Why is the standard model based on particles instead of fields?

In summary, there is a parallel thread discussing the idea that fields are more fundamental than particles. Many experts believe that particles are just an interpretation of fields and that the standard model, which is based on particles, could potentially be re-interpreted on a field basis. This could potentially lead to a better understanding and unification with General Relativity, which is already a field model. This is because the particles in the standard model are actually just excitation states of the underlying quantum fields. Therefore, the standard model is actually a quantum field theory, not a particle theory.
  • #1
jnorman
316
0
sort of a parallel thread to the current thread about "fields are more fundamental than particles".

pretty much everything i have ever read about particles leads to the idea that what we perceive as particles is really just a manifestation of a field or of interacting fields. since we define all particles in terms of their energy, and since we have pretty much determined that all fundamental particles (quarks, electrons) are point particles with no volume (there is no "thing" there), and since we have to resort to weird stuff like "virtual photons" to explain interaction between particles, and since we cannot even explain mass without resorting to a higgs' field, why is the standard model based on a particle interpretation rather than a model based on fields?

perhaps if we consider re-interpreting the standard model on a field basis, we may take a step in the direction of unification with GR, which is already a field model?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's not. That's why we call it "field theory".
 
  • #3
vanadium - thanks for responding, but i am not sure what you are saying. the standard model is based on particles, not fields. all of the entries in the SM are fermions or bosons.
 
  • #4
My understanding is that particles are just an interpretation. But it is a very useful interpretation, especially when it comes to interactions.
 
  • #5
The Standard Model is a Quantum FIELD THEORY. The particles are just excitation states of the field.
 
  • #6
jnorman you have misunderstood something. When physicists talk about 'particles' they actually mean the corresponding fields. In the actual formulation of SM you won't see any 'particles', just fields.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
The basic objects in the mathematical formulation are the quantum fields. No wonder it's called quantum field theory.
 

FAQ: Why is the standard model based on particles instead of fields?

What is the standard model based on particles instead of fields?

The standard model of particle physics is a theory that describes the fundamental particles and their interactions. It is based on the idea that the universe is made up of particles, rather than fields, and that these particles interact with each other through the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force.

Why do scientists use particles instead of fields in the standard model?

The use of particles in the standard model is a result of experimental evidence and mathematical calculations. The particles in the standard model are the smallest building blocks of matter and have been observed and studied in particle accelerators. The interactions between these particles can be described using mathematical equations, making it a more precise and accurate way to understand the fundamental forces of nature.

How does the standard model explain the behavior of particles?

The standard model explains the behavior of particles through the fundamental forces. In this model, particles are categorized into two groups: fermions (matter particles) and bosons (force-carrying particles). Fermions interact with each other through the exchange of bosons, which is what causes particles to attract or repel each other. This model has been extensively tested and has successfully predicted the behavior of particles in various experiments.

Are fields not important in the standard model?

Fields play a crucial role in the standard model as they are responsible for the creation of particles. According to the theory of quantum mechanics, particles can also be described as excitations in corresponding fields. However, the standard model is based on particles because it provides a more accurate and complete understanding of the fundamental forces and their interactions.

Could the standard model be improved by incorporating fields?

The standard model is constantly being refined and improved by scientists, but at its core, it is based on particles. The use of particles in the standard model has been extremely successful in explaining and predicting the behavior of particles in experiments. Incorporating fields into the model would require a significant change in the understanding of fundamental forces and may not necessarily lead to a more accurate description of particle interactions.

Similar threads

I Particle Physics vs Quantum Field Theory vs Standard Model
Replies
3
Views
17K
A What is the problem with the particle masses in the Standard Model?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I What is mass according to the standard model?
Replies
6
Views
2K
B Why Photon & Gluon are Exceptions from Higgs Field
Replies
7
Views
2K
I New Constraints On The Higgs Boson Width
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Does the New Muon g-2 Measurement Indicate Physics Beyond the Standard Model?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Why does a Lagrangian matter for the standard model?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Why is the Higgs boson considered a boson?
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Glueballs Observed For The First Time
Replies
10
Views
1K
B Standard model particle properties
Replies
15
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top