Exploring the Possibility of a Unified Quantum Field Theory

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of multiple infinite quantum fields and whether or not they can exist simultaneously. The question is raised about how this is possible and whether it implies an underlying unity between the fields. The expert explains that each field has a value at each point of spacetime and that the values of one field are independent of the values of any other field. Therefore, it is possible to have multiple particles from different fields at the same point in spacetime.
  • #1
sci-guy
47
0
The following must be false, since if it were true we'd have proof of a unified field, but can someone tell me why:

Why doesn't the fact that a quantum field, which by definition is infinite (correct me if I'm wrong), prove that there is essentially only one underlying quantum field? How can we have multiple infinite fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think you missed to post the important point after "fact that".
I don't get much sense out of your sentence this way.
 
  • #3
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I'll try re-phrasing:

How is it possible to have multiple infinite quantum fields?
 
  • #4
Why should it not be possible?
 
  • #5
At the risk of quoting from Wikipedia:

"In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated to each point of spacetime...Defining the field as 'numbers in space' shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. 'It occupies space..."

Maybe I'm wrong (if so, tell me), but wouldn't an infinite field then occupy all of space?

If so, in order for multiple fields to exist, they would need to occupy the same point in space. Is that possible, or am I missing something?
 
  • #6
I see.
Well, a field usually will not "occupy" space. They only assign a physical quantity to point of spacetime.
As a classical example at each point you could have a value for the temperature, humidity, wind, etc. each being a different field.
Now a quantum field will describe a certain kind of particle. Each specific particle will be an excitation of the field. If you want a classical analogue, take a violin string. A quiet string will be no particle. The first harmonic will be one particle etc.
Usually it will not be possible two excite to particles in the exact same point of spacetime.
 
  • #7
I see what you're saying about temperature, humidity, wind, etc. But isn't that analogous to measuring electricity and magnetism, which are ultimately part of the same electromagnetic field?

You say that it's not possible to excite two particles at the same point in spacetime. Isn't that because there is ultimately only one field there? If there were innumerable distinct fields at every point, you could excite innumerable particles at every point.
 
  • #8
No. Each field has a certain value at each point of space time. For simplicity take the value one to indicate that there is a particle and 0 no particle.
Then the idea that at any point only one particle is possible does not exclude the existence of many different fields. And a field by definition has to have a value at every point.

There are however attempts to describe all particles using one field, so called superfields in supersymmetry. It is however just a description and not neccessary.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
I see your point and thank you for the explanation; that's what I was looking for.

But it still raises the question: if a value of 1 in one field precludes a value of 1 in another field at the same point in spacetime, doesn't that imply a connection between the two fields (a value in one field affects possible outcomes in others), and hence an underlying unity?
 
  • #10
sci-guy said:
I see your point and thank you for the explanation; that's what I was looking for.

But it still raises the question: if a value of 1 in one field precludes a value of 1 in another field at the same point in spacetime, doesn't that imply a connection between the two fields (a value in one field affects possible outcomes in others), and hence an underlying unity?
If that were true, yes, but "a value of 1 in one field precludes a value of 1 in another field" is simply not true. The values of one field are completely independent of the values of any other field.
 
  • #11
Then you're saying, in our hypothetical example where a value of 1 means there's a particle at that point in spacetime, that it's possible to have another particle from another field at that same point in spacetime. Is it true that that's possible?

---

P.S. I realize now that I posted this thread in the wrong forum; if moderators want to move it to "quantum physics," it's okay by me.
 

1. What is a unified quantum field theory?

A unified quantum field theory is a theoretical framework that attempts to combine all the fundamental forces of nature (such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) into a single, coherent theory.

2. Why is it important to explore the possibility of a unified quantum field theory?

A unified quantum field theory has the potential to provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe and could potentially lead to new discoveries and technologies. It also has the potential to reconcile the discrepancies between different theories, such as the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

3. How are scientists currently exploring the possibility of a unified quantum field theory?

Scientists are exploring the possibility of a unified quantum field theory through a combination of theoretical work, such as developing mathematical models and equations, and experimental work, such as testing predictions made by these theories through experiments and observations.

4. What are some challenges in developing a unified quantum field theory?

One of the main challenges in developing a unified quantum field theory is the difficulty in reconciling the different theories and their predictions, as well as the complex mathematics involved. Additionally, some fundamental aspects of the universe, such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy, are still not well understood and need to be incorporated into the theory.

5. Are there any current theories that could potentially lead to a unified quantum field theory?

There are several theories that have been proposed as potential candidates for a unified quantum field theory, such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and supersymmetry. However, none of these theories have been definitively proven and the search for a unified quantum field theory is still ongoing.

Similar threads

B Questions about the Universe: Positive & negative fields and effects
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
3K
A The Quantum State as a Function of The Quantum Field
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
630
I String theory vs Quantum field theory
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
171
B What is the difference between a wave and a field?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
13
Views
10K
A Importance of Densities in QFT
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
784
A Ensembles in quantum field theory
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
91
Views
5K
I Is a Unified Field Theory the Key to Understanding the Universe?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
2K
A QFT with vanishing vacuum expectation value and perturbation theory
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
A Is the quantum mechanics explanation for the propagation of light adequate enough to be understood?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
390
I Classical field in quantum field theory?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top