 Quote by apeiron
Fields are just another modelling concept. They have the advantage in that they are both local and global, so do offer a holistic approach.
|
They are the only consistent model of reality there is.
|
A field can define a space by filling it, while locally specifying its material content. Local particles can be described as excitations and so given a contextual definition. Etc.
|
No, a field doesn't fill space, space is relative and e.g. the gravitational field defines space-time as per GR. Fields define and make up spacetime
|
So if reality is holistic and systematic in its causality, we should expect a field ontology to be good at capturing that essential local~global organisation.
|
My long standing gripe with causality has always been that it's a secondary(derivative) concept(like matter, space and time). You are looking for the organizing principles where they don't exist.
|
Of course, like any analogy, there are then shortcomings. Fields have no memory, no persistence. All is flux. So it is hard to represent history or gradients.
|
Memory is a secondary, emergent concept as well(a property of the field?). Classical realism of objects as a fundamental characteristic of reality has been dead for a while.
|
And also, the essence of a "field" in any of these descriptions is that it preserves locality. Whereas QM creates a problem in that regard.
|
QFT doesn't pressupose realism, so no problem in that respect with QM.