What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Interdisciplinary science discussions. Also, if you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here.

What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on January 3rd, 2017, 9:50 am 

I posted the following in the Beginner Science forum because though it isn't an elementary physics question it seems like the answer should be fairly straightforward:

"As a layman trying to get a basic understanding of physics one of the things I'm struggling with is what the relationship between "particles" and "fields" is. Sometimes I get the impression that a particle is something like a kind of perturbation (disturbance of some kind - maybe wavelike in nature) of the field. Other times I get the impression that particles are not actually considered to be part of the field but rather sort of embedded in the field.

Can anyone help me with this?"

Maybe that forum was not the right one for that question so I'll try it here.
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009
RoccoR liked this post


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby jocular on January 3rd, 2017, 10:28 am 

TLK » January 3rd, 2017, 9:50 am wrote:I posted the following in the Beginner Science forum because though it isn't an elementary physics question it seems like the answer should be fairly straightforward:

"As a layman trying to get a basic understanding of physics one of the things I'm struggling with is what the relationship between "particles" and "fields" is. Sometimes I get the impression that a particle is something like a kind of perturbation (disturbance of some kind - maybe wavelike in nature) of the field. Other times I get the impression that particles are not actually considered to be part of the field but rather sort of embedded in the field.

Can anyone help me with this?"

Maybe that forum was not the right one for that question so I'll try it here.


I would also be very interested in an answer to this.

I understand that particles and waves are part of a "particle-wave" entity.

Since waves and fields seem to be closely related (I often confuse them) I wonder whether fields "elbow their way" into this party- or are we talking about different kinds of fields?
jocular
Member
 
Posts: 110
Joined: 29 Feb 2016


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on January 3rd, 2017, 11:27 am 

jocular » Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:28 am wrote:
I would also be very interested in an answer to this.

I understand that particles and waves are part of a "particle-wave" entity.

Since waves and fields seem to be closely related (I often confuse them) I wonder whether fields "elbow their way" into this party- or are we talking about different kinds of fields?


Since I am curious about the nature of fundamental particles, I was referring to quantum fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)#Quantum_field_theory

I think physicists conceive of fields as having waves but maybe it doesn't make sense to talk about fields without waves. So that is also an interesting related question.
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby Braininvat on January 3rd, 2017, 12:50 pm 

We're almost into metaphysics when we start talking about what fields and particles "really are." All we really have are measurements of field strengths at point locations and dots on a detection device that are construed as a particle interacting with the device. The standard answers are that particles are like knots of field strength or perturbations in a field. Our physical intuitions, at the quantum level, are little help.

A lot of the duality of how we view such entities lies in the methods of measurement used. Some aspects are wavelike and can be found by looking for interference patterns on a detector. Other aspects are particle-like and can be found by looking for dots. When we look for something that spreads out and has varying and attenuating levels of strength or force, we find fields. Some fields have a directionality to their force - think of those iron filings getting in line around a magnet. Others don't, which is called "scalar." The Higgs field is scalar, so it's pretty much everywhere and doing the same thing to all ordinary matter. Kind of like a universe that's filled with molasses to slow down particles and give them some mass.

The math seems to work, but I have no idea what it's working on.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5767
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 3rd, 2017, 1:32 pm 

Hi TLK,

The best interpretation I've been exposed to is this:

A Particle only exists as an Interaction. Like a Photon only exists as a Particle when it leaves an Electron or when it encounters another Electron. In between Source and Target.. it is just a Wave in the Continuum (Field). A Photon is not a Particle while it's in transit.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)
Faradave liked this post


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on January 3rd, 2017, 5:51 pm 

Braininvat » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:50 am wrote:We're almost into metaphysics when we start talking about what fields and particles "really are." All we really have are measurements of field strengths at point locations and dots on a detection device that are construed as a particle interacting with the device. The standard answers are that particles are like knots of field strength or perturbations in a field. Our physical intuitions, at the quantum level, are little help.

A lot of the duality of how we view such entities lies in the methods of measurement used. Some aspects are wavelike and can be found by looking for interference patterns on a detector. Other aspects are particle-like and can be found by looking for dots. When we look for something that spreads out and has varying and attenuating levels of strength or force, we find fields. Some fields have a directionality to their force - think of those iron filings getting in line around a magnet. Others don't, which is called "scalar." The Higgs field is scalar, so it's pretty much everywhere and doing the same thing to all ordinary matter. Kind of like a universe that's filled with molasses to slow down particles and give them some mass.

The math seems to work, but I have no idea what it's working on.


It seems like it is hard to not imply some kind of ontology at any step of abstraction on the "meaning" of scientific equations that reliably predict patterns of certain kinds of events. I wonder if the term "field" as it is used in physics may suffer from that. My impression is that in mathematical form (which I do not pretend to understand much at all), fields are like multidimensional grid patterns (where the dimensions need not be spatial or only spatial) where equations can be used to calculate grid values that are expected to be observed in a future sequence of events given certain conditions (inputs into the equations).

It seems like the way scientists typically talk, that here is an implicit bridge between the equations and the observed. It's certainly possible to make abstractions about how to bridge the two in a way that does not invoke any ontology. To do that, though, seems to imply an ontologically neutral stance toward what exactly an observation is. I don't know about other people but I have a hard time thinking of what I am observing without thinking of it with an ontological predisposition. So when I think of "field" I want to think of it as a "something" that permeates some or all of the dimensions of reality - or actually what I project as real based on my experiences.

I hope that made sense.

Thank you for the elegant explanations.
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on January 3rd, 2017, 7:00 pm 

Dave_Oblad » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:32 am wrote:Hi TLK,

The best interpretation I've been exposed to is this:

A Particle only exists as an Interaction. Like a Photon only exists as a Particle when it leaves an Electron or when it encounters another Electron. In between Source and Target.. it is just a Wave in the Continuum (Field). A Photon is not a Particle while it's in transit.

Regards,
Dave :^)


My intuition about the nature of particles is consistent with the notion of particles existing as interactions of some kind (in my intuition, particles are the interaction of waves of a field or fields). But that's getting into personal theory territory so I'll leave it there.
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby Scott Mayers on January 3rd, 2017, 7:55 pm 

"Field" was a neutral term used to describe space as a co-ordinate system without speaking about WHAT it is specifically, including matter that is 'contained' in it. By keeping it descriptive it was intended to be less biased. But just as many of you here do not even know this, demonstrates that even this term has become perverted in some way. Basically, it is the extension of a geometric coordinate system, like the Cartesian plane, to a 'real space' as a literal 'field' as representing something that one may play sports on. That's it.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby hyksos on February 5th, 2017, 3:13 am 

TLK » January 3rd, 2017, 7:27 pm wrote:


Since I am curious about the nature of fundamental particles, I was referring to quantum fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)#Quantum_field_theory

I think physicists conceive of fields as having waves but maybe it doesn't make sense to talk about fields without waves. So that is also an interesting related question.

In physics, we start talking about fields when we attempt to describe how fundamental particles can change and convert into each other. One example would be a positron colliding with an electron, which then releases a gamma ray as a byproduct of the interaction.

lsqRg.jpg


Classical fields in physics can occupy any continuous value in space, which may even be a continuous vector pointing in some direction or another. Quantum fields are like classical fields in that they oscillate all the time like waves rippling in water. But unlike classical fields, quantum fields cannot actually do anything physical unless the waves are in quantized eigenstates. These eigenstates roughly correspond to "standing waves" like you might see on the interference patterns on a drum head.
2d_waves.jpg


As far as we know, what is happening to the colliding particles when they "convert" into a gamma ray photon is that the wave is "snapping" into another eigenstate of the fundamental field. In the above diagram, we would say that all of space is occupied by the field associated with the electromagnetic force, and the "electron" is a particular mode of vibration of that field. The most interesting thing about this is that the classical EM field of Maxwell's Equations is exactly the same thing as this quantum field. The differences only emerge at very small scales near around 10-15 meters, where these quantization effects of the field become pronounced and start dictating the physics.

It might seem strange that these vibration modes (corresponding to the particle) would then propagate through space like we see particles doing. For example, the drum head modes appear stationary. This conundrum is really called Wave-Particle Duality. In mid-flight a fundamental particle will propagate as a unitary wave, often at the speed of light. Then when it is absorbed or decays, (or what have you), then the eigenstates snap back into existence. This duality might seem bizarre or non-nonsensical at first, but it turns out we can derive it as a clear prediction of QFT. We can derive it if we assume conservation-of-energy. The universe wants to conserve energy in every interaction of particles and their conversions, and it does so by only allowing quantized waves at those particle-particle 'junctions'.

What had happened at CERN, was that the experimentalists assumed that all of space is occupied by a Higgs Field that does not have lowest energy at its ground state. (The 'ground state' is the vacuum.) The relativistic hadron collisions were presumed to be "smacking" this field really hard. The harder the "smack" the higher the probability that the Higgs field would manifest a boson, however shortly-lived in its flight before decaying again.

One of the most striking examples of the use of this theory is calculating how far the Strong Force should reach within a nucleus, based on the masses of exchanged bosons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukawa_potential
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
TLK liked this post


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on February 7th, 2017, 2:40 pm 

hyksos,

Thank you very much for your cogent response. (Sorry about not responding right away, I was not feeling well for awhile and then your response got me going on an internet treasure hunt where I kept running into interesting things that led me to other interesting things.)

I now realize that although I didn't intend to do so, that my question is fundamentally an ontological one. What is the reality of particles in relation to fields? Someone who is a strong subjectivist or idealist (in the philosophical-ontological sense) may reject that ontological question as being not useful or as being meaningless. In a practical sense, there is no need to take an ontological stance with respect to the equations used to predict outcomes - just shut up and calculate.

But at least some physicists - maybe especially theoretical physicists - do seem to be inclined to want to understand the nature of the world more than as engineers solving practical problems. And some of them seem comfortable with talking about the nature of what they take to be physically existing "things". In my internet explorations inspired by your post, I came upon the Caltech physicist, Sean Carroll. For example, I ran into this:
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article ... -of-fields

The author of that web page summarizes Carroll's views this way:

Carroll’s stunner, at least to many non-scientists, is this: Every particle is actually a field. The universe is full of fields, and what we think of as particles are just excitations of those fields, like waves in an ocean. An electron, for example, is just an excitation of an electron field.

This may seem counterintuitive, but seeing the world in terms of fields actually helps make sense of some otherwise confusing facts of particle physics.

When a radioactive material decays, for example, we think of it as spitting out different kinds of particles. Neutrons decay into protons, electrons and neutrinos. Those protons, electrons and neutrinos aren’t hiding inside neutrons, waiting to get out. Yet they appear when neutrons decay.

If we think in terms of fields, this sudden appearance of new kinds of particles starts to make more sense. The energy and excitation of one field transfers to others as they vibrate against each other, making it seem like new types of particles are appearing.


There is also a link on that page to a YouTube video by Carroll that I watched:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKSpZPByD0

It's a long video, but the segment from about the 27 minute mark to about the 33 minute mark relates closely to my questions in this thread. I think he does a very good job of making his notions somewhat comprehensible to a non-physics person like me without throwing out too many misleading analogies.

What Carroll says seems to track very closely with what you explain in your post - except I'm not sure if you quite so strongly embrace the notion that particles are just manifestations of the field when we observe fields under certain conditions.

I'm sure that Carroll's view is hardly the only one floating around amongst theoretical physicists about the nature of particles and fields, so I'm not taking it as gospel. It does strike me as quite compelling, though.
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on February 7th, 2017, 9:38 pm 

hyksos,

I should mention that I found this part of your post particularly informative:

It might seem strange that these vibration modes (corresponding to the particle) would then propagate through space like we see particles doing. For example, the drum head modes appear stationary. This conundrum is really called Wave-Particle Duality. In mid-flight a fundamental particle will propagate as a unitary wave, often at the speed of light. Then when it is absorbed or decays, (or what have you), then the eigenstates snap back into existence. This duality might seem bizarre or non-nonsensical at first, but it turns out we can derive it as a clear prediction of QFT. We can derive it if we assume conservation-of-energy. The universe wants to conserve energy in every interaction of particles and their conversions, and it does so by only allowing quantized waves at those particle-particle 'junctions'.


I think I had begun to wrap my head around the idea of particles as excitations of fields interacting with other fields - for which I create many "interesting" mental videos that I know of just analogies, but fun analogies to see - but in my mental videos I hadn't thought about moving through space.

A question just occurred to me that you probably know the answer to if you wouldn't mind sharing it with me - do the various types of fields spatially overlap? It seems like they would have to.

Thanks again for your post. It took me a few readings to feel like I was getting a handle on it. After I felt more comfortable with some of the terminology that I wasn't familiar with initially, I came to really appreciate your concise and lucid explanation even more.
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 7th, 2017, 10:40 pm 

Hi all,

I'm equally interested in Hyksos response.

My personal opinion (for what little its worth) is that there exists only one Fundamental Field and all other Fields are produced by Aliasing Effects/Relationships against the Fundamental.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby hyksos on February 8th, 2017, 3:22 pm 

I'm not sure if you quite so strongly embrace the notion that particles are just manifestations of the field when we observe fields under certain conditions.

You cannot embrace this ontology too 'strongly'. In the green box is the "wave" of an electron in the 3rd shell (n) , which has been excited up into a 3rd energy level (l). It's my go-to example of two lobes and a donut.
orbitals.png

If we drew the wave on a chalkboard as a classical sine wave, the blue donut portion is the part that is under the axis, and the red lobes are the part that is above the axis. (BTW these "waves" here are spherical harmonics).

You might ask, Where is the electron, exactly? Is it to be found as a little point somewhere in that wave??

At distance scales between say, the nucleus of an atom, and the radius of the first electron shell, the descriptions of the world by physics become removed from our normal intuition of "substance." What we do seem to know about the world down there : relationships between Energy, mass, wavelength, and momentum become very tightly intertwined. In everyday objects of rocks, trees, and basketballs, these properties are separable quantities all independent of each other. But in fundamental particles, they are so closely-related that in some cases you can justifiably substitute one of them for the other without loss of meaning.

Say a quantum wizard comes along and he has the power to convert any particle into any other one with his magic, but he does it such a way that energy is conserved. Say the wizard casts his spell on an electron in its ground state, and turns it into a gamma ray photon. His magic while amazing, cannot violate Conservation of Energy. The resulting photon carries exactly the amount of energy that would be found in the rest mass of the electron.

What would be the wavelength of that photon? Lets denote it Lg

Turns out physics knows how to perform this calculation, and it called the Compton Wavelength of the Electron.

Now what if I told you that Lg is almost exactly the same as the distance between an atom's nucleus and its first electron shell? (They are different, yes, but not by any appreciable factor.) In other words, you can nearly fit one peak-and-trough of our high-energy photon in that distance.

Personally speaking, I don't know what it all means!
But I do believe that fact will have a bearing on the question "Where is the electron?"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Bohr.html

A question just occurred to me that you probably know the answer to if you wouldn't mind sharing it with me - do the various types of fields spatially overlap? It seems like they would have to.

In the room you are sitting, there is likely some material which is reflecting light, and some other materials and plastic and glass which light is passing through. The photons are the force-carriers of the EM field, and will meet and overlap with the waves of the electrons in the glass. The electron wave will overlap in space with the photon. If the passing photon carries exactly the amount of energy required to bump the electron into a new orbital, the electron will absorb it. It later emits the photon, and relaxes back to its previous orbital. If these energies do not coincide, the photon will pass by the electron like a ghost. This is why glass is transparent.

This is all happening because of QFT : only eigenstates of the waves are allowed at electron-photon junctions.

In QFT, there will be situations where the Schroedinger wave of a particle is depicted as a corkscrew path around the direction of the particle's movement. But no actual physical rotation is implied. There is no "little thing" which rotates" as this path is tracing out. When Richard Feynman wrote books about this to a larger audience, he asked the reader to imagine that the particle is carrying a "little clock" with it as it moves.

In high-energy physics, they reformulate these wave equations so that they have even more than 3 components. So instead of sticking numbers into the equations, and instead of sticking vectors into the equations, they put matrices into them. (these matrices are called spinors). These mathematical "objects" will have more dimensions to rotate in than regular 3D space. Investigating the symmetries of those dimensions (or "degrees of freedom") is what is done in high-energy physics to relate the fundamental fields. You might come away wondering why that gives mass to something or not to something else. The question is well-grounded.

The answers are found in something I said earlier. At small scales, momentum, wavelength, mass, and Energy are all mixed together in tight ways.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on February 8th, 2017, 4:44 pm 

hyksos,

That was another excellent explanation. I'm not sure why I was thinking you might not fully embrace the notion of particles as manifestations of a field when we observe the fields under certain conditions. On rereading your post, it is pretty evident that you do accept that notion.

Please let me know if you tire of answering my questions but what you said about the spherical harmonics of electron "clouds" (de Broglie standing waves?) reminded of something that I've wondered about for a long time. I noticed that as you go across the Periodic Table of elements that there is a general trend of the atomic radius getting smaller. That made sense to me because as you go across there are more and more protons creating a "larger" positive charge in the nucleus to attract the negative electrons; in a sense, "pulling" them (the clouds) closer to the nucleus.

I've read that an electron standing wave must have a radius that allows "complete" crests and troughs for the waves. If the electrons standing waves are moving closer to the nucleus, then it seems like that would not allow the proper radius for a "complete" wave pattern of crests and troughs. That made we wonder if the electron standing waves that are pulled closer (if that is what happens) to the nucleus have to change wavelength to continue to "fit" the right number of waves and troughs. But I suspect that that is probably in error or too simplified. For example, if any wavelength were to be allowed for any electron standing wave, then why don't we find electrons at all distances from the nucleus? That's probably where the quantum part comes in, I suppose. :-)

Can you explain what happens to the electron standing waves of say the 1S electrons as you go across the Second Period on the Periodic Table - do they actually get closer (as a general pattern) to the nucleus as you go across the Period and if so how do the electron standing waves "accommodate" this reduced radius?

That question is completely off topic for this thread and I totally understand if you aren't interested in responding.

Thank you so much for all the feedback you have given me.
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby TLK on February 8th, 2017, 6:31 pm 

Oops, I just remembered you had said this:
At distance scales between say, the nucleus of an atom, and the radius of the first electron shell, the descriptions of the world by physics become removed from our normal intuition of "substance." What we do seem to know about the world down there : relationships between Energy, mass, wavelength, and momentum become very tightly intertwined. In everyday objects of rocks, trees, and basketballs, these properties are separable quantities all independent of each other. But in fundamental particles, they are so closely-related that in some cases you can justifiably substitute one of them for the other without loss of meaning.


Does the answer to my earlier question lie in the "transmutability" of wavelength, energy, mass and momentum at these tiny distances?
TLK
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 18 May 2009


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby hyksos on February 21st, 2017, 5:21 pm 

For example, if any wavelength were to be allowed for any electron standing wave, then why don't we find electrons at all distances from the nucleus?


When not interacting at a particle-particle junction, the electron will go about its business as a unitary wave. The unitary wave can take on any value like a classical wave, and is not bound by a law of having to remain in a standing wave configuration. This U wave will draw closer and farther from the atomic nucleus at whatever distance. In some cases, the inner orbital will have a wave which overlaps the nucleus itself.

There is a tiny probability that an inner electron will get absorbed by the nucleus. The probability is very small, but when you have 1023 atoms laying around, the nearly-impossible becomes routine.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/radact2.html#c3


The nucleus is significantly smaller than the orbital. This is a situation where it seems the electron must have occupied an isolated spot in space, far smaller than its wavelength would dictate.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby hyksos on February 27th, 2017, 5:59 pm 

User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby hyksos on March 1st, 2017, 2:02 pm 

So I had the pleasure (or displeasure?) of interacting with physics grad students off of this forum. They are universal in their agreement that point-like particles can be completely dispensed with , and totally replaced by a framework that only involves fields.

Unfortunately, the basis of these arguments is highly mathematical in nature.

For the lay audience:

The formalism of quantum mechanics is not created by taking two classical notions and squashing them together. So you might be enticed as a newcomer to expect that we take classical waves as an idea, and classical point-like particles as an idea, and mix these two ideas in a bowl and stir. We expect that somewhere genuine quantum mechanics will emerge in our mixture. Turns out this is wrong. QM is not a conjunct of two classical ideas. It is a new thing entirely.

For the inclined reader:
The Schroedinger wave can be magnitud-ed and squared. (vector operations). That number is a Probability Density. We take something like an interval in space that surrounds the nucleus. (lets take a box and make it simple). The nucleus is said to be contained in that box somewhere. We then integrate over the intervals of the box. We get a number back. That number is the probability of finding the electron in that box. If we try to game-the-system, and squeeze our box down to a point, then integration calls our bluff. The point-like interval returns zero. (This is what I was referring to earlier as "highly mathematical in nature".) A Probability Density is not a probability. It's a subtle distinction but an important distinction!

The wave for a particle has a wavelength that is proportional to its momentum. In the case of electron capture, this wavelength is 64 thousand times larger than the radius of the nucleus. This is okay. The wave is very spread out, and the nucleus is a "box interval" that we integrate over. The total integral under this wave is unitary (equals 1.0 over all space). We expect that for such a tiny box, the integral should return a very very tiny number, but-non zero. It does so. That probability is then used to determine the half-life of berrylium -- an element which happens to decay by electron capture.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby handmade on May 5th, 2017, 9:03 pm 

TLK » January 3rd, 2017, 8:50 am wrote:I posted the following in the Beginner Science forum because though it isn't an elementary physics question it seems like the answer should be fairly straightforward:

"As a layman trying to get a basic understanding of physics one of the things I'm struggling with is what the relationship between "particles" and "fields" is. Sometimes I get the impression that a particle is something like a kind of perturbation (disturbance of some kind - maybe wavelike in nature) of the field. Other times I get the impression that particles are not actually considered to be part of the field but rather sort of embedded in the field.

Can anyone help me with this?"

Maybe that forum was not the right one for that question so I'll try it here.

Hello, I am an amateur, but I like to have a go at explaining things so I can be corrected. When ''they'' refer to a particle, they are not talking about a general particle such has a ''grain of sweetcorn'' or the components of the atom. What they are referring to is a 0 point energy ''dot'' that has no solidity but is denser than the surrounding constant field , an energy ''particle'' if you like that has >0 ''viscosity''
The relationship is the ''particle'' that is not really a particle is a contraction of the field to a 0 point creating a zero point energy i.e energy ''particle''.

IMO

Added - A question

How many of these sub atomic particles are objective reality rather than theoretical subjectivity?

P,s The higgs field permeates isotropic through space and is -q , at any given 0 point the epoch of re-combination creates +q and the whole of space is then attracted to this point E.

added - for maybe the more advanced

If you can imagine a XYZt matrix that the volume consists of an amount of -q 0 points directly proportional to volume , then imagine at the center of the matrix a single ''spark'' +q developed. The whole of the matrix would be attracted to this point (contract), and the matrix field would try to turn ''inside out'' or maybe ''outside in'' warping space time.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby Heavy_Water on May 5th, 2017, 11:58 pm 

Well, your initial understanding is actually pretty close.

But for now, forget about the particle maybe having wavelike characteristics. That's getting into something deeper than you need St this point. And also can be confused with advocating String Theory, for which there is no proof.

But yeah....A particle is a localized excitation of a field, whereas a field is a continuous entity that represents something at every point (such as a force).

The fields themselves are called fermionic fields, and every particle had its own. This being the sometimes confusing concept for those who initially imagine the field being one large, all encompassing area, or medium, if you will, that all the different particles or excitations inhabit together. Like, say, particles of salt in an ocean. Think instead of those salt particles residing in their own little auras, of mini fields and you get a general idea of the dynamic at work here.
User avatar
Heavy_Water
Banned User
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 02 May 2017
Location: Texas


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby handmade on May 6th, 2017, 8:02 am 

Heavy_Water » May 5th, 2017, 10:58 pm wrote:Well, your initial understanding is actually pretty close.

But for now, forget about the particle maybe having wavelike characteristics. That's getting into something deeper than you need St this point. And also can be confused with advocating String Theory, for which there is no proof.

But yeah....A particle is a localized excitation of a field, whereas a field is a continuous entity that represents something at every point (such as a force).

The fields themselves are called fermionic fields, and every particle had its own. This being the sometimes confusing concept for those who initially imagine the field being one large, all encompassing area, or medium, if you will, that all the different particles or excitations inhabit together. Like, say, particles of salt in an ocean. Think instead of those salt particles residing in their own little auras, of mini fields and you get a general idea of the dynamic at work here.


It is not difficult to place an individual field of each ''particle'' among a field. Neither is it difficult to imagine these particles ''string like'' , however I am sure if I started to explain further using my own intellect , then you might start to struggle.
But me being me, I just can't help myself.

What you might find a strange notion, at the centre of a each ''particle'' is a negative void of space. The simple reasoning for this, like wise charges repel, energy can not stay together, there has to be always a centre attraction to hold the energy in situate relative position to stop it permeating through space. Now because of the higgs ''negative'' field, the ''particle'' is attracted to all of space and this field you could account as the ''aether''.

Added - Just in case you did not understand, Imagine electricity does not travel up the wire, it is pulled up the wire by the neg of the wire.


+>____________________<-

In the above - retains position and + travels to -. the solidity of the wire allowing - to hold position relative to the + which has no solidity. You have to consider that - goes all the way to the start point of + giving + no choice other than permeating up the line. However if there is a ''denser'' - at the plus end, the plus end retains position increasing in entropy but still some of + travels up the line.

Kmax=(hf/S)/S...continuous.

Emax=(hf/S)/S...continuous.

added- So your ''aether'' ''you'' seek is not the sort of ''aether'' you expected, the ''aether'' is the negative coupling of space itself that allows things to travel up the ''wire'',
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby Heavy_Water on May 8th, 2017, 9:40 pm 

handmade » May 6th, 2017, 7:02 am wrote:
Heavy_Water » May 5th, 2017, 10:58 pm wrote:Well, your initial understanding is actually pretty close.

But for now, forget about the particle maybe having wavelike characteristics. That's getting into something deeper than you need St this point. And also can be confused with advocating String Theory, for which there is no proof.

But yeah....A particle is a localized excitation of a field, whereas a field is a continuous entity that represents something at every point (such as a force).

The fields themselves are called fermionic fields, and every particle had its own. This being the sometimes confusing concept for those who initially imagine the field being one large, all encompassing area, or medium, if you will, that all the different particles or excitations inhabit together. Like, say, particles of salt in an ocean. Think instead of those salt particles residing in their own little auras, of mini fields and you get a general idea of the dynamic at work here.


It is not difficult to place an individual field of each ''particle'' among a field. Neither is it difficult to imagine these particles ''string like'' , however I am sure if I started to explain further using my own intellect , then you might start to struggle.
But me being me, I just can't help myself.

What you might find a strange notion, at the centre of a each ''particle'' is a negative void of space. The simple reasoning for this, like wise charges repel, energy can not stay together, there has to be always a centre attraction to hold the energy in situate relative position to stop it permeating through space. Now because of the higgs ''negative'' field, the ''particle'' is attracted to all of space and this field you could account as the ''aether''.

Added - Just in case you did not understand, Imagine electricity does not travel up the wire, it is pulled up the wire by the neg of the wire.


+>____________________<-

In the above - retains position and + travels to -. the solidity of the wire allowing - to hold position relative to the + which has no solidity. You have to consider that - goes all the way to the start point of + giving + no choice other than permeating up the line. However if there is a ''denser'' - at the plus end, the plus end retains position increasing in entropy but still some of + travels up the line.

Kmax=(hf/S)/S...continuous.

Emax=(hf/S)/S...continuous.

added- So your ''aether'' ''you'' seek is not the sort of ''aether'' you expected, the ''aether'' is the negative coupling of space itself that allows things to travel up the ''wire'',



Are you addressing me?

Why did you quote me and then offer me an overly convoluted answer that nobody asked for?

Thanks, but I wasn't the one who asked about the relationship between particle and field. I simply provided a succinct and mostly accurate, generalized answer. Which is of the sort I think the OP wanted.

BTW...I stopped reading your post after the......me being me... part. As I smelled hubris and pedantry coming off my computer. LOL

I'm fine with my particle physics knowledge, thanks. And your attempts to impress pretty much had the opposite effect.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.
User avatar
Heavy_Water
Banned User
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 02 May 2017
Location: Texas


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby handmade on May 9th, 2017, 7:49 am 

Heavy_Water » May 8th, 2017, 8:40 pm wrote:
handmade » May 6th, 2017, 7:02 am wrote:
Heavy_Water » May 5th, 2017, 10:58 pm wrote:Well, your initial understanding is actually pretty close.

But for now, forget about the particle maybe having wavelike characteristics. That's getting into something deeper than you need St this point. And also can be confused with advocating String Theory, for which there is no proof.

But yeah....A particle is a localized excitation of a field, whereas a field is a continuous entity that represents something at every point (such as a force).

The fields themselves are called fermionic fields, and every particle had its own. This being the sometimes confusing concept for those who initially imagine the field being one large, all encompassing area, or medium, if you will, that all the different particles or excitations inhabit together. Like, say, particles of salt in an ocean. Think instead of those salt particles residing in their own little auras, of mini fields and you get a general idea of the dynamic at work here.


It is not difficult to place an individual field of each ''particle'' among a field. Neither is it difficult to imagine these particles ''string like'' , however I am sure if I started to explain further using my own intellect , then you might start to struggle.
But me being me, I just can't help myself.

What you might find a strange notion, at the centre of a each ''particle'' is a negative void of space. The simple reasoning for this, like wise charges repel, energy can not stay together, there has to be always a centre attraction to hold the energy in situate relative position to stop it permeating through space. Now because of the higgs ''negative'' field, the ''particle'' is attracted to all of space and this field you could account as the ''aether''.

Added - Just in case you did not understand, Imagine electricity does not travel up the wire, it is pulled up the wire by the neg of the wire.


+>____________________<-

In the above - retains position and + travels to -. the solidity of the wire allowing - to hold position relative to the + which has no solidity. You have to consider that - goes all the way to the start point of + giving + no choice other than permeating up the line. However if there is a ''denser'' - at the plus end, the plus end retains position increasing in entropy but still some of + travels up the line.

Kmax=(hf/S)/S...continuous.

Emax=(hf/S)/S...continuous.

added- So your ''aether'' ''you'' seek is not the sort of ''aether'' you expected, the ''aether'' is the negative coupling of space itself that allows things to travel up the ''wire'',



Are you addressing me?

Why did you quote me and then offer me an overly convoluted answer that nobody asked for?

Thanks, but I wasn't the one who asked about the relationship between particle and field. I simply provided a succinct and mostly accurate, generalized answer. Which is of the sort I think the OP wanted.

BTW...I stopped reading your post after the......me being me... part. As I smelled hubris and pedantry coming off my computer. LOL

I'm fine with my particle physics knowledge, thanks. And your attempts to impress pretty much had the opposite effect.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.


That would be because the hubris has you say, you don't understand. Rather than trying to attempt to undermine and belittle me, why not put your efforts into trying to understand?

I gave a correct answer, it is not my fault if it is beyond understanding from yourself. I did not address the post to you.

I could of just said the relationship is that a ''sprite'' manifests itself from the field, however that is rather short.

P.s I used the word ''sprite'', to take away any ambiguity by using the word participle, science has a bad habit of being ambiguous.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby hyksos on May 9th, 2017, 4:15 pm 

Now because of the higgs ''negative'' field, the ''particle'' is attracted to all of space and this field you could account as the ''aether''.

Tell us more about this higgs negative field.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby handmade on May 10th, 2017, 6:49 pm 

hyksos » May 9th, 2017, 3:15 pm wrote:
Now because of the higgs ''negative'' field, the ''particle'' is attracted to all of space and this field you could account as the ''aether''.

Tell us more about this higgs negative field.



Below is a diagram of what it visually looks like.
dark energy.jpg


You will think that the diagram does not show anything, however the diagram is what the field and space objectively looks like without EMR or anything of a positive nature.


My explaining is not the best! But I will try.


The Higgs field is a negative state energy field that is an unified field and permeates isotropic everywhere in the universe. It always remains in situate position and can not be displaced, it acts like a ''conduit'' for positive state of entropy allowing the mass to pull itself along the opposite polarity field . It is directly undetectable, but indirectly I believe we can show the fields existence.
Throughout the field at any given 0 point, the field can contract creating a denser point in the field, a Quantum field fluctuation that manifests a point source, the Boson particle (''sprite'').

I am not a scientist though, so take my words lightly, although to me, my notions make relative sense to me.

Added; you probably will ask how the field contracts, from the instant a 0 point energy manifests, the whole of the field is attracted to that point.

(It answers gravity mechanism as well and several other things).
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby Braininvat on May 10th, 2017, 9:12 pm 

Below is a diagram of what it visually looks like.



That's astonishing. You are a misunderstood genius. I may want to use that diagram for my paper on quantum oscillation in smooth 9-d manifolds that involute. Good luck!
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5767
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby vivian maxine on May 11th, 2017, 7:12 am 

Handmade, before I quote something that is totally unrelated, please tell me this. Are the Higgs field that you talk about the same as - or different from - the Higgs Boson? Thank you. Viv
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby handmade on May 11th, 2017, 7:38 am 

vivian maxine » May 11th, 2017, 6:12 am wrote:Handmade, before I quote something that is totally unrelated, please tell me this. Are the Higgs field that you talk about the same as - or different from - the Higgs Boson? Thank you. Viv


Please feel free to say anything you think, from yourselves and other conversation I keep learning and probably will never stop learning something new each day.
We can call the ''sprite'' the Higg's Boson if you like, for I ask myself do particles collide in a particle ''basher'' or do the particles ''splat'' the space between impact. For to imagine a piece of paper around a rock and the second rock falling from the sky.

added- the ''sprite'' might come before the Boson, and the Boson is manifested from the sprite because the whole of the field contracts to that single point holding the energy in situate position by the denser neg , allowing the energy to emanate a ''glow'' , pulling itself along the field.
Last edited by handmade on May 11th, 2017, 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby handmade on May 11th, 2017, 7:41 am 

Braininvat » May 10th, 2017, 8:12 pm wrote:
Below is a diagram of what it visually looks like.



That's astonishing. You are a misunderstood genius. I may want to use that diagram for my paper on quantum oscillation in smooth 9-d manifolds that involute. Good luck!



I had to check with a friend that a Moderator really replied that and that I was not seeing things. Thank you and you are welcome to use my diagram :D
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: What is the relationship between "particle" and "field"?

Postby handmade on May 11th, 2017, 7:59 am 

Am I correct in thinking that in a particle accelerator when the particles collide, it is the like wise fields of the particles that collide and the particles never actually make contact? i.e ''damper'' field

(A field that emanates from the particle that acts like a cushion.)
damper.jpg
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Next

Return to Anything Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests