Are quantum fields real objects in space?

  • #1
18
2
I always had a tough time understanding how QFT relates to reality. Are these quantum fields (electron field, ect) physically real? Are they things that exist in space or are they just mathematical abstractions that help use calculate things?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
821
192
There might not be a satisfying answer because "real" is (at best) ambiguously defined in physics. If you have a mathematical abstraction that successfully predicts experimental outcomes, then it might be considered real in some sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, Peter Morgan and bhobba
  • #3
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,672
I always had a tough time understanding how QFT relates to reality. Are these quantum fields (electron field, ect) physically real? Are they things that exist in space or are they just mathematical abstractions that help use calculate things?
They are as "real" as the classical field, which presumably, since you don't have the same issue with, you accept as being related "... to reality..."

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and dlgoff
  • #4
kith
Science Advisor
1,371
464
The terminology in quantum field theory is a bit tricky because the term "field" is used both for the physical system as well as for an operator which acts on the corresponding Hilbert space. Some time ago, I opened a thread on this which may be of interest to you.
 
  • Like
Likes Peter Morgan, bhobba and Demystifier
  • #5
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,360
3,975
I always had a tough time understanding how QFT relates to reality. Are these quantum fields (electron field, ect) physically real? Are they things that exist in space or are they just mathematical abstractions that help use calculate things?
The electron field is certainly not real, because it is not even an observable. Observables are hermitian operators, which the electron field (by being fermionic rather than bosonic) is not. Bosonic fields (like electromagnetic field) could potentially be real, but I think all fields are just mathematical abstractions that help us calculate things.
 
  • Like
Likes Deepblu, Andrea Panza and Dadface
  • #6
kith
Science Advisor
1,371
464
[...] but I think all fields are just mathematical abstractions that help us calculate things.
Is this a result of your Bohmian particle ontology or would you argue for it already in classical electrodynamics?
 
  • #7
atyy
Science Advisor
14,322
2,553
Is this a result of your Bohmian particle ontology or would you argue for it already in classical electrodynamics?
One can also view fields as not real from the point of view of Copenhagen. Neither observables nor quantum states are real, only measured outcomes and their probabilities are real
 
  • Like
Likes odietrich and Demystifier
  • #8
kith
Science Advisor
1,371
464
Would you consider the quantum system itself to be real in Copenhagen?
 
  • #9
martinbn
Science Advisor
2,128
704
The electron field is certainly not real, because it is not even an observable. Observables are hermitian operators, which the electron field (by being fermionic rather than bosonic) is not. Bosonic fields (like electromagnetic field) could potentially be real, but I think all fields are just mathematical abstractions that help us calculate things.
I don't think that's what he is asking. If he asks whether particles, in classical physics, are real. You are going to say "yes". Possible something more elaborate, but you are not going to say "well, mathematically they are described as curves on a six dimensional symplectic manifold, so they are not real".
 
  • #10
martinbn
Science Advisor
2,128
704
One can also view fields as not real from the point of view of Copenhagen. Neither observables nor quantum states are real, only measured outcomes and their probabilities are real
I don't thing that is true. Why wouldn't fields be real according to Copenhagen?
 
  • #11
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,080
8,182
As all theoretical physics quantum fields are mathematical descriptions of reality. On top of these mathematical descriptions you need a minimal interpretation (which for sure is not Copenhagen for QFT). So what's described by relativistic QFT (or the Standard Model of elementary particle physics)? It in fact (as far as we know today accurately) describes the behavior of the constituents of all observed matter in scattering experiments and (naturally less accurately with many more approximations and less completely) also how the known matter, as a many-body quantum system, behaves as observed (even down to our everyday experience with everyday matter). That's it, no more no less, and that's about the best you can expect from the natural sciences to provide: Objective mathematical quantitative descriptions of how Nature behaves.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #12
martinbn
Science Advisor
2,128
704
As all theoretical physics quantum fields are mathematical descriptions of reality.
I don't think that is well phrased. Quantum fields is the name of what exists objectively (i.e. is real), operator-valued distributions (or some such thing) is the mathematical description.
 
  • #13
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,360
3,975
Is this a result of your Bohmian particle ontology or would you argue for it already in classical electrodynamics?
It is influenced by my Bohmian way of thinking, but note that in orthodox quantum theory neither particles not fields are "real". In orthodox quantum theory only the macroscopic readings of scientific instruments are real.
 
  • Like
Likes Andrea Panza, odietrich, dextercioby and 1 other person
  • #15
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,080
8,182
Hm, but we "measure"/"observe" at least the electromagnetic field (e.g., by our eyes since light is nothing else than electromagnetic fields oscillating at frequencies, our eyes are sensitive to).
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #16
atyy
Science Advisor
14,322
2,553
Would you consider the quantum system itself to be real in Copenhagen?
I don't know. But let's say we just consider quantum mechanics, and the simple harmonic oscillator. Is the Hamiltonian real? The Hamiltonian has 2 roles. First, the Hamiltonian governs the time evolution of the quantum state (Schroedinger picture) or the observables (Heisenberg picture) - the quantum state is not real (Schroedinger picture), and neither are the observables (Heisenberg picture, since all observables, including those that don't commute, evolve simultaneously). Secondly, the Hamiltonian can be an observable - maybe it is real when measured, but what if it is not measured? And even if it is measured, only the probabilities in the Born rule (ie. the full scalar product involving both the observable and the quantunm state) describe real events, so maybe the observable or the quantum state individually are not real.
 
  • #17
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,360
3,975
Hm, but we "measure"/"observe" at least the electromagnetic field (e.g., by our eyes since light is nothing else than electromagnetic fields oscillating at frequencies, our eyes are sensitive to).
I have a more elaborated answer to this in a paper I currently write. Would you like me to send you a draft of the paper?
 
  • Like
Likes rrogers
  • #19
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
7,491
3,387
Because we don't measure them.
So the Moon (considered as a many-particle quantum object) is not real when nobody looks at it?
 
  • #20
Lord Jestocost
Gold Member
685
483
So the Moon (considered as a many-particle quantum object) is not real when nobody looks at it?
This is a question which “Physics” cannot answer seriously. One should not extend speculations beyond the range of experiments/observations. The reality is in the "observation" of the moon, not in the moon itself.
 
  • Like
Likes drpi, Demystifier and dextercioby
  • #21
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
7,491
3,387
The reality is in the "observation" of the moon, not in the moon itself.
No. Observations are accidental, reality is not.

Before anyone was able to observe anything, the universe must have existed for a very long time. At least this is considered physical consensus.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, vortextor, phinds and 1 other person
  • #22
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,360
3,975
So?!
So the Moon (considered as a many-particle quantum object) is not real when nobody looks at it?
According to some versions of Copenhagen interpretation, the Moon does not exist when nobody looks at it. For instance, Wheeler said that “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
I am not defending that interpretation, I am just saying what that interpretation claims.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #23
atyy
Science Advisor
14,322
2,553
According to some versions of Copenhagen interpretation, the Moon does not exist when nobody looks at it. For instance, Wheeler said that “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
I am not defending that interpretation, I am just saying what that interpretation claims.
This interpretation does not exist until discussed.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds, DrChinese, Buzz Bloom and 3 others
  • #24
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
7,491
3,387
According to some versions of Copenhagen interpretation, the Moon does not exist when nobody looks at it. For instance, Wheeler said that “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
I am not defending that interpretation, I am just saying what that interpretation claims.
So how does this interpretation cope with the quantum physics of the early universe, before there were observers? It cannot.

Thus the Copenhagen interpretation is only a partial interpretation appropriate to the early Copenhagen days of quantum mechanics, where the latter was applied to the study of lab objects only. We have progressed a lot since these days.
 
  • #25
martinbn
Science Advisor
2,128
704
According to some versions of Copenhagen interpretation, the Moon does not exist when nobody looks at it. For instance, Wheeler said that “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
I am not defending that interpretation, I am just saying what that interpretation claims.
I think you are missing the point. "The moon is not there if no one is looking at it." I understand this as stressing "not there" i.e. position variables(and any other observable) have no value unless measured. But it doesn't mean "is not" i.e. the object doesn't exist. Copenhagen is open on that part.

So, the statement according to Copenhagen is "The moon is not there if no one is looking at it."
The statement as often said in pop sci text is "The moon is not there if no one is looking at it."

I believe it is the first one that Bohr would have agreed with. The second is just poor philosophy or at best poor language use.
 
Top