Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
Fields are real. They are physical as well as they are the basis of the physical world.
They are what keeps you from falling to the center of the earth.
There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
21–30 of 40 posts
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#22[flagged]
Atom B: are you sure?
Atom A: yes, I’m positive.
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#23Are there fields plural or is there one field singular?
My latest check of QFT is that there are 37 fields.
This leads me to believe:
- There is only 1 undiscovered fundamental field
- There are multiple gods and each complains about there being too many fields and how much simpler universe management would be if there was just 1 field and then https://xkcd.com/927
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#24Are there fields plural or is there one field singular? My latest check of QFT is that there are 37 fields. This leads me to believe: - There is only 1 undiscovered fundamental field - There are multiple gods and each complains about there being too many fields and how much simpler universe management would be if there was just 1 field and then https://xkcd.com/927
[deleted]
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on what you mean by real. Many philosophers have adopted the stance that if a concept provides a useful way to talk about reality, it's real. There's no such thing as tables or chairs, but we consider them real because doing so is useful. By the same token particles are real because they are a really useful way to subdivide reality, even though their appearance is just a consequence of field theory.
There's no such thing as tables or chairs What do you mean?
If someone sticks a cushion on a beer crate and sits on it, is it a chair? Opinions differ.
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because they're merely mathematical models of what we experience. Particles aren't?
No, the universe is actually made of tiny rubber balls, and I've seen rubber balls so I know they're real. Fields are just mysterious vibes, like ghosts that make your hair stand on end when they pass through you.
But you've never seen an electron.
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#27From the paper: "Phenomena such as 'particle' tracks in bubble chambers, and the small spot appearing on a viewing screen when a single quantum interacts with the screen, are often cited as evidence that quanta are particles, but these are insufficient evidence of particles."
Really? Wave packets that are indivisible energy blobs, and that make individual "clicks" on my detector sure seem to act like particles to me.
I get that the math implies these bundles are waves - that's the duality part. I don't think any physicist thinks that there is a "particle" embedded in the wave packet, though, like this guy is arguing - the quantized wave packet is the particle!
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#28[deleted]
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#29> It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public Is this mostly settled then? And if so why do we continue to teach a bewildering model?
It's well settled, but not very useful. We still teach Newton's laws of motion, even though we know they're wrong, because it's a lot easier to work with than Lorentz transformations, and most of the time, the result is just as useful (eg, the Apollo missions used Newton's equations). When introducing chemistry, it's much easier to understand a water molecule as a combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom than it is to understand it as fields representing the two elements interacting with fields representing fundamental forces. Heck, in order to even explain the forces, you would probably need to introduce particles.
Re: There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
#30Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
There’s nothing “real” in physics. Everything is a model, and every model is necessarily flawed—otherwise would imply a provably correct, complete formal description of the actual-really-“real”. To obtain that even in theory we would have to observe the real from the outside, which we by definition cannot: we’re necessarily part of what we’re describing, so if we could look at it from the outside all we would get the…
If the model is wrong but pointing out the shape of the real thing that governs everything, it’s still an interesting question as to why anything is being so perfectly governed.