Are fields' reality only a relative one?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bland
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the transition in modern physics from a particle-centric view to a field-centric view, as articulated by Max Tegmark. Participants explore the implications of fundamental particles, such as electrons and quarks, potentially being composed of more fundamental entities, which could lead to the emergence of new quantum fields. The conversation raises critical questions about the nature of reality, suggesting that our mathematical descriptions may not fully capture the essence of the fields in the Standard Model. The uncertainty surrounding the fundamental nature of these fields invites further exploration into concepts like M-theory and condensed matter theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with the Standard Model of particle physics
  • Knowledge of Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis
  • Basic concepts of M-theory and condensed matter physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of quantum field theory on particle physics
  • Explore M-theory and its potential to unify fundamental forces
  • Study the mathematical universe hypothesis proposed by Max Tegmark
  • Investigate condensed matter theory and its relationship to quantum fields
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the foundational questions of reality and the nature of the universe.

bland
Messages
150
Reaction score
44
TL;DR
Now that we have a field for all the 'fundamental' quantum particles. And while electrons appear fundamental no one would be surprised in the future if they turn out not to be. Would that mean that the newly discovered more fundamental particles would have their own field. And then what does that mean for the reality of the previous electron field.
What I'm getting at, and I'm hoping someone can clear up any misconceptions that I have, is that I find myself in agreement with Max Tegmark's literal mathematical view of reality. This can quickly get a bit metaphysical so I don't want to go there I just want to go to the edge of accepted physics.

I've heard that the modern view of scientific reality has moved over from particles to fields. So everything is fundamentally made of fields and these fields each represent one of the fundamental Fermions and Bosons in the standard model. I may be wrong but I am assuming that no one talks about proton fields in the same way sure there can be gradients but that's not what I mean.

So... because quite often when it is mentioned that we're pretty sure that the electron is fundamental without size, there is always the caveat, but we don't know for sure, meaning it is possible the electron or quarks are made of something more fundamental

If that were so then wouldn't it stand to reason that the new particles would have their own quantum fields and then what would happen to the old fields. Anyway as I think about all this it seems to me that yes, our description of the Universe really is just mathematics, and I wonder is that math more real or less real than the fields it describes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the fields of the Standard Model are not fundamental, then what is? We don't know. It could be some other fields, or it could be strings, or it could be string fields, or it could be something more abstract as suggested by M-theory, or, if Lorentz invariance is not fundamental, it could even be some new fundamental particles. The latter possibility is analogous to condensed matter theory where various effective fields emerge out of particles described by nonrelativistic QM.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and PeterDonis

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 147 ·
5
Replies
147
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
7K