I usually agree with David -- here I do not. But he does get to the most
important point below:
|Where did you get the idea that EM fields are not "real", or are somehow
|less "real" than particles? After all, we consider the so-called
|'particles' to really be the classical limit (in terms of wave function
|localization in position and momentum) of quantum excitations of
|underlying dynamical *fields*.
I certainly agree that there is a question about "reality" and just what
should be considered "real". And another discussion about just what is
"invention" and what is "discovery". I guess what I have to say is that we
should all keep this problem in mind during discussions like this thread
and NOT assume as absolute one way or the other.
After all there is convincing "proof" that "light" is particulate and other
equally convincing "proof" that it is a wave. It is likely neither. Just
a English is neither German nor French but sometimes smacks of each -- I
don't recall who first offered this analogy -- I can't claim it to be mine,
but I wish it were.
And it is also true that the fall of one pet (even nearly universally
accepted) "belief" will unstabilize perhaps a major structure of physics.
But this happens from time to time - we all should be mentally and
emotionally prepared for it. As "scientists" should not adamantly hold on
to any given idea lest we fall with the old theory.
Yes, one might go to any region in space and measure varying electric
potential etc, but we should not loose sight of the fact that the effect is
due to a moving charged particle somewhere -- not to something independent
of such a charge -- if in fact there "really" are such things as charged
particles. (:-)