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)
-
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...
-
The gravitation formula says F=Gm1m2r2, so if the mass of a bob increases then the torque on it should also increase...
-
This image from NASA illustrates drag coefficients for several shapes: It is generally accepted that some variation of the teardrop/airfoil...
-
Can someone explain the difference between hopping and tunneling? The context I'm considering is conduction in semiconductors, specifica...
-
As the title says. It is common sense that sharp things cut, but how do they work at the atomical level? Answer For organic matter, such a...
-
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment