Are fields' reality only a relative one?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bland
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 replies · 1K views
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?
 
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.
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and PeterDonis