I Are fields' reality only a relative one?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter bland
  • Start date Start date
bland
Messages
150
Reaction score
44
TL;DR Summary
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.
 
This post is a spin-off of the original post that discussed Barandes theory, A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for any details about the interpretation in general PLEASE look up for an answer there. Now I want this post to focus on this pre-print: J. A. Barandes, "New Prospects for a Causally Local Formulation of Quantum Theory", arXiv 2402.16935 (2024) My main concerns are that Barandes thinks this deflates the anti-classical Bell's theorem. In Barandes...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Back
Top