Quantum Field as Physical Entity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of quantum fields in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and whether they can be considered physical entities. Participants explore the implications of treating quantum fields as the fundamental objects of reality, contrasting this view with traditional interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) and discussing the philosophical ramifications of such a perspective.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference an essay by Giuliano Preparata, which argues that quantum particles lack independent physical reality and that only the quantum field possesses a tangible existence.
  • One participant questions the implications of treating the quantum field as a physical entity, particularly in relation to phenomena like entanglement and superluminal communication.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between phase velocity and pilot velocity, suggesting that while phase velocity can exceed the speed of light, it does not violate relativity as long as causality is preserved.
  • Concerns are raised about the non-locality of quantum fields and whether this non-locality can be reconciled with the principles of relativity, particularly in the context of information transfer.
  • There is a call for examples that illustrate how a non-local physical quantum field could facilitate faster-than-light information transfer, questioning the viability of the proposed ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of quantum fields, with no consensus reached on whether they can be considered physical entities. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing interpretations and concerns about the implications of these ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding the mathematical arguments presented in Preparata's essay and the philosophical implications of the interpretations discussed. There is also uncertainty regarding the definitions and assumptions underlying the concepts of phase and pilot velocities.

  • #31
Delta Kilo said:
Regarding free will, I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean in the context of physics, so I take it to be the same as "true randomness".
For me, free will is totally different from true randomness. But you are right that free will is not well defined in the context of physics.

Anyway, today appeared a possibly interesting paper on that issue:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1202.2007
I have not yet read the paper, but I plan to do that in a near future.

Delta Kilo said:
Personally I like deterministic frozen block-multiverse, but that's just me.
Me too.

Delta Kilo said:
Regarding time as operator: this is something I don't get. Operators are intimately connected with measurements.
Well, if you define operators that way, then fine. But operators are usually defined as mathematical objects satisfying certain algebraic properties, which a priori have nothing to do with measurements.

Delta Kilo said:
We don't know how brain works, true, but we don't know a lot about what computers are really capable of doing either (like is P=NP?).
I think we understand computers much much better than the brain.

Delta Kilo said:
Regarding time-travel paradoxes etc: if we assume a) 4D block universe and b) that perceived subjective time flows along the worldline in the direction of increasing entropy, then there are no paradoxes at all. There would be stagnation points instead where the entropy reaches maximum. Observer moving from this stagnation point into either direction along the worldline won't remember anything at all, so I guess this would be it for him.
I agree.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
820
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K