Particles Physically Exists!

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

Jon Butterworth agrees wit me that there is something physical out there. See:

At 1:01:02 into the video.

[Lorentz Jr]

At 1:00:50:

Quote

If you look at the way we put quantum field theories together, which you need in order to describe particle physics, and even atomic physics, so they're not esoteric in that sense, they're obviously there, ...

I would imagine "they" probably means fields.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Jon Butterworth agrees wit me that there is something physical out there

Is this a belief, or can you suggest a way to prove it ?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Jon Butterworth agrees wit me that there is something physical out there. See:

!

Moderator Note

You need to post the arguments here, rather than just link to a video.

 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

On 11/30/2022 at 8:47 PM, MigL said:

Is this a belief, or can you suggest a way to prove it ?

Kicking a stone proves it.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Kicking a stone proves it.

A stone isn’t a particle

[Mordred]

The particle view doesn't particularly work well. A primary reason is one such as spin of an electron. In order to consider an electron spinning via its angular momentum in the particle view the electron would have to exceed the speed of light by a factor of 10. This obviously alerted physicist that an electron cannot be spinning such as a ball.

 However under the field excitation spin is addressable due to the increased radius of the applicable interactions. 

 Numerous interactions and measurements are making the field excitation view far more likely.  Factors such as quantum tunneling, Bose-Einstein condensate state and in particular the Higgs field interactions are far easier to explain under the excitation view.

 The pointlike and wavelike characteristics of a particle becomes readily addressable as the pointlike characteristics as an excitation is simply another wavefunction that is readily localized .

The article below explains waveparticle duality via the excitation view

"There are no particles only fields"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

Edited December 4, 2022 by Mordred

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

"There are no particles only fields"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

Quote

Physicists are still unable to reach consensus on the principles or meaning of science's most fundamental and accurate theory, namely quantum physics. An embarrassment of enigmas abounds concerning wave-particle duality, measurement, nonlocality, superpositions, uncertainty, and the meaning of quantum states.
After over a century of quantum history, this is scandalous.

I blame Einstein (hence my username). The two main reasons people believe in particles are (1) they're an extrapolation of classical "objects" to small sizes, and (2) objective collapse of wave-functions has to be superluminal.

Another link:  Diósi–Penrose model

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[Mordred]

Why 2) if your thinking entanglement then there is no superluminal action, communication or hidden variable involved.

[Lorentz Jr]

Without relativity, the Schrödinger equation obviously suggests the existence of waves. Non-realist interpretations give up determinism in favor of relativity and classical ontology, but particle-based attempts at quantizing gravity haven't been working very well (hence my signature 😊). Roger Penrose has been taking the opposite approach, of "gravitizing" quantum mechanics, as he puts it.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[Mordred]

The Schrodinger equation gives a probability wavefunction one that shows the particles dynamics over time. It will work regardless if you treat the particle as a particle or as a state.

 The thing is on a fundamental level one also has to keep in mind that a field is simply a set of values in a geometric descriptive.  A field in essence is merely a descriptive. However it could be argued that the same applies to a particle. 

 A common bad practice is to think of particles as energy packets. The reason is the very definition of energy is the Property of an object or state to perform work. 

 Particles also have no corpuscular (material like composition) one can accurately consider solid as an illusion.

 I've been studying physics for over 30 years. Although the field excitation is popular and gaining momentum that doesn't mean there is equal validity in the particle view. Both have their applicability, where one better describes an interaction than the other.

 

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Although the field excitation is popular and gaining momentum that doesn't mean there is equal validity in the particle view. Both have their applicability, where one better describes an interaction than the other.

Right. One has to remember that you use the best model available for the behavior you are investigating. One doesn’t need to invoke QM when classical physics suffices, for example, you don’t have to apply relativity if Newtonian physics will work, and one uses particles when that’s the best model to use.

[exchemist]

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

The Schrodinger equation gives a probability wavefunction one that shows the particles dynamics over time. It will work regardless if you treat the particle as a particle or as a state.

 The thing is on a fundamental level one also has to keep in mind that a field is simply a set of values in a geometric descriptive.  A field in essence is merely a descriptive. However it could be argued that the same applies to a particle. 

 A common bad practice is to think of particles as energy packets. The reason is the very definition of energy is the Property of an object or state to perform work. 

 Particles also have no corpuscular (material like composition) one can accurately consider solid as an illusion.

 I've been studying physics for over 30 years. Although the field excitation is popular and gaining momentum that doesn't mean there is equal validity in the particle view. Both have their applicability, where one better describes an interaction than the other.

 

 

I always thought the derivation of Schrödinger's equation relied on the idea of a particle with kinetic and potential energy. Is that incorrect, then?

[Mordred]

Position and momentum are the operators in QM. Klien Gordon equation uses potential and kinetic energy (QFT)

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

On 12/4/2022 at 8:34 PM, Mordred said:

In order to consider an electron spinning via its angular momentum in the particle view the electron would have to exceed the speed of light by a factor of 10.

In my model of particles only space points need to exceed the speed of light.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

In my model of particles only space points need to exceed the speed of light.

!

Moderator Note

We aren’t discussing your model. You posted this in a mainstream section, which means mainstream science.

And a model means math; you have to have the ability to make specific predictions. If you have an actual model, it needs to go in its own thread in speculations, and no other threads.