Are quantum fields real objects in space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of quantum fields in quantum field theory (QFT) and whether they are considered real objects in space or merely mathematical abstractions. Participants explore various interpretations and implications of QFT, touching on philosophical aspects of reality in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the physical reality of quantum fields, suggesting they may be mathematical abstractions that aid in calculations rather than tangible entities.
  • Others argue that the definition of "real" is ambiguous in physics, proposing that successful mathematical models may be considered real in some sense.
  • A participant asserts that the electron field is not real because it is not an observable, while bosonic fields might be considered potentially real.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of fields from different perspectives, such as Bohmian mechanics and the Copenhagen interpretation, with some suggesting that neither particles nor fields are real in orthodox quantum theory.
  • Some participants highlight that measurements are crucial to defining reality, questioning whether unobserved entities like the Moon exist in the same sense as observed phenomena.
  • References to the roles of Hamiltonians in quantum mechanics raise further questions about the reality of quantum states and observables, depending on whether they are measured.
  • One participant mentions the need for a minimal interpretation of quantum fields beyond the Copenhagen interpretation, emphasizing the objective mathematical descriptions provided by QFT.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the reality of quantum fields, with no consensus reached. Some argue for the reality of certain fields, while others maintain that all fields are merely mathematical constructs. The discussion reflects ongoing debates about the nature of reality in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the terminology in quantum field theory can be confusing, particularly regarding the distinction between physical systems and mathematical operators. The discussion also touches on the limitations of interpretations and the role of observation in defining reality.

  • #151
A. Neumaier said:
So the Moon (considered as a many-particle quantum object) is not real when nobody looks at it?
It is not known. Nor can it be known until you receive information from it. Quantum objects do not exist until they interact with other objects and cause a change in objects we are observing. The momentum, spin, charge, are unknown to the entire universe and are shared only through interaction with other particles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Whilst I realize it is not popular ; I consider it is useful to distinguish between science and philosophy.
Where philosophy is itself divisible as
- values and ideology
-epistemology: what we know and how we know it
-ontology:essential nature of things and definition of the meaning of words.

Personally I also find it useful to restrict the meaning of metaphysics to ;
- relations and correlations between subjective experience and the objective material world and
the meaning of of mysticism to - profounder aspects of subjective experience.
I include these two later words just because some physicists seem to conflate the two as meaning
"just some obscure, irrelevant and speculative matter."

Whilst the vast majority of interpretations of QM (Copenhagen etc) are 'ontic' (eg electron location is actually fuzzy);
there have been 'epistemic' interpretations (eg electron location is fuzzy knowledge), which don't rely on hidden variables.
Eddington's 'Fundamental Theory' seems to be an example of the later.
Whilst this was never successful; an epistemic interpretation of the collapse of the wave function following observation does;
have appeal to me as the " the response of quantified uncertainty to a new observation"

Finally I mention all the above as context to my comment that whilst most of the discussion has been in the grey area between epistemology and theoretical QM; BUT when we start to enquire about 'reality' as distinct from say the shared quality of objective material phenomena; we are likely to encounter deeply held metaphysical differences !
 
  • #153
Thread is closed. Too much philosophy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
850
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K