Quantum Field as Physical Entity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as a physical entity, particularly the assertion that only the quantum field possesses physical reality, while quantum particles do not. Participants reference Giuliano Preparata's essay, which argues against the classical distinction between matter and fields, suggesting that quantum particles lack independent existence and are merely manifestations of the quantum field. The conversation also touches on the implications of superluminal communication within quantum fields and the philosophical challenges posed by quantum mechanics, particularly regarding the nature of reality and measurement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Familiarity with wave-particle duality and its implications
  • Knowledge of de Broglie’s hypothesis and related equations
  • Basic grasp of the concepts of localization and separability in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Giuliano Preparata's interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory
  • Explore the implications of superluminal communication in quantum fields
  • Study the philosophical debates surrounding the interpretation of quantum reality
  • Examine the mathematical foundations of de Broglie dispersion relations and their applications
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum theorists, and students of advanced quantum mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of the philosophical and theoretical implications of Quantum Field Theory.

  • #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 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
960
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
931
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
682