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)
-
A rook stands in the lower left corner of an $m\times n$ chessboard. Alice and Bob alternately move the rook (horizontally or vertically, th...
-
Why can't we use fissions products for electricity production ? As far has I know fissions products from current nuclear power plants cr...
-
Recently I was going through "Problems in General physics" by I E Irodov. In Electromagnetics chapter, there is a question how muc...
-
Yesterday, I understood what it means to say that the moon is constantly falling (from a lecture by Richard Feynman ). In the picture below ...
-
Literature states neutral pion decay by QED cannot occur directly because the pion is uncharged. However, I cannot see why Photons are not a...
-
I am having trouble understanding how centripetal force works intuitively. This is my claim. When I have a mass strapped on a string and spi...
-
Many years ago I helped to support an experiment conducted in Japan which investigated the effects of high frequency oscillation ventilation...
No comments:
Post a Comment