Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum They aren't particles and they aren't fields

The latest issue of Scientific American (August 2013) has an article titled "What is Real?" by Meinard Kuhlman. It starts right off by explaining why calling quantum particles particles is wrong, but saying that they are fields is also wrong. The big problem seems to be that particles are little hard objects, but there is no way to treat them as objects in QM. The other way to look at them is to look at them as ripples in a field, but in quantum field theory you are talking about operators, not ripples. So QM is made up of things that don't really match what we think of when we use the terms. I can't say I really understood the explanations, it will take some time for it to sink in.

The author describes 2 different interpretations that are being offered to explain what things really are, since they aren't particles and they aren't fields. The first is ontic structural realism. This suggests that the world doesn't consist of things, but rather of relationships. If I got it right it isn't what things are made of that counts but how they are connected.

The second possibility is that things consist of properties, not particles or fields. In the physics community that is discussing this sort of thing they call them tropes. The electron is a bundle of various properties or tropes: 3 fixed essential properties (mass, charge, and spin) as well as numerous changing, nonessential properties such as position and velocity.

And I suspect that there are other ideas of what it really means.

I grant you I did not completely understand what the author was talking about. As time goes by I hope to pick up a better understanding. The author does say that many physicists ignore the problem, since QM works so well without being able to actually figure out what it says.

Bill Gill

Is Kuhlmann's work not a bit philosophical for your taste, Bill?

I shall look forward to your comments as you "pick up a better understanding".

Particles, Fields and The Future of Physics - A Lecture by Sean Carroll (YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKSpZPByD0
Go to time 1:14:30

"One reason it's confusing is because there are two levels of waviness. So if the world were really made out of particles, but quantum mechanics were true, there would still be a certain waviness about the world because quantum mechanics says that, even if there are particles, the way you describe those particles is through a wave function - through a field that...tells you...what the probability is of observing that particle. So [in that view] the world is made of particles, but the observations of the particles are governed by the rules of quantum mechanics which involves waves. But the quantum field theory philosophy says there's not even a particle. What you start with is a field - something that looks wavy, something that fills all of space, like the electromagnetic field or the gravitational field; and then you apply the rules of quantum mechanics to that, and miraculously what comes out are particles. So, quantum mechanics says that what you see when you observe the universe comes to us, in very frequent circumstances, in discrete packets, discrete lumps. You know if the underlying reality is smooth, we see it in individual discrete bits, and it's the particles that make up you and me that are the discrete bits we see when we look at fields. Fields vibrating and interacting with each other is just the most poetic language that I can think of. The math if perfectly straightforward."

(I think I got that right, excuse me if I misheard something)

- So, it seems that Sean Carroll favours the view that fields are everything. No actual particles, only fields, but observed in discrete quanta as though they are particles.

Yep, there is another country heard from. Apparently there are a number of different views as to just exactly what everything is made of. Now Sean Carroll says it is all fields, but it's also particles. I think that is probably where Kuhlman is coming from. He, and some others just don't see how it can work that way and are looking for something more basic.

The thing about it is that when we start looking at things in this level of detail it gets very different from what we see when we look around us. And interpreting that view into something that actually makes some kind of sense to us is really difficult.

Bill Gill

My answer would be the same as most physicists have already said of Sean Carroll that the view is unscientific and mostly inaccurate or plain wrong.

When criticized Sean Carroll produced a list of supposedly the 24 questions

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/01/15/24-questions-for-elementary-physics/


Lubos Motl did a reasonable job with answer all 24 questions

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/answers-to-24-questions-by-sean-carroll.html


There is quite a lot of heat developing between the various parties you may care to read background

http://backreaction.blogspot.com.au/2007/08/lubo-motl.html


As I have explained in other threads the post 2008 world and now post Higgs world looks very different and is very definite about ruling some things in and some things out.

There are going to be a few dust ups over the next few years as the experimental ramifications echo out through science and peoples pet theories come under fire.

Consider the latest test done on the Standard Model
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-cern-standard-stringent.html

I am putting this into a separate post because some may care to think and answer

The background to the questions:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-oxford-curtain-foundations-quantum-physics.html

Some of these you should be able to answer yourself if you followed some of the threads

In "What Is Real?" Meinard Kuhlmann attacks Quantum Field Theory because the fields described by the theory “are not what physicists classically understand by the term 'field'"! Well, of course they’re not – duh! Specifically, he objects to the superposition principle that describes field intensity by a state vector in Hilbert space, a concept that he claims "even theoretical physicists admit they can barely visualize". Yet this principle has underlain quantum physics since 1922 when Stern and Gerlach showed that the angular momentum of an atom can be in a superposition of states. Today very few physicists would reject the reality of angular momentum because of this, and they should not reject fields because the intensity of a field is also described by a vector in Hilbert space. And Kuhlmann’s claim that "the state vector... does not refer to any specific location" is just plain wrong. In QFT the field intensity at each point is described by a state vector, as per the superposition principle.

His complaint that the behavior of the vacuum is "mind-boggling" because particles are being created also is not true - at least in the version of QFT that describes a world without particles (i.e., Schwinger's version, not Feynman's).

Finally, after discarding QFT, Kuhlmann ends up embracing its very essence. “It would be better", he says, "to view properties as the one and only fundamental category.” But what is a field but a property of space? Michael Faraday introduced the field concept in 1845 and most physicists today are comfortable with it. We accept the gravitational field as a property of space that attracts objects and we accept the electric field as a property of space that influences the motion of electrically charged objects. This should not change just because the fields are quantum fields. Kuhlmann's theory reminds me of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland, whose grin remained after the cat had disappeared. Only a philosopher - or a children's author - could come up with the notion that properties can exist without something to create them. Kuhlmann can call it ontic structural realism or whatever he wants, but he’s talking about QFT.

Scientific American should publish an article that describes QFT in its true fields-only sense and that shows how it resolves the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, written by someone who understands QFT. In the meantime, interested readers can get my book "Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein" (quantum-field-theory.net/fields-of-color or search for "einstein's enigmas" in quotes).

Rodney Brooks

Wow an audience with royalty almost welcome Rodney :cheer:

Most on here won't know who you are but I am happy to testify your book is worth a read and does a very reasonable job at explaining QFT without too much mathematics.

I am sorry to say I am not a great fan of Schwinger so I offer my apology in advance for any discussions we have

Since we have you in the house so to speak can I ask for a comment on the nightmare scenario we now face?

(Phillip published a good discussion which most has been causing some usual lively discussion)

http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/

I would talk to you directly but I am tunneling out the reservation so to speak

Orac, you--a "bad boy", eh?--say,Amusing signature, Orac.

But seriously, I ask, what do you mean when you say, "GOD"?

Do you mean that which is Good, Omniscient & Desirable--within and beyond the vacuum?

Or, do you mean a god?--one that is very human-like, an idol-like object and lives within space, time and has dimensions?

And, what book do you have in mind? The Bible, The Koran, The Upanishads, or what ?

I am afraid I suffer internet trolls very badly and I do not mind playing there silly game against them as a few have found out.

In my upbringing anti-social behavior like that would see you off for political adjustment camp or worse so I find I am not really equipped with the personal tools to ignore it.

On the other side my background allowed for little room to have an idea of being right, one had to always bow down to the authority of the state and regime. So I find the western idea and hang up about one feeling compelled to be "right" amusing.

Personally during studies for example I admired Vladimir Fock and Andrei Sakharov but as they fell out with political regime and ideology one had to temper such feelings.

I have found over the years that internet trolls find those from communist backgrounds very awkward because we don't react the way they seem to expect as a few trolls on here found out.

As you have never behaved in those sorts of manner you have not seen my dark side



The reference I have to confess is to one of the trolls who insists the bible is a literal unedited version of the universe and trying to interrupt discussion of science because they feel they have to defend GOD.

You already now my background with much more contact with Muslim than Christian and I am sure you are well aware of how the Muslims view the bible which caught the troll right off guard.




Where in the science section so I shall keep my response brief.

If there is a GOD and it is a big "if" to me then I expect that what we study as science is the laws of a GOD in action.

Hi Rodney Brooks, Bill, Bill S, redewenur, Orac

Yes I agree, a study of the nature of the Universe, is entirely a study of fields. Including the particle aspect of QM. And I will say early on, these fields need an explanation of natural emergence, and not that of a witting designer.

I’m guessing everybody in the room has considered the problem big bang cosmology suffers in regards to energy conservation laws, and emergence of a highly fine tuned, ordered physical universe? Could the constants of nature and such intricate order emerge from an inherently chaotic event, an explosion of nothing that made everything? And is not notion of a multiverse as troublesome as the coincidence it was originally invented to resolve? Bang off enough universes and sooner or later one will have all the checks and balances, well suited for emergence of life. How many failed universes would you need to bang off? To me, that argument suggests that if you throw a pile of molecules in the air enough times, probability however remote would eventually, and spontaneously emerge a fully developed rabbit. However, I suggest that a reasonable person with an understanding of biological process and evolution, must realize that this could never ever happen. And although it might seem like a strange thing to say, but while on the subject of life, consider the confusion biological scientists would suffer today, if we were still in a time pre-Darwinian evolution? Much I would suggest, and this thought should seem familiar to you?

A question I would like to pose. If we are already aware of a natural process of evolution capable of developing complexity, and intricate adapted interrelationships. Then why hasn’t somebody tried to apply the lessons it provides, to the problem of a highly complex, fine tuned physical universe? Seems like a silly notion right! Rocks aren’t alive!! But is it so silly? One thing is for sure, big bang cosmology doesn’t allow opportunity for evolutionary states to arise. Big bang creates everything universal from nothing in an instant, then energy condenses to form particles, which as far as we can tell remain stable and unchanging for billions of years. No opportunity for universal complexity to have arisen from evolutionary process. But does big bang theory disprove universal evolutionary process, or does evolutionary process disprove the big bang? We shall see.

Let us dare to take a fresh look at things? There are those that believe the physical universe is entirely built of energy fields. And I am in total agreement, with the property of particles, QM being an emergent phenomena of field dynamics.

If the Universe is made of fields and nothing but fields, then what can account for complexity of field behaviour, that the physical universe as we perceive, can emerge from them? And have an origin of natural explanation, rather than witting designer. And for that matter, how and why have universal fields emerged in the first instance? Tough questions they may seem, but perhaps because current cosmological theory has missed something important?

It is a component of the standard model after all, that space is expanding, photon redshift, leading to expansion of the universe. However let’s for argument sake interpret this as a field continually emergent of space, red shifting photons, but rather than expanding the universe as a whole, is re-absorbed, depleted, consumed by matter in the process of generating electrical fields. A process that gives rise to gravity. But why should this occur, you might ask?

Because evolving entities require a cycle of generational exchange.

Let us suppose this field of space exploits a natural energy potential of the vacuum to regenerate itself. And I will soon elaborate on this point further, but for now just to say the vacuum might mechanically spread the field, while the field builds elastic energy within its body, and is exploited for purposes of regeneration. In this respect, mechanical elastic energy might come to be known as a first principle of universal energy creation. However this is merely a guess. Back to the point, if a regenerating field does not have a mechanism for clearing consecutive generations, mortality, then the habitat is quickly populated to saturation. Imagine if animals were immortal, offspring forced to compete with immortal parents for habitat and resource. Evolutionary progression will quickly stall. Within this context, the existence and complexity of the physical universe is given a reason for existence, although not what we might have anticipated. To create gravity, deplete the field allowing generational exchange.

Why does the field need to evolve? Why not simply exist?
Because an original field cant remain unchanging. Consider that areas of field separated by great distances will evolve and change in isolation of one another, and over time return to cohabitate. And as demonstrated by life in these circumstances, divergence of species will eventuate, leading to competition pressures and Pandora’s box of interesting possibilities. An evolving entity will have a number of predictable, and some not so predictable responses to competition pressures for habitat and resource. But a few of the more predictable responses, faster, stronger, bigger, quicker to adapt and evolve etc. Circumstances of field evolution will have marked differences from that of evolution of life, however it will also share parallels.

In this respect, the universe is not created in entirety, in an instant. Unchanging physiology of field and particles, just blindly moving around in space. The universal process is a story of continually emergence, change, adaptation and evolution.

If an entity no matter what its form or character, has a natural energy potential to exploit, and can regenerate by way of self-replication, then it can grow, pass useful characteristics on to consecutive generations. If it can change, it can improve, adapt and evolve complexity over time.

When you begin to look at the physical universe in terms of being a purposeful appendage of an evolved field entity, a number of most extraordinary realizations occur. And I’m talking beyond a reasonable explanation of the fine tuned universe, and mechanism responsible for universal energy creation, which is compliant with energy conservation laws. Or at least a reasonable, but new interpretation of them. It brings to light a simple principle, which is centrally implicated in everything universal and on every length scale, particle, atomic, planetary, stellar, galactic, and clusters of galaxies.

The field of space and atomic charge share proportionality with one another, and understanding this resolves the Dark Matter crisis. Allow yourself to look at it like this. The field of space possesses an energy density distribution, and an atom’s job is to lower this field energy density, by converting field into charge. And incidentally, atomic charge shares a relation to mass. So picture an atom sitting inside a little cup of gravity, as it lowers local field energy density. Field energy being lowest at the middle of the gravitational potential, means there is less field energy available to generate charge. Less field energy density, less atomic charge, less mass. They share a proportion, much the same as flame and oxygen. If you place a cup over a candle, watch the flame diminish and wink out, as oxygen density is depleted.

However things begin to get interesting, as you place greater numbers of atoms within close proximity of one another. Atoms place a collective load on local field energy density, and in turn each atoms charge potential and mass is collectively lowered. Picture in your mind, atomic charge and mass have a higher potential at galaxy rim, where field energy density is greatest, and steadily tapers off towards galaxy centre, as field energy density falls off. As a result there is less mass galaxy centre, and more galaxy rim than predicted by General relativity. Once this measure is applied to General Relativities predictions, perfect and effortless agreement is achieved with universal observations. Cusp core problem, galaxy rotation curves, a-symmetry galaxy rotation curves, galaxy cluster motions, and also negative lensing of light within voids is given a tidy explanation. And it is truly beautiful how this resolution for the Dark Matter crisis, implicates the Tully Fisher relation, light to mass ratio. Turns out the mass wasn’t hidden from our eye’s all along, it was only hidden from our minds and theories.

If you take General Relativity (mass informs space how to curve, space informs mass how to move) and add (mass places a load on space, which lowers potential for mass). Then all anomalous universal motions can be accounted for in simple fashion.

And there are further implications.

So field energy density and atomic charge are proportional. And each consecutive atom added to a location in space, adds to the collective load on the field of space, which in turn lowers each and every atoms potential to generate charge. Which we have established is an atoms primary function. So when large conglomerations of atoms are placed together to form planets and stars, a good deal of an atoms individual potential to generate charge, is sacrificed. However there is a tactic that can restore that lost potential and field evolution has done a fine job of exploiting it. It places space between particles, and this principle has influenced universal evolution and structure on every length scale. Field evolution has conspired to create composite particles, which give rise to atomic structure that are 100,000 times greater volume than constituent nucleons. This amounts to planets that are more like sponges than dense pulsars, mostly empty space and optimized for generating charge, and depleting field. However it is the prospect of providing a motive for stars to burn, that really inspires my thinking. Fusion generating heat andfurther inflating a stars volume beyond capability of sub-fusion bodies, and allowing conglomerations of mass to exist, that would otherwise collapse to form black holes and or pulsars. And further more, everywhere you see universal bodies spread across the field of space, intricate balance of atomic, celestial, galactic and galaxy group structure. You can know that it is not by chance or design, but evolutionary adaptation. To optimise extinction of the field, to allow for generational exchange.

I believe it was Paul Dirac who first proposed the large numbers hypothesis, there being a proportion between atomic charge and gravity, that is shared with expansion rate of space and collective value of all universal atomic charges. However he interpreted this relationship in terms of the big bang theory, relating expansion rate of space (red shifted photons) to expansion rate of the universe, to the age of the universes. And although he had the wits to know this shared ratio was too much an unlikely coincidence to be a coincidence, he could not uncover an obvious link between the age of the universe and atomic charge. In simple terms, the theory laid out above makes this connection plain. The field emergent of and expanding space, responsible for photon red shifting, is in turn consumed by matter in exchange for atomic charge, for purpose of facilitating field generational exchange. Direct causal link.

This theory achieves a good deal more than is represented in this post. It essentially unifies our cosmological model with particle physics, wrapped up within an altered relativity. It provides an interesting candidate for fundamental particle structure, that conforms to a good many known properties of matter. A particle theory which allows me to speak thoughtfully about nuclear force, mass, the equivalence principle, bonding energy, thermodynamics, antimatter etc.

last word. Imagine state of our biological sciences, if we were still suffering a time pre-Darwinian evolution? Can you see that our particle physicists and cosmologists would be suffering much as they presently are, if the physical universe was an evolved state?

Questing

In simpler terms

Imagine the difficulty biological scientists would have understanding biology in this day and age, if we were still in a time pre-Darwinian evolution? Can you see how biologist would suffer in much the same way that current day physicists and cosmologists are? Interesting!

Here's another way to look at it. Physics and cosmology are suffering a glaringly obvious problem, no adequate answer for a highly fine tuned, complex, ordered physical universe. And I for one, do not believe designer is the solution, and nor chance. So what other options are there?

Well we are already well aware of a process of nature, that allows wondrous complexity to arise within systems. Evolutionary process. The big bang theory doesn't allow opportunity for evolutionary process to work its magic. However does big bang disprove universal evolutionary process, or does universal evolutionary process disprove big bang?

I know this seems silly. Rocks aren't alive right!

However there is a plausible possibility, and its quite simple. And appears to fit universal observations better than one might expect. Here is the simplest possible telling.

A field welling up in space, exploiting a natural energy potential of the vacuum (red shifting photons). but rather than expanding the universe as a whole, it is this energy which is being reabsorbed by matter, and provides an intuitive explanation for cause for gravity. This scenario allows the field to undergo generational exchange, necessary for evolutionary process.

Our impression of electricity in the macro world, is that it is of a fleeting nature. Stop winding the alternator crank and it vanishes. But despite this, our particle physics theory's consider charge to be a conserved value, an extension of energy conservation laws. However what if this is a misinterpretation, and particles continually place load on the field to generate charge, for the specific reason of clearing field energy, allowing for generational exchange?

And then it might be presumed that this is a reason for emergence of the physical universe in the first instance.

This is a really fun concept, and achieves a great deal more than this brief account first makes apparent.