There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)(arxiv.org)
arxiv.org
There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616
39 comments
From 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!
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!
Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
Why are fields non-physical?
Not OP but I think they actually mean non-conforming to deeply held beliefs of an atomic universe a la Democritus
I hope primary school educators are moving past the atomic model, first to subatomic then to quantum fields (even just a hand wavey introduction with no maths)
People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better
I hope primary school educators are moving past the atomic model, first to subatomic then to quantum fields (even just a hand wavey introduction with no maths)
People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better
With particles and atoms you get a good undestanding of chemistry and CRT, probably radioactivity and many other everyday topics. Even Feyman diagrams look quite readable if youimagine the universe is made of small balls.
Quantum field are too weird and without math they are just weird magic. Let kids play with balls until they are big enough to be enlighted.
> People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better.
I agree with that, but I don't know how to fix that.
Quantum field are too weird and without math they are just weird magic. Let kids play with balls until they are big enough to be enlighted.
> People hold onto the underlying paradigm they are first taught for an awfully long time even if they logically know better.
I agree with that, but I don't know how to fix that.
Because they're merely mathematical models of what we experience. They're no more "real" than man-bear pig, although they do have predictive capabilities.
Until they don't.
Ultimately what is real is a philosophical question. Why isn't man-bear pig real? The Imagination Land story arc really delved into this question.
Until they don't.
Ultimately what is real is a philosophical question. Why isn't man-bear pig real? The Imagination Land story arc really delved into this question.
> Because they're merely mathematical models of what we experience.
Particles aren't?
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.
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 then is a new indescribable “real”.
Hence, a question like “are fields real?” is besides the point: it is impossible to tell whether that theory is wrong or qualify how wrong it is, because the reference point is never available. It’s a model—it works for some purposes, it doesn’t for others.
Hence, a question like “are fields real?” is besides the point: it is impossible to tell whether that theory is wrong or qualify how wrong it is, because the reference point is never available. It’s a model—it works for some purposes, it doesn’t for others.
I agree that you can't know what is "real" without looking at our universe from outside it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't imply that every model must be flawed, in the sense that its predictions must not be 100% consistent with observation. We could stumble across the "real" model, or something equivalent to it (in the sense of identical predictions) - we'd have no way of knowing whether the model is "real", but it could still be right.
Such a model would look extraordinarily compelling to rely on all the time for all purposes, all the while remaining capable of being false in a critical and very difficult (impossible with technology of the time) to detect way.
I’d rather prefer a Unix way: a plurality of explicitly more limited but more numerous and conceptually diverse models.
I’d rather prefer a Unix way: a plurality of explicitly more limited but more numerous and conceptually diverse models.
I’m not convinced it’s impossible to model reality from the inside of reality. It’s conceivable to have a model that logically necessitates a reality, maybe with some kind of meta-mathematical bootstrapping mechanism, and some way to prove that your model reality is the same reality as we’re in (eg just as all turing-complete machines are equally powerful, all realities with some properties are equally real).
The model of reality is created by and used by your mind, and your mind is part of reality, so already that catch-22 intuitively precludes the model from being provably correct and complete even if your mind could somehow be completely unbiased and objective in every other way (which our minds aren’t, our biases and preexisting beliefs and feelings inform physical theories and models all the time).
I don’t see why your approach is not subject to the same limitations.
I don’t see why your approach is not subject to the same limitations.
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.
Replace government with correlation. Correlation is data, government is a story. We observe correlations and then create stories and analogies with things we already know that fit those correlations. That’s how our mind works.
“Are fields real?” is not a bad question! It can’t be answered within the framing of scientific method, but it brings into focus the bigger question of what “being real” might mean.
“Are fields real?” is not a bad question! It can’t be answered within the framing of scientific method, but it brings into focus the bigger question of what “being real” might mean.
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?
What do you mean?
Parfit’s equivalent of “there’s no such thing as tables or chairs” is “there’s no such thing as France”. In other words, it’s a label we give to a collection of people, but France doesn’t technically exist other than as those people themselves.
It’s one of the points I disagreed with him on (his line between “exists” and “not exists” seems arbitrary, like he is forcing a particular layer of abstraction), and it somewhat undermined his bigger argument about the nature of the self in Reasons and Persons.
In some ways, France is more real than people comprising it. In almost every way, a chair is more real than particles or fields that it can be modeled as.
It’s one of the points I disagreed with him on (his line between “exists” and “not exists” seems arbitrary, like he is forcing a particular layer of abstraction), and it somewhat undermined his bigger argument about the nature of the self in Reasons and Persons.
In some ways, France is more real than people comprising it. In almost every way, a chair is more real than particles or fields that it can be modeled as.
As in, if you look at any accepted theory of physics, neither tableness nor chairness appear.
Nor does life appear, but that is real.
That probably just means our theory of physics (that only explains 4% of the observable universe) is wrong.
That probably just means our theory of physics (that only explains 4% of the observable universe) is wrong.
I'm replying to someone who is considering whether or not particles are real as they do not appear in field theory directly
If someone sticks a cushion on a beer crate and sits on it, is it a chair? Opinions differ.
When this question arises, I always think of Korzibsky in my foggy recollection of him. Linguistics do program us, more than, I think, we admit. Unfortunately, individuals have limited authority in how language is applied, but in theory, a language could be constructed to program us in strictly beneficial ways. One aspect of such a hypothetical language might be the alteration of nouns to verbs, ie describing things as functions rather than things. Many are critical of this concept, but it seems to me of some potential. Language does affect perception and while it may not do so entirely, its effect is formidable.
Beercrashion: the tendency of some specific wooden structures to serve a peripheral function to some creatures as a comfortable buffer between them and the surface beneath them often called ground.
Beercrashion: the tendency of some specific wooden structures to serve a peripheral function to some creatures as a comfortable buffer between them and the surface beneath them often called ground.
Do opinions differ whether that particular beer crate is real? Of whether the name is appropriate?
The names are made up; the structures aren't, but they are only as good as they need to be and no better.
Are 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
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
Pretty sure you can just concatenate the field values together into one giant tensor and call it one field if you want.
[deleted]
> 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?
Is this mostly settled then? And if so why do we continue to teach a bewildering model?
Because it is way more intuitive to think about particles, at least at first. For example, particles have mass and momentum. Fields do not.
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.
[deleted]
There's certainly plenty of common misunderstanding in this, uh, field!