- #1
Lapidus
- 344
- 12
In this Nima Arkani-Hamed paper on page 5 I found the sentence:
These constraints are an artifact of using fields as auxiliary objects to describe the interactions of the more fundamental particles.
In Schwartz's QFT book I also get away with the impression that the Poincaré irreps (i.e. particles) are more fundamental and field representations are just secondary.
But this view seems to be contrary with most other (older) QFT books and notes that I came across, where particles are just excitations of the fundamental quantum fields.
My question: is there are "conceptual shift" taking place towards an understanding that particles are more fundamental than fields?
These constraints are an artifact of using fields as auxiliary objects to describe the interactions of the more fundamental particles.
In Schwartz's QFT book I also get away with the impression that the Poincaré irreps (i.e. particles) are more fundamental and field representations are just secondary.
But this view seems to be contrary with most other (older) QFT books and notes that I came across, where particles are just excitations of the fundamental quantum fields.
My question: is there are "conceptual shift" taking place towards an understanding that particles are more fundamental than fields?