitable and irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE far more convincingly than all the religions taken together. That way science has only substituted the word GOD with a new word NATURE while retaining its destructive function intact.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

​@@user-qn2bg7zb9s PRACTICAL APPLICABILITY for "SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF BEINGS" should be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of ALL KNOWLEDGE. Current purpose free science with the misguided ideal "knowledge for its own sake out of curiosity", along with its even more misguided criterion of proof "PREDICTIONS tallying with results of experiments and/or observations", is yet to provide in its entire history a mathematical model for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when the phenomenon could harm life function, let alone PREVENT such. PREVENTION of EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH) is not found even in the vocabulary of science. That is why scientists enjoy the same harlot's prerogative (authority without responsibility) that the priests of conventional religions enjoy. Due to its enormous practical applicability, hence its convincing power, science serves to explain, justify and perpetuate all the evil as immutable, inevitable and irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE far more convincingly than all the religions taken together. That way science has only substituted the word GOD with a new word NATURE while retaining its destructive function intact. By the way, mathematics must also be rendered a branch of physics by identifying DIGITS as unique type of particles with the 4 basic arithmetic operations as the only laws of motion ruling all the interactions among them.

[@mauricegold9377]

Douglas Adams considered that a Theory of Everything could never explain Sunday afternoons with tea and cake. I am assuredly misquoting something I read decades ago, but still...

[@nfdisco3484]

As someone who's interested in physics, I find it very frustrating when some physicists describe particles such as the electron as an excitation of a field. Like you say in the video, describing a physical phenomenon in terms of a mathematical abstraction doesn't make the slightest sense!

[@DrDeuteron]

so in young's double slit experiment, would you rather a physical particle go though both slits, or would prefer a field being in 2 places at once?

[@nfdisco3484]

​@@DrDeuteron What does it mean that a field is in some place?

[@DrDeuteron]

@@nfdisco3484 good point. Field is everywhere, but the quantized excitation of the field

[@nfdisco3484]

@@DrDeuteron No offence, but I think you're missing the point. A field is not a physical reality, but a mental construct. As such it isn't anywhere.

[@DrDeuteron]

@@nfdisco3484 naw, I just disagree with that view point. Take the simplest field: the Higgs field. It is everywhere non-zero, it's a 4-scalar, and it is definitely there, since particles do have mass, moreover, it can be excited into a state with 1 quanta, which is really there and can be observed as it decays into real physical particles. Now for light, is an operator valued 4-vector field with gauge degrees of freedom "real" or a math construct? That's a hard question. Feynman famously said he thought E and B were physical, and (phi, A) was a math trick/bookkeeper, but he starting to think the 4-vector potential is the fundamentally physical thing.

[@PaulMarostica]

As I expected, this video claims to, and completely fails to, logically explain fields. The only possible physically and mathematically logical explanation for fields, and for everything else in physics, is in my unifying theory, matter theory, which is for sale, satisfaction guaranteed. Until you've learned matter theory, your understanding of physics will always be illogical.

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

Thanks for your interesting video. Your viewers might enjoy this video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Contain column m must come in to play before over buckling or the effect will not work. The system response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( peeks and troughs) of the fields/sheet produced a stable structure out of three fields People say I am just plucked guitar strings. I said you can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. kzbin.info/www/bejne/raOlpKSfepWpfZYsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time I’m my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all the waves frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, I understand makes a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my KZbin page. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in school folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!

[@ES-sb3ei]

In classical field theory, fields are the fundamental objects. It's not that fields are a special type of matter, but matter is a special type of field. In GR, it's common to define matter as any field besides the metric tensor. I mean, what's a point particle or a wave function other than a mathematical concept? Saying matter is somehow more meaningful than field is not well founded

[@bryandraughn9830]

Ignore mathematics. You'll never understand anything about physics.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

An outstandingly ignorant statement both in its arrogance and its ineptitude.

[@user-hw3oz2dq7d]

Не е вярно! Not true!

[@alberthill2753]

Why don't scientists just admit that they really do believe in magic!!!!

[@maha-madpedo-gayphukumber1533]

The ancient knew that everything is thought,mind and consiousness and oure awareness. Its too late for material physicist..now the physicists can't explain anything beacuse you don't understand anything. Fileds are abstract,forms, immaterial,unphysiacal..so is concrete solid, physical reality and matter, energy, force and mass. All are mainfestion and acpects of this single non second consiousness.

[@cristig243]

So...a field is made of numbers and graphics chirping inside your brain . Mathematical abstractions 🤡. You will wake up soon .

[@lbgstzockt8493]

Just because you failed middle-school math doesn't make it wrong. The fact that the modern internet exists is proof that the theories are correct enough.

[@cristig243]

@@lbgstzockt8493 Precisely as you say 🤡stein. The theories are correct enough to feed your narcissistic vanity . But you still don't know what you don't know . Which is good .

[@user-qn2bg7zb9s]

​@@cristig243I suppose they're saying: Why use sheeple technology made by sheeple scientists according to sheeple theories to talk to sheeple in comments in an effort to explain how it's all wrong? They're saying it appears the clown 🤡 is you, using the tools of the enemy while calling them and their tool producing theories fake

[@lbgstzockt8493]

@@cristig243 Then please enlighten me, how do YOU think the Electromagnetic field works?

[@cristig243]

@@lbgstzockt8493 Oh, so you want me to fix the lies that your pal einstein and his minions used to fuck up physics to its bones . Well, I'll tell you : 404 . Forbidden for you to know !