The discussion centers on whether hadrons, such as protons and neutrons, can be classified as quasiparticles within the framework of condensed matter physics. Participants argue that hadrons are bound states of quarks and gluons, lacking the macroscopic properties necessary to be considered quasiparticles. The conversation highlights the importance of statistical mechanics and the thermodynamic limit in defining quasiparticles, with references to phonons as primary examples. The distinction between the concepts of quasiparticles in high-energy physics and condensed matter physics is emphasized, particularly in the context of Weinberg's approach to quasiparticles.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, particularly those in high-energy and condensed matter fields, as well as students and researchers interested in the properties and classifications of particles in quantum field theories.
To defend 't Hooft I would say that physics is not only about predictive formalism, but also about ideas that justify that formalism. Indeed, the 't Hooft lectures on QFT (as pretty much any other QFT textbook) starts with some heuristic ideas and ends up with some predictive formalism.A. Neumaier said:But physics is about predictive formalisms, not about profound truths. The latter are reserved for the informal interpretation of the formalism.
Sure, lots of heuristics precedes the formulation of a working model.Demystifier said:To defend 't Hooft I would say that physics is not only about predictive formalism, but also about ideas that justify that formalism. Indeed, the 't Hooft lectures on QFT (as pretty much any other QFT textbook) starts with some heuristic ideas and ends up with some predictive formalism.
That post was written by atyy, not me. I agree that it only makes an informal bridge.A. Neumaier said:The point that I had wanted to make is that your initial quote in post #25 was taken out of context and doesn't make the standard model ''condensed matter in spirit" - it only creates an informal bridge between the two.
corrected.Demystifier said:That post was written by atyy, not me. I agree that it only makes an informal bridge.