Does the Higgs field truly exist if it cannot be directly measured?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of the Higgs field in the context of quantum field theory (QFT) and its implications for measurement and reality. Participants explore philosophical questions regarding the nature of fields, their observability, and the distinction between mathematical constructs and physical reality.

Discussion Character

  • Philosophical inquiry
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the reality of fields in QFT, suggesting that if fields cannot be measured at a specific spacetime, their existence is uncertain.
  • Others argue that while fields may not be directly observable, they serve as useful models for understanding particle behavior, similar to mathematical constructs like the quadratic formula.
  • A participant emphasizes the distinction between physical observables, such as position, and field values, which are not directly measurable.
  • Another participant suggests that the Higgs field's existence is tied to its ability to reduce the complexity of models of reality, indicating a philosophical stance on what constitutes physicality.
  • Some participants assert that non-measurability does not equate to nonexistence, citing examples like the electromagnetic field and temperature fields as existing despite limited measurement capabilities.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of quantum fields and their reality, with references to quantum mechanics and the concept of modeling fields as collections of smaller entities (blobs).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the existence and reality of the Higgs field, with no consensus reached. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the philosophical implications of measurement and reality in the context of quantum fields.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the philosophical nature of the discussion, noting that the definitions of "mathematical" versus "physical" are not universally agreed upon. The conversation also touches on the limitations of measurement in relation to the existence of fields.

ftr
Messages
624
Reaction score
47
In QFT particles are described by fields, but AFAIK these fields are mathematical since we don't measure values of fields at a particular spacetime. So what does it mean to say a higgs field exist!

I mean it is one thing to say Higgs particle exists (in LHC), but I have not seen anybody measure its field.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fields are used to describe the behavior of particles in the current theories. But are they actually *real*? I think that is more a philosophical question.

Like when we use the quadratic formula to compute the trajectory of a ball, is "x" real?
 
DuckAmuck said:
Fields are used to describe the behavior of particles in the current theories. But are they actually *real*? I think that is more a philosophical question.

Like when we use the quadratic formula to compute the trajectory of a ball, is "x" real?

That is the point of my question, "x" denotes position which is a physical observable, the field values are not.
 
Yeah, you are right about that difference. My point was more that even if it's not something readily tangible, is it real? I am not sure how to answer that.
Field theory certainly explains a lot, just like parabolas explain trajectories. So I guess they are as "real" as they need to be, for now.
 
It's like the probability wave of a particle. It's not an observable itself, so is it real?
 
QM is all about measuring probabilities of observables like position. the wavefunction generalized to fields is not.
 
ftr said:
but I have not seen anybody measure its field.

Just because you are ignorant of a subject doesn't mean everyone is.

The Higgs field has a value, in vacuum, of 246 GeV. This comes, ultimately, from measurements of the muon lifetime.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
ftr said:
That is the point of my question, "x" denotes position which is a physical observable, the field values are not.

Can you give us an example of a position being a physical observable? There are things that have a position, and we can observe those things. But position is something we assign to those things. So are the things real and the position not real because it was assigned?
 
ftr said:
In QFT particles are described by fields, but AFAIK these fields are mathematical since we don't measure values of fields at a particular spacetime.
You say that particular field is mathematical if we don't measure it's values.
Well, it's rather philosophical question what is mathematical and what is physical in some model. And that means it has to be said in such a way that practically everyone agrees to that. So I would say that something in our model is physical if it considerably reduces complexity of our model and if it does that in a unique way. It would mean that as we make our models more complex (and combine them too) we can better see what in our models should be considered physical i.e. we can only see it in time.
ftr said:
So what does it mean to say a higgs field exist!
It means that we hope it will reduce complexity of our models of reality IMO.
 
  • #10
DuckAmuck said:
It's not an observable itself, so is it real?

You have to go back to what a quantum field is. Here is what's going on. You model a field by a large number of blobs. You apply QM rules to each of those blobs and let the blob size go to zero. So the reality of a quantum field is the same as the reality of a QM blob. That's well known from standard QM - its interpretation dependent.

But is also needs to be said it makes no difference to the theory - just like standard QM.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #11
Nonmeasurability does not imply nonexistence. The universe existed long before anyone was there to measure it.

Engineers routinely measure values of the electromagnetic field though it is a quantum field whose elementary excitations are the photons. The other quantum fields and elementary particles are just analogues with slightly different equations. That's why these fields are given the same ontological status (''they exist!'') as the obviously existing e/m field, even though we can measure only more limited information related to the other fields.

Its not very different from saying that the temperature field of the Earth exists at all points in the interior of the Earth although we cannot measure it in most points.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

Graduate Measurement in QFT: Mapping Fields to Theory's Math Formalism
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Graduate Does Causality in QFT Require Commuting Field Operators Outside the Light Cone?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Undergrad Why does the existence of the Higgs Field require a Higgs Particle?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Quantum Field theory vs. many-body Quantum Mechanics
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
Undergrad QED Picture of static EM Fields
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Physical properties of the vacuum in GR vs. QFT
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Graduate Multiparticle Relativistic Quantum Mechanics in an external potential
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad Are All Photons Truly Virtual?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad How can you visualize the Higgs field, or can you?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K