[talanum1 (OP)]

They can't be because the properties of the particle must be written somewhere. If you think about it the velocity of a particle can only be stored inside the particle, because two of the same particles may have different speeds. From this it is only a short leap to conclude that ALL the properties of the particle must be written inside the particle.

[Kryptid]

The idea that aspects of nature have to be "written" somewhere sounds like anthropomorphic thinking. We write things as a way of understanding nature. It's rather like saying that a written description of something is the same as the actual thing it is describing.

[Colin2B]

They can't be because the properties of the particle must be written somewhere. If you think about it the velocity of a particle can only be stored inside the particle, because two of the same particles may have different speeds. From this it is only a short leap to conclude that ALL the properties of the particle must be written inside the particle.

A field description assigns a numerical value to every point in space for every property. If you consider the photon in the emf, then for a single particle (photon) the values of the field would be zero except at the location of the particle, hence the particle is an excitation of the field at a particular point in space. If that location varies with time its spatial coordinates will also change and hence you can assign a velocity to that excitation.
So, as @Kryptid points out, your statement that properties are written inside the particle really doesn’t make much sense.

[talanum1 (OP)]

What is used to write the number at the specific point in space and how is the property and field kind linked to this number? How do space read the field value in order to decide to transmit a moving particle or not transmit a stationary particle?

[talanum1 (OP)]

The numbers can not be written in the quanta of the field because it requires more than one bit of information. Therefore the particle can not be a point.

[Bored chemist]

The numbers can not be written

They don't need to be written.

[talanum1 (OP)]

They don't need to be written.

They need to be written to be real, otherwise everything would be subjective and shared experience would be impossible. There would have been no agreed on languages.

[Bored chemist]

Reality was real long before anyone who could count was here .

[talanum1 (OP)]

Reality was real long before anyone who could count was here .

That does not invalidate my objection. If it was unwritten and we come along we would not have found agreed upon languages.

[Bored chemist]

we would not have found agreed upon languages.

We didn't.
We didn't "find" them.
We made them up.

[talanum1 (OP)]

We didn't.
We didn't "find" them.
We made them up.

But  we agreed on words for objects. For example the word in English: "table" to refer to a flat surface with legs.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Colin2B cannot answer my questions, questions that disappear once my model is adopted.

[Colin2B]

If it was unwritten and we come along we would not have found agreed upon languages.

When you find common words in multiple languages they have either been transferred due to trade or colonisation; or, as in this case, because the word is very recent and has been agreed on. Many scientific words are common, they are not ‘found’ they are invented.

The numbers can not be written in the quanta of the field because it requires more than one bit of information. Therefore the particle can not be a point.

Your naivety and lack of understanding is disturbing.
If we want to define the position of an object eg a cannon ball, we can use a number of different coordinate systems eg Euclidian, but we don’t write those coordinates on or in the object. If the object is moving we can measure its speed using a radar gun, but again we don’t write that on or in the object.
You remind me of the child who asked teacher how those letters got onto DNA.

Colin2B cannot answer my questions, questions that disappear once my model is adopted.

The questions cannot be answered because they are meaningless. They are just your complete lack of understanding of basic physics.

[talanum1 (OP)]

I mean by "written": the form of the object itself. For example: a photon has a circle in it (made of compactified space points) and this circle has a point of infinity on one end. Now as it speeds up this circle contracts in the direction of motion and space "reads" this distortion and warps appropriately (pinching the photon) and cause it to be transmitted.

You must come up with a mechanism of transmittance if you view a photon as an excitation in a field.

The question of how a number is linked to a property of a field is not meaningless. You must believe in Plato's realm of true forms to think it is meaningless. If there are fields then there must be a physical way of coupling the value of the field at a point to the property of the field and something must specify the units..

[talanum1 (OP)]

When you find common words in multiple languages they have either been transferred due to trade or colonisation; or, as in this case, because the word is very recent and has been agreed on. Many scientific words are common, they are not ‘found’ they are invented.

The words are invented and used by someone, however this word might or might not catch on. If it catches on, that means someone else must have agreed to use the word for the relevant notion.

If the notion was not written down in reality agreeing to use the word for nothing does not make sense.

[Colin2B]

a photon has a circle in it (made of compactified space points)

Congratulations on reopening you topic discussing compactified space points.
Take a break from the forum in order to consider your position.

[Kryptid]

How can a point be compactified if it's already zero-dimensional? It has no size. You can't compactify something more than that.