Particles more fundamental than fields

In summary: Schwartz's book "Quantum Field Theory" promotes the idea that particles are more fundamental than fields.
  • #1
Lapidus
344
11
In this Nima Arkani-Hamed paper on page 5 I found the sentence:

These constraints are an artifact of using fields as auxiliary objects to describe the interactions of the more fundamental particles.

In Schwartz's QFT book I also get away with the impression that the Poincaré irreps (i.e. particles) are more fundamental and field representations are just secondary.

But this view seems to be contrary with most other (older) QFT books and notes that I came across, where particles are just excitations of the fundamental quantum fields.

My question: is there are "conceptual shift" taking place towards an understanding that particles are more fundamental than fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is not a well-defined question. Until there is an empirical way for two people to agree on the fundamentalness of something, it is not a scientific question and I predict that this thread, like the many that have come before it, will circle the philosophical drain until the Mentors decide to put it out of its misery.
 
  • Like
Likes haushofer
  • #3
Lapidus said:
In Schwartz's QFT book I also get away with the impression that the Poincaré irreps (i.e. particles) are more fundamental and field representations are just secondary.
In "Poincaré irrep", representation is mathematical jargon, it means representation of a group. But what do you mean by "field representation"?
is there a "conceptual shift" taking place towards an understanding that particles are more fundamental than fields?
Particles only exist in perturbation theory, so I don't see how that could happen.
 
  • #4
Lapidus said:
In this Nima Arkani-Hamed paper on page 5 I found the sentence:

These constraints are an artifact of using fields as auxiliary objects to describe the interactions of the more fundamental particles.

In Schwartz's QFT book I also get away with the impression that the Poincaré irreps (i.e. particles) are more fundamental and field representations are just secondary.

But this view seems to be contrary with most other (older) QFT books and notes that I came across, where particles are just excitations of the fundamental quantum fields.

My question: is there are "conceptual shift" taking place towards an understanding that particles are more fundamental than fields?
I wouldn't say that Schwartz's QFT book promotes the idea that particles are more fundamental than fields. The opposite idea, that fields are more fundamental than particles, is still a mainstream. Yet the idea that particles could be more fundamental, pushed forward by Arkani-Hamed among others, is a legitimate idea worthwhile of further investigations.
 
  • Like
Likes Dadface
  • #5
mitchell porter said:
Particles only exist in perturbation theory, so I don't see how that could happen.
If you start from fields, then it's true that particles only exist in perturbation theory. But it is not logically necessary to start from fields. See e.g. the old-fashioned S-matrix theory where people tried to derive S-matrix (for particles) directly from analyticity and certain symmetries, without using field theory. The recent work by Arkani-Hamed and others seems to be something similar.
 
  • #6
Lapidus said:
In Schwartz's QFT book I also get away with the impression that the Poincaré irreps (i.e. particles) are more fundamental and field representations are just secondary.

Demystifier said:
I wouldn't say that Schwartz's QFT book promotes the idea that particles are more fundamental than fields.

I agree with @Demystifier.

@Lapidus: What makes you say that Poincaré irreps are only used to describe particles? For example, Weinberg did not title his books "Quantum Field Theory", he purposely titled them "The Quantum Field Theory of Fields", and Weinberg has an extensive discussion of Poincaré irreps.
 
  • #7
Watch for the coming 3-volume book (in November 2018)

E. Stefanovich, Elementary particle physics. Vol. 1: Quantum mechanics, (De Gruyter Stud. Math. Phys. Vol. 45. Berlin: De Gruyter), 2018.
E. Stefanovich, Elementary particle physics. Vol. 2: Quantum electrodynamics, (De Gruyter Stud. Math. Phys. Vol. 46. Berlin: De Gruyter), 2018.
E. Stefanovich, Elementary particle physics. Vol. 3: Relativistic quantum dynamics, (De Gruyter Stud. Math. Phys. Vol. 47. Berlin: De Gruyter), 2018.

It promotes the idea that particles are the primary ingredients, but quantum fields are secondary.

Eugene.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier

1. What are particles more fundamental than fields?

Particles more fundamental than fields are subatomic particles that are considered to be the building blocks of matter. These particles are believed to be smaller and more basic than the fields that make up the forces in the universe.

2. How are particles more fundamental than fields studied?

Particles more fundamental than fields are studied through experiments conducted at particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider. Scientists also use mathematical models and theories, such as quantum field theory, to understand the behavior and interactions of these particles.

3. What is the difference between particles and fields?

Particles are tiny, discrete units of matter that have mass and can interact with other particles. Fields, on the other hand, are continuous regions of space that contain energy and can influence the behavior of particles. Particles are considered to be more fundamental because they make up the building blocks of matter, while fields are a manifestation of the interactions between particles.

4. How do particles more fundamental than fields relate to the Standard Model of particle physics?

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theoretical framework that describes the fundamental particles and their interactions. Particles more fundamental than fields, such as quarks and leptons, are included in the Standard Model as the basic constituents of matter. The fields, such as the electromagnetic and strong nuclear force fields, are also included in the model as the carriers of these interactions.

5. What implications do particles more fundamental than fields have for our understanding of the universe?

The existence of particles more fundamental than fields has greatly advanced our understanding of the universe. These particles help us to explain the behavior and interactions of matter and energy at a subatomic level. They also play a crucial role in theories such as the Big Bang and the evolution of the universe. Further research on these particles may lead to a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws that govern the universe.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
91
Views
5K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
369
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
782
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top