What does a fundamental particle really looks like?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












After reading a lot and trying to understand people explain it, I made an image in my mind that "fundamental particles are a given position in space to which is given properties", being these properties the spin, mass, energy, etc, and don't forgetting that even the 'space' itself is formed by particles. Does that description is correct or at least I came close to understand it? If it's not right could you please help me see how it works(of course if it be possible to explain)?



Thanks guys.










share|cite







New contributor




Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • I would say the empty space is full of particles instead of "formed by particles"
    – K_inverse
    7 hours ago










  • K_inverse, I get what you mean, that's other way to see it, thanks the comment
    – Victor
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    Yeah, it would be pretty odd if space was actually made out of particles. Because then what would we call the places where those "particles" aren't present? Meta-space? ;)
    – someone_else
    4 hours ago

















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












After reading a lot and trying to understand people explain it, I made an image in my mind that "fundamental particles are a given position in space to which is given properties", being these properties the spin, mass, energy, etc, and don't forgetting that even the 'space' itself is formed by particles. Does that description is correct or at least I came close to understand it? If it's not right could you please help me see how it works(of course if it be possible to explain)?



Thanks guys.










share|cite







New contributor




Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • I would say the empty space is full of particles instead of "formed by particles"
    – K_inverse
    7 hours ago










  • K_inverse, I get what you mean, that's other way to see it, thanks the comment
    – Victor
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    Yeah, it would be pretty odd if space was actually made out of particles. Because then what would we call the places where those "particles" aren't present? Meta-space? ;)
    – someone_else
    4 hours ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











After reading a lot and trying to understand people explain it, I made an image in my mind that "fundamental particles are a given position in space to which is given properties", being these properties the spin, mass, energy, etc, and don't forgetting that even the 'space' itself is formed by particles. Does that description is correct or at least I came close to understand it? If it's not right could you please help me see how it works(of course if it be possible to explain)?



Thanks guys.










share|cite







New contributor




Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











After reading a lot and trying to understand people explain it, I made an image in my mind that "fundamental particles are a given position in space to which is given properties", being these properties the spin, mass, energy, etc, and don't forgetting that even the 'space' itself is formed by particles. Does that description is correct or at least I came close to understand it? If it's not right could you please help me see how it works(of course if it be possible to explain)?



Thanks guys.







quantum-mechanics particle-physics elementary-particles






share|cite







New contributor




Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite







New contributor




Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite




share|cite






New contributor




Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 7 hours ago









Victor

91




91




New contributor




Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Victor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • I would say the empty space is full of particles instead of "formed by particles"
    – K_inverse
    7 hours ago










  • K_inverse, I get what you mean, that's other way to see it, thanks the comment
    – Victor
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    Yeah, it would be pretty odd if space was actually made out of particles. Because then what would we call the places where those "particles" aren't present? Meta-space? ;)
    – someone_else
    4 hours ago




















  • I would say the empty space is full of particles instead of "formed by particles"
    – K_inverse
    7 hours ago










  • K_inverse, I get what you mean, that's other way to see it, thanks the comment
    – Victor
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    Yeah, it would be pretty odd if space was actually made out of particles. Because then what would we call the places where those "particles" aren't present? Meta-space? ;)
    – someone_else
    4 hours ago


















I would say the empty space is full of particles instead of "formed by particles"
– K_inverse
7 hours ago




I would say the empty space is full of particles instead of "formed by particles"
– K_inverse
7 hours ago












K_inverse, I get what you mean, that's other way to see it, thanks the comment
– Victor
7 hours ago




K_inverse, I get what you mean, that's other way to see it, thanks the comment
– Victor
7 hours ago




1




1




Yeah, it would be pretty odd if space was actually made out of particles. Because then what would we call the places where those "particles" aren't present? Meta-space? ;)
– someone_else
4 hours ago






Yeah, it would be pretty odd if space was actually made out of particles. Because then what would we call the places where those "particles" aren't present? Meta-space? ;)
– someone_else
4 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote













Quantum fields are more fundamental than particles, so you should be worrying more about what a quantum field “looks like”. Particles are just field quanta. You can have a field without a particle, but not vice versa.



A classical field can be thought of as one or more numbers at each point in space, which can vary with time. For example, an electric field is a simple vector at each point, pointing in some direction in space.



A quantum field is harder to visualize, because what “lives” at each point is not a set of numbers but an operator on an abstract mathematical space. But the more important thing is that the field extends throughout spacetime.



For example, all the photons in the universe are quanta of the same electromagnetic field. And there just one electron field extending through the universe, which has all electrons as its quanta.



Quantum field theory can be difficult to understand, but it is ontologically simple in the sense that only a handful of quantum fields (17, if you count them in a particular way) can explain a vast amount of what we observe.



By contrast, when you think in particle terms, there are something like $10^{85}$ of them, and that’s just in the part of the universe that we can see!






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    This is an answer by a physicist who worked in expermental particle physics.



    Physics is about observing and measuring real numbers which are modeled mathematically in various ways and, very important, the model has to give correct predictions for all new setups of experiments.



    Particle physics is the study of the very small dimensions where quantum mechanics theory holds true , and where, in the models, elementary particles, like the electron, are posited to have zero dimensions and characterized by various quantum numbers . The present day model that fits all the data up to now is the standard model, and the particles are seen in the table.



    elem



    So the "look like" for a particle physicist starts with the table, i.e. zero mass particles characterized by a four momentum vector when interacting with other particles, the interactions constrained by the standard model.



    The "look" is the experimental setup, which measures the interactions and "reports" on the existence or not of the particle. A recent example is the discovery of the Higgs meson, which discovery validated a long term prediction of the standard model.



    If you want to look at the way particles behave in a bubble chamber , have a look here, where their footprint looks like macroscopic particles would look leaving a trace. The model fits their primary interaction with a quantum mechanical model where there exist probability distribution, which predict a wave like behavior in the probability of scatterings. Detectors and "look" have become more complicated in the effort to see interactions at high energies ( small distances).



    The standard model is very successful and it is a quantum field theoretical model. Its calculations are based on assuming that the whole of space at every point is described by a field, mathematically modelled as a plane wave wavefunction of the elementary particles in the table, on which differential operators operate.The operation is either creating or annihilating particles and is the basis for the Feynman diagrams, i.e. all calculations of the standard model.



    The success of the calculations leads a large number of physicists to believe that the field assigned to a particle is fundamental and "real" . In the mathematical model this is true. In my opinion, one should not treat mathematics as the underlying reality and posit that it molds nature. One studies nature and finds models that fit the observations. When there is falsification, the mathematical models change, not the data.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • But a point particle is just as much a mathematical model of what is “really going on” as a field is. And it is a worse model. It feels nice and intuitive but can also be misleading.
      – G. Smith
      44 mins ago












    • @G.Smith It is THE MODEL at present. It may be a different model in ten years. The concept/model of fields depends on their being point particles when they interact after all, even with a single creation operator, so you cannot say it is a worse model !!! Strings bring in a dimension, and they may be the next standard model. In my 50 years in particle physics I have seen models come and go and come again ( as now the Regge poles are attached to strings). I have studied (1961)a field theoretical model for nuclear physics, with creation and annihilation operators. !!!
      – anna v
      38 mins ago










    • THE MODEL for “particle physics” at present is quantum $field$ theory. A field does not become a particle in order to interact, and the fields are more fundamental than the particles are. The Higgs field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
      – G. Smith
      28 mins ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Victor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444139%2fwhat-does-a-fundamental-particle-really-looks-like%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    6
    down vote













    Quantum fields are more fundamental than particles, so you should be worrying more about what a quantum field “looks like”. Particles are just field quanta. You can have a field without a particle, but not vice versa.



    A classical field can be thought of as one or more numbers at each point in space, which can vary with time. For example, an electric field is a simple vector at each point, pointing in some direction in space.



    A quantum field is harder to visualize, because what “lives” at each point is not a set of numbers but an operator on an abstract mathematical space. But the more important thing is that the field extends throughout spacetime.



    For example, all the photons in the universe are quanta of the same electromagnetic field. And there just one electron field extending through the universe, which has all electrons as its quanta.



    Quantum field theory can be difficult to understand, but it is ontologically simple in the sense that only a handful of quantum fields (17, if you count them in a particular way) can explain a vast amount of what we observe.



    By contrast, when you think in particle terms, there are something like $10^{85}$ of them, and that’s just in the part of the universe that we can see!






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      6
      down vote













      Quantum fields are more fundamental than particles, so you should be worrying more about what a quantum field “looks like”. Particles are just field quanta. You can have a field without a particle, but not vice versa.



      A classical field can be thought of as one or more numbers at each point in space, which can vary with time. For example, an electric field is a simple vector at each point, pointing in some direction in space.



      A quantum field is harder to visualize, because what “lives” at each point is not a set of numbers but an operator on an abstract mathematical space. But the more important thing is that the field extends throughout spacetime.



      For example, all the photons in the universe are quanta of the same electromagnetic field. And there just one electron field extending through the universe, which has all electrons as its quanta.



      Quantum field theory can be difficult to understand, but it is ontologically simple in the sense that only a handful of quantum fields (17, if you count them in a particular way) can explain a vast amount of what we observe.



      By contrast, when you think in particle terms, there are something like $10^{85}$ of them, and that’s just in the part of the universe that we can see!






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        6
        down vote










        up vote
        6
        down vote









        Quantum fields are more fundamental than particles, so you should be worrying more about what a quantum field “looks like”. Particles are just field quanta. You can have a field without a particle, but not vice versa.



        A classical field can be thought of as one or more numbers at each point in space, which can vary with time. For example, an electric field is a simple vector at each point, pointing in some direction in space.



        A quantum field is harder to visualize, because what “lives” at each point is not a set of numbers but an operator on an abstract mathematical space. But the more important thing is that the field extends throughout spacetime.



        For example, all the photons in the universe are quanta of the same electromagnetic field. And there just one electron field extending through the universe, which has all electrons as its quanta.



        Quantum field theory can be difficult to understand, but it is ontologically simple in the sense that only a handful of quantum fields (17, if you count them in a particular way) can explain a vast amount of what we observe.



        By contrast, when you think in particle terms, there are something like $10^{85}$ of them, and that’s just in the part of the universe that we can see!






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Quantum fields are more fundamental than particles, so you should be worrying more about what a quantum field “looks like”. Particles are just field quanta. You can have a field without a particle, but not vice versa.



        A classical field can be thought of as one or more numbers at each point in space, which can vary with time. For example, an electric field is a simple vector at each point, pointing in some direction in space.



        A quantum field is harder to visualize, because what “lives” at each point is not a set of numbers but an operator on an abstract mathematical space. But the more important thing is that the field extends throughout spacetime.



        For example, all the photons in the universe are quanta of the same electromagnetic field. And there just one electron field extending through the universe, which has all electrons as its quanta.



        Quantum field theory can be difficult to understand, but it is ontologically simple in the sense that only a handful of quantum fields (17, if you count them in a particular way) can explain a vast amount of what we observe.



        By contrast, when you think in particle terms, there are something like $10^{85}$ of them, and that’s just in the part of the universe that we can see!







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago

























        answered 4 hours ago









        G. Smith

        3,338815




        3,338815






















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            This is an answer by a physicist who worked in expermental particle physics.



            Physics is about observing and measuring real numbers which are modeled mathematically in various ways and, very important, the model has to give correct predictions for all new setups of experiments.



            Particle physics is the study of the very small dimensions where quantum mechanics theory holds true , and where, in the models, elementary particles, like the electron, are posited to have zero dimensions and characterized by various quantum numbers . The present day model that fits all the data up to now is the standard model, and the particles are seen in the table.



            elem



            So the "look like" for a particle physicist starts with the table, i.e. zero mass particles characterized by a four momentum vector when interacting with other particles, the interactions constrained by the standard model.



            The "look" is the experimental setup, which measures the interactions and "reports" on the existence or not of the particle. A recent example is the discovery of the Higgs meson, which discovery validated a long term prediction of the standard model.



            If you want to look at the way particles behave in a bubble chamber , have a look here, where their footprint looks like macroscopic particles would look leaving a trace. The model fits their primary interaction with a quantum mechanical model where there exist probability distribution, which predict a wave like behavior in the probability of scatterings. Detectors and "look" have become more complicated in the effort to see interactions at high energies ( small distances).



            The standard model is very successful and it is a quantum field theoretical model. Its calculations are based on assuming that the whole of space at every point is described by a field, mathematically modelled as a plane wave wavefunction of the elementary particles in the table, on which differential operators operate.The operation is either creating or annihilating particles and is the basis for the Feynman diagrams, i.e. all calculations of the standard model.



            The success of the calculations leads a large number of physicists to believe that the field assigned to a particle is fundamental and "real" . In the mathematical model this is true. In my opinion, one should not treat mathematics as the underlying reality and posit that it molds nature. One studies nature and finds models that fit the observations. When there is falsification, the mathematical models change, not the data.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • But a point particle is just as much a mathematical model of what is “really going on” as a field is. And it is a worse model. It feels nice and intuitive but can also be misleading.
              – G. Smith
              44 mins ago












            • @G.Smith It is THE MODEL at present. It may be a different model in ten years. The concept/model of fields depends on their being point particles when they interact after all, even with a single creation operator, so you cannot say it is a worse model !!! Strings bring in a dimension, and they may be the next standard model. In my 50 years in particle physics I have seen models come and go and come again ( as now the Regge poles are attached to strings). I have studied (1961)a field theoretical model for nuclear physics, with creation and annihilation operators. !!!
              – anna v
              38 mins ago










            • THE MODEL for “particle physics” at present is quantum $field$ theory. A field does not become a particle in order to interact, and the fields are more fundamental than the particles are. The Higgs field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
              – G. Smith
              28 mins ago















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            This is an answer by a physicist who worked in expermental particle physics.



            Physics is about observing and measuring real numbers which are modeled mathematically in various ways and, very important, the model has to give correct predictions for all new setups of experiments.



            Particle physics is the study of the very small dimensions where quantum mechanics theory holds true , and where, in the models, elementary particles, like the electron, are posited to have zero dimensions and characterized by various quantum numbers . The present day model that fits all the data up to now is the standard model, and the particles are seen in the table.



            elem



            So the "look like" for a particle physicist starts with the table, i.e. zero mass particles characterized by a four momentum vector when interacting with other particles, the interactions constrained by the standard model.



            The "look" is the experimental setup, which measures the interactions and "reports" on the existence or not of the particle. A recent example is the discovery of the Higgs meson, which discovery validated a long term prediction of the standard model.



            If you want to look at the way particles behave in a bubble chamber , have a look here, where their footprint looks like macroscopic particles would look leaving a trace. The model fits their primary interaction with a quantum mechanical model where there exist probability distribution, which predict a wave like behavior in the probability of scatterings. Detectors and "look" have become more complicated in the effort to see interactions at high energies ( small distances).



            The standard model is very successful and it is a quantum field theoretical model. Its calculations are based on assuming that the whole of space at every point is described by a field, mathematically modelled as a plane wave wavefunction of the elementary particles in the table, on which differential operators operate.The operation is either creating or annihilating particles and is the basis for the Feynman diagrams, i.e. all calculations of the standard model.



            The success of the calculations leads a large number of physicists to believe that the field assigned to a particle is fundamental and "real" . In the mathematical model this is true. In my opinion, one should not treat mathematics as the underlying reality and posit that it molds nature. One studies nature and finds models that fit the observations. When there is falsification, the mathematical models change, not the data.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • But a point particle is just as much a mathematical model of what is “really going on” as a field is. And it is a worse model. It feels nice and intuitive but can also be misleading.
              – G. Smith
              44 mins ago












            • @G.Smith It is THE MODEL at present. It may be a different model in ten years. The concept/model of fields depends on their being point particles when they interact after all, even with a single creation operator, so you cannot say it is a worse model !!! Strings bring in a dimension, and they may be the next standard model. In my 50 years in particle physics I have seen models come and go and come again ( as now the Regge poles are attached to strings). I have studied (1961)a field theoretical model for nuclear physics, with creation and annihilation operators. !!!
              – anna v
              38 mins ago










            • THE MODEL for “particle physics” at present is quantum $field$ theory. A field does not become a particle in order to interact, and the fields are more fundamental than the particles are. The Higgs field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
              – G. Smith
              28 mins ago













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            This is an answer by a physicist who worked in expermental particle physics.



            Physics is about observing and measuring real numbers which are modeled mathematically in various ways and, very important, the model has to give correct predictions for all new setups of experiments.



            Particle physics is the study of the very small dimensions where quantum mechanics theory holds true , and where, in the models, elementary particles, like the electron, are posited to have zero dimensions and characterized by various quantum numbers . The present day model that fits all the data up to now is the standard model, and the particles are seen in the table.



            elem



            So the "look like" for a particle physicist starts with the table, i.e. zero mass particles characterized by a four momentum vector when interacting with other particles, the interactions constrained by the standard model.



            The "look" is the experimental setup, which measures the interactions and "reports" on the existence or not of the particle. A recent example is the discovery of the Higgs meson, which discovery validated a long term prediction of the standard model.



            If you want to look at the way particles behave in a bubble chamber , have a look here, where their footprint looks like macroscopic particles would look leaving a trace. The model fits their primary interaction with a quantum mechanical model where there exist probability distribution, which predict a wave like behavior in the probability of scatterings. Detectors and "look" have become more complicated in the effort to see interactions at high energies ( small distances).



            The standard model is very successful and it is a quantum field theoretical model. Its calculations are based on assuming that the whole of space at every point is described by a field, mathematically modelled as a plane wave wavefunction of the elementary particles in the table, on which differential operators operate.The operation is either creating or annihilating particles and is the basis for the Feynman diagrams, i.e. all calculations of the standard model.



            The success of the calculations leads a large number of physicists to believe that the field assigned to a particle is fundamental and "real" . In the mathematical model this is true. In my opinion, one should not treat mathematics as the underlying reality and posit that it molds nature. One studies nature and finds models that fit the observations. When there is falsification, the mathematical models change, not the data.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            This is an answer by a physicist who worked in expermental particle physics.



            Physics is about observing and measuring real numbers which are modeled mathematically in various ways and, very important, the model has to give correct predictions for all new setups of experiments.



            Particle physics is the study of the very small dimensions where quantum mechanics theory holds true , and where, in the models, elementary particles, like the electron, are posited to have zero dimensions and characterized by various quantum numbers . The present day model that fits all the data up to now is the standard model, and the particles are seen in the table.



            elem



            So the "look like" for a particle physicist starts with the table, i.e. zero mass particles characterized by a four momentum vector when interacting with other particles, the interactions constrained by the standard model.



            The "look" is the experimental setup, which measures the interactions and "reports" on the existence or not of the particle. A recent example is the discovery of the Higgs meson, which discovery validated a long term prediction of the standard model.



            If you want to look at the way particles behave in a bubble chamber , have a look here, where their footprint looks like macroscopic particles would look leaving a trace. The model fits their primary interaction with a quantum mechanical model where there exist probability distribution, which predict a wave like behavior in the probability of scatterings. Detectors and "look" have become more complicated in the effort to see interactions at high energies ( small distances).



            The standard model is very successful and it is a quantum field theoretical model. Its calculations are based on assuming that the whole of space at every point is described by a field, mathematically modelled as a plane wave wavefunction of the elementary particles in the table, on which differential operators operate.The operation is either creating or annihilating particles and is the basis for the Feynman diagrams, i.e. all calculations of the standard model.



            The success of the calculations leads a large number of physicists to believe that the field assigned to a particle is fundamental and "real" . In the mathematical model this is true. In my opinion, one should not treat mathematics as the underlying reality and posit that it molds nature. One studies nature and finds models that fit the observations. When there is falsification, the mathematical models change, not the data.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 1 hour ago









            anna v

            155k7148443




            155k7148443












            • But a point particle is just as much a mathematical model of what is “really going on” as a field is. And it is a worse model. It feels nice and intuitive but can also be misleading.
              – G. Smith
              44 mins ago












            • @G.Smith It is THE MODEL at present. It may be a different model in ten years. The concept/model of fields depends on their being point particles when they interact after all, even with a single creation operator, so you cannot say it is a worse model !!! Strings bring in a dimension, and they may be the next standard model. In my 50 years in particle physics I have seen models come and go and come again ( as now the Regge poles are attached to strings). I have studied (1961)a field theoretical model for nuclear physics, with creation and annihilation operators. !!!
              – anna v
              38 mins ago










            • THE MODEL for “particle physics” at present is quantum $field$ theory. A field does not become a particle in order to interact, and the fields are more fundamental than the particles are. The Higgs field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
              – G. Smith
              28 mins ago


















            • But a point particle is just as much a mathematical model of what is “really going on” as a field is. And it is a worse model. It feels nice and intuitive but can also be misleading.
              – G. Smith
              44 mins ago












            • @G.Smith It is THE MODEL at present. It may be a different model in ten years. The concept/model of fields depends on their being point particles when they interact after all, even with a single creation operator, so you cannot say it is a worse model !!! Strings bring in a dimension, and they may be the next standard model. In my 50 years in particle physics I have seen models come and go and come again ( as now the Regge poles are attached to strings). I have studied (1961)a field theoretical model for nuclear physics, with creation and annihilation operators. !!!
              – anna v
              38 mins ago










            • THE MODEL for “particle physics” at present is quantum $field$ theory. A field does not become a particle in order to interact, and the fields are more fundamental than the particles are. The Higgs field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
              – G. Smith
              28 mins ago
















            But a point particle is just as much a mathematical model of what is “really going on” as a field is. And it is a worse model. It feels nice and intuitive but can also be misleading.
            – G. Smith
            44 mins ago






            But a point particle is just as much a mathematical model of what is “really going on” as a field is. And it is a worse model. It feels nice and intuitive but can also be misleading.
            – G. Smith
            44 mins ago














            @G.Smith It is THE MODEL at present. It may be a different model in ten years. The concept/model of fields depends on their being point particles when they interact after all, even with a single creation operator, so you cannot say it is a worse model !!! Strings bring in a dimension, and they may be the next standard model. In my 50 years in particle physics I have seen models come and go and come again ( as now the Regge poles are attached to strings). I have studied (1961)a field theoretical model for nuclear physics, with creation and annihilation operators. !!!
            – anna v
            38 mins ago




            @G.Smith It is THE MODEL at present. It may be a different model in ten years. The concept/model of fields depends on their being point particles when they interact after all, even with a single creation operator, so you cannot say it is a worse model !!! Strings bring in a dimension, and they may be the next standard model. In my 50 years in particle physics I have seen models come and go and come again ( as now the Regge poles are attached to strings). I have studied (1961)a field theoretical model for nuclear physics, with creation and annihilation operators. !!!
            – anna v
            38 mins ago












            THE MODEL for “particle physics” at present is quantum $field$ theory. A field does not become a particle in order to interact, and the fields are more fundamental than the particles are. The Higgs field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
            – G. Smith
            28 mins ago




            THE MODEL for “particle physics” at present is quantum $field$ theory. A field does not become a particle in order to interact, and the fields are more fundamental than the particles are. The Higgs field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
            – G. Smith
            28 mins ago










            Victor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Victor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Victor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Victor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444139%2fwhat-does-a-fundamental-particle-really-looks-like%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            數位音樂下載

            When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

            格利澤436b