Are quantum field only calculation tools?

In summary, the current mainstream consensus in quantum field theory is that it is a "shut-up-and-calculate" approach, where the focus is on using mathematical calculations to make predictions rather than trying to understand the ontological reality of quantum fields. However, there are differing opinions, such as the thermal interpretation which gives ontological status to the expectation values of quantum fields. It is also possible that particles may be considered primary and the field secondary or non-existent in the future. The Copenhagen Interpretation suggests that interference patterns may only exist in the equations and not physically, and there may be other examples in physics where dynamics only occur in equations without physical manifestation. Ultimately, the debate over the ontological reality of quantum fields continues and remains a topic
  • #1
Varon
548
1
Do quantum field have ontological reality or are they only mathematical calculational tools just like virtual particles? What's the mainstream consensus?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Varon said:
Do quantum field have ontological reality or are they only mathematical calculational tools just like virtual particles? What's the mainstream consensus?

The main stream consensus in QFT is shut-up-and-calculate. This really works well in practice, but does not give a good intuition about reality.

My thermal interpretation discussed in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492 is not yet mainstream but gives the expectation values of a quantum field (not the quantum field itself) the ontological status of beables.
 
  • #3
Varon said:
Do quantum field have ontological reality or are they only mathematical calculational tools just like virtual particles? What's the mainstream consensus?

In my personal opinion, quantum fields are "calculational tools". Here I disagree with Dr. Neumaier. Please visit thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=474666 . It can help you make your own mind.

Eugene.
 
  • #4
So the statement particles being just momentum and energy of the field is just a conjecture? Meaning someday it is still possible particles are primary and field is secondary or nonexistent?
 
  • #5
Varon said:
So the statement particles being just momentum and energy of the field is just a conjecture? Meaning someday it is still possible particles are primary and field is secondary or nonexistent?

In my opinion, this is a valid statement, which should be seriously discussed.

Eugene.
 
  • #6
In Copenhagen. It is said that what is interfering is only in the equation. Meaning in the inteference pattern, you can see the pattern but it doesn't prove the particles are physical interfering. This is the essence of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Now is there other examples in physics where the dynamics only occur in the equations and there is nothing that physically happens? I can think one now.. virtual particles being just mathematical artifacts and not physical there at all. What else?

But for double slit. Does it makes sense the interference is only in the equation and not really there physically? Perhaps Copenhagen is popular is because there are many examples in physics where things only occur in the equations and not physically? Pls. cite other examples so we can appreciate Copenhagen better.
 
  • #7
I also vote for calculation tool.
 

1. What are quantum fields?

Quantum fields are mathematical constructs used in quantum field theory to describe the fundamental particles and forces of the universe. They are considered to be the building blocks of all matter and energy.

2. How are quantum fields different from classical fields?

Quantum fields are fundamentally different from classical fields because they take into account the principles of quantum mechanics, such as the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality. This allows for the description of particles as both waves and discrete units of energy.

3. Are quantum fields only used as calculation tools?

No, quantum fields are not just calculation tools. They are used to make predictions about the behavior of particles and their interactions. They have been tested and verified through experiments, making them an essential part of our understanding of the universe.

4. How are quantum fields used in research and technology?

Quantum fields are used in a wide range of research and technology fields, including particle physics, cosmology, and quantum computing. They are also used in the development of new materials and technologies, such as quantum sensors and quantum cryptography.

5. Can we visualize quantum fields?

Quantum fields cannot be directly observed or visualized like classical fields. They are mathematical constructs that describe the behavior of particles and interactions. However, we can understand their effects and make predictions based on mathematical equations and experimental data.

Similar threads

I QED Picture of static EM Fields
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
766
A Importance of Densities in QFT
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
784
I Are All Photons Truly Virtual?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
486
A Is the quantum mechanics explanation for the propagation of light adequate enough to be understood?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
394
I How does QM explain that we see electrons circulating in a magnetic field?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
33
Views
2K
I Is conservation of energy a local law in Quantum field theory?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
18
Views
574
I Quantum fluctuations & 'virtual particles'
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Feedback on Educational Script: What's a particle in QFT?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
262
I Is the photon field a vector field and a gauge field?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
739
B Quantum field theory and wave particle duality
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top