Why is the standard model based on particles instead of fields?

[jnorman]

sort of a parallel thread to the current thread about "fields are more fundamental than particles".

pretty much everything i have ever read about particles leads to the idea that what we perceive as particles is really just a manifestation of a field or of interacting fields. since we define all particles in terms of their energy, and since we have pretty much determined that all fundamental particles (quarks, electrons) are point particles with no volume (there is no "thing" there), and since we have to resort to weird stuff like "virtual photons" to explain interaction between particles, and since we cannot even explain mass without resorting to a higgs' field, why is the standard model based on a particle interpretation rather than a model based on fields?

perhaps if we consider re-interpreting the standard model on a field basis, we may take a step in the direction of unification with GR, which is already a field model?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not. That's why we call it "field theory".

 

[jnorman]

vanadium - thanks for responding, but i am not sure what you are saying. the standard model is based on particles, not fields. all of the entries in the SM are fermions or bosons.

 

[martinbn]

My understanding is that particles are just an interpretation. But it is a very useful interpretation, especially when it comes to interactions.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

The Standard Model is a Quantum FIELD THEORY. The particles are just excitation states of the field.

 

[JK423]

jnorman you have misunderstood something. When physicists talk about 'particles' they actually mean the corresponding fields. In the actual formulation of SM you won't see any 'particles', just fields.

 

[dextercioby]

The basic objects in the mathematical formulation are the quantum fields. No wonder it's called quantum field theory.