3 ms·
> A regular particle isn't really emergent, it corresponds 1:1 to the excitation of the field Maybe 'emergent' was the wrong word here. I meant that particles
by dinfinity 1y ago
> A regular particle isn't really emergent, it corresponds 1:1 to the excitation of the field
Maybe 'emergent' was the wrong word here. I meant that particles are convenient ways of describing behavior of the fields in many (but not all) cases, with the fields themselves considered to be the (more) fundamental description of reality.
- colechristensen 1y agoEh, in the wave-particle duality wars you may have been swayed a bit too strongly into the wave camp. Quantization exists and isn't just a convenience.
- dinfinity 1y agoWhat? QFT doesn't preclude quantization at all. You're attacking a weird straw man here.
- soulofmischief 1y agoAnd wave particle duality isn't some kind of scientific debate with camps on both sides.
- rcxdude 1y agoQuantization exists because of the waves though. It's a consequence of standing waves being produced when an excitation is confined. It's not AFAIK an axiom of QFT, more an emergent result.