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 $$ \psi = A e^{-\beta r} $$ with $A = \frac{\bet...
-
I stand up and I look at two parallel railroad tracks. I find that converge away from me. Why? Can someone explain me why parallel lines s...
-
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...
-
This image from NASA illustrates drag coefficients for several shapes: It is generally accepted that some variation of the teardrop/airfoil...
-
Sorry if this question is a bit broad but I can't find any info on this by just searching. The equation q = neAL where L is the length 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment