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...
-
I am researching Mercury's orbital precession. I have considered most perturbations and general relativity. I am still not satisfied. I ...
-
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...
-
(The puzzle statement now identifies these numbers as equivalent.) O O ...
-
In this question/answer Does someone falling into a black hole see the end of the universe? , it is stated that an observer free falling tow...
-
Yesterday, I understood what it means to say that the moon is constantly falling (from a lecture by Richard Feynman ). In the picture below ...
-
This is proof that $L'$ represents same equation of motion with $L$ through Lagrange eq. I understand $L'$ satisfies Lagrange eq, bu...
No comments:
Post a Comment