New Reply

Is the Standard Model a particle theory or a field theory?

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Feb28-12, 11:11 AM   #1
 

Is the Standard Model a particle theory or a field theory?


just looking at the standard model, which describes a host of fundamental particles and bosons, one could assume that the SM is a particle model. however, most of what i read appears to indicate that particles are merely "excitations" or manifestations of a field, and it has been stated on this forum that SM is a field theory. this field explanation seems to make sense, since what we consider fundamental "particles" like quarks and leptons, are all point particles with zero volume - ie, there is "no-thing" there, only properties.

at the same time, science has no idea of how a field operates, and apparently is built on "spooky action at a distance", since no particles ever actually come into direct contact to impart changes in momentum or energy - they conduct these exchanges via "virtual" particle exchange (magic?).

what is your particular view of this? is SM a particle theory or a field theory? thanks.
 
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
physics news on PhysOrg.com

>> Promising doped zirconia
>> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease
>> Bringing life into focus
Feb29-12, 03:47 AM   #2
 
Blog Entries: 19
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
I would say that SM is a quantum theory of particles described by the aid of quantum fields. In other words, the physical objects are particles, while the fields are a mathematical tool.

By the way, the "spooky action at a distance" in quantum theory has nothing to do with virtual particles.
 
Feb29-12, 04:18 AM   #3
 
Also the notion of "particle" is a mathematical notion, may it be a composite particle or a point-like particle.
 
Feb29-12, 07:04 AM   #4
 

Is the Standard Model a particle theory or a field theory?


I would say that it is a field theory.

Quote by Demystifier View Post
I would say that SM is a quantum theory of particles described by the aid of quantum fields. In other words, the physical objects are particles, while the fields are a mathematical tool.
Why would you say that?
 
Feb29-12, 11:43 AM   #5
 
demyst - if virtual particles dont represent spooky action at a distance, i dont know what does. i know i am pulling a metaphor here, but the way particles interact, while very well modelled mathematically, is simply baffling from a "how does that happen?' perspective.
 
Feb29-12, 12:26 PM   #6
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Homework Helper Homework Help
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by jnorman View Post
demyst - if virtual particles dont represent spooky action at a distance, i dont know what does. i know i am pulling a metaphor here, but the way particles interact, while very well modelled mathematically, is simply baffling from a "how does that happen?' perspective.
Virtual particle exchange is actually a great explanation of causality, since it explains why interactions cannot be transmitted faster than light. It's actually not at all like spooky action at a distance. It is inherently quantum mechanical though, since the effect of a virtual particle will not be known unless a measurement is made on the system.
 
Feb29-12, 01:39 PM   #7
 
fz - how does one particle know that another particle is nearby and necessitates the exchange of virtual particles? how is the exchange of virtual particles initiated? what are virtual particles? maybe that is all clear to you, but i sure dont understand it.
 
Mar1-12, 04:02 AM   #8
 
Blog Entries: 19
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by jnorman View Post
demyst - if virtual particles dont represent spooky action at a distance, i dont know what does.
EPR correlations.
 
Mar1-12, 04:05 AM   #9
 
Blog Entries: 19
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by martinbn View Post
Why would you say that?
Because in SM the objects we MEASURE in practice are particles, not fields. Moreover, fermionic fields cannot be measured even in principle.
 
Mar1-12, 06:45 AM   #10
 
Quote by Demystifier View Post
Because in SM the objects we MEASURE in practice are particles, not fields. Moreover, fermionic fields cannot be measured even in principle.
That is irrelevant, the question is what the theory says, and QFT is a theory of fields.
 
New Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: Is the Standard Model a particle theory or a field theory?
Thread Forum Replies
Information Theory: Beyond the Standard Model Beyond the Standard Model 4
Is the Standard Model a M-theory? Beyond the Standard Model 9
Category theory and beyond the standard model Beyond the Standard Model 39
Standard Model particle spectrum from String Theory Beyond the Standard Model 25
Standard Model from String Theory Beyond the Standard Model 8