I am confused about the word "particle" being used in academic contexts. Some professors at my university are adamant on the fact that particles do not exist, and only fields, as per QFT. One of them even showed me a citation from one of Julian Schwinger's QM books where he himself states this supposed fact. I've been going around to different professors asking for explanations, but I'm still a bit confused, so I thought I could make a consultation here. Some of the profs I've asked say there are only simulations of particles, yet "particle physics" is still a valid area of research, and even the Wikipedia page (I know) for QFT defines it as "...the theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles in particle physics." So I am just confused about the usage of the word "particle" being used today, if QFT is the widely accepted theory, and QFT says that there are no particles, only excitations of fields.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
I have an hydrogenic atom, knowing that its ground-state wavefunction has the standard form ψ=Ae−βrwith $A = \frac{\bet...
-
At room temperature, play-dough is solid(ish). But if you make a thin strip it cannot just stand up on it's own, so is it still solid? O...
-
Sometimes I am born in silence, Other times, no. I am unseen, But I make my presence known. In time, I fade without a trace. I harm no one, ...
-
I want to know what happens to the space a black hole crosses over as our galaxy travels through space.
-
Small vessels generally lean into a turn, whereas big vessels lean out. Why do ships lean to the outside, but boats lean to the inside of a ...
-
I'm sitting in a room next to some totally unopened cans of carbonated soft drinks (if it matters — the two affected cans are Coke Zero...
-
What exactly are the spikes, or peaks and valleys, caused by in pictures such as these Wikipedia states that "From the point of view of...
No comments:
Post a Comment