Greetings,

I've recently been exploring a speculative, philosophical idea to simplify how we view and communicate quantum fields and would appreciate the feedback. My conjecture is that fields could be imagined as "sheets" made of inert particles that respond to specific stimuli to produce their effects.

The gist:

-QFT (quantum field theory) describes fields as mathematical operators wherein potential exists at any given point for a particle of the the corresponding field to propagate. My aim with this thought experiment is to ground the concept in reality and make it more tangible, therefore making it's communication more effective to the lay-masses.

-"Sheets": The word "sheet" is used as a placeholder and shouldn't suggest that I mean actual sheets. Instead I propose looking at these fields as full 3-Dimensional "fields" that are constructed of inert or dormant particles that are undetectable until excited or energized.

-Goal: The model aims to make fields more intuitive, bridging the abstract math concepts of QFT with a tangible picture, much like string theory uses vibrating strings for particles in order to make the topic more accessible in the fields of science communication and education.

Now, I'm not claiming any changes to the current standings of established physics. This is, first and foremost, a speculative thought experiment on the efficacy of the idea and to spark discussion. Some things about my current model that I'm curious about:

-Could this analogy align with how fields work in QFT or classical physics?

-What are the flaws or limitations to visualizing fields as particle-based "sheets"?

-Are there any existing models that resonate or align with this idea?

I'm open to critique and most definitely willing to indulge in detailed discussion about the idea. Hopefully this was enough to get the ball rolling.

Below I'll be attaching a PDF that contains a, roughly, 1,000 word "essay" that I've constructed during the solo pondering section of this thought experiment. I'm sure it'll be hard to convince anyone to download and read it, but it's there if anyone wants it. Meanwhile, I'd be more than happy to begin engaging with discussion on the topic and spelling out the paper in the forum, should discussion warrant it.

Fields+as+Sheets+of+Inert+Particles+(revision2).pdf

Edited July 13Jul 13 by FloridaManPhysics

If it’s tangible, what are these particles and what are their properties? How do you test to see if you’re right?

How does an “inert” particle respond to stimuli? What interactions are involved?

Are there any existing models that resonate or align with this idea?

There was aether theory, but in trying to answer questions similar to the ones I asked, it failed to work.

Just now, FloridaManPhysics said:

I've recently been exploring a speculative, philosophical idea to simplify how we view and communicate quantum fields and would appreciate the feedback. My conjecture is that fields could be imagined as "sheets" made of inert particles that respond to specific stimuli to produce their effects.

Since I don't expect swansont to do all the work around here I will ask a physics question.

Why are you confining fields to 2D surfaces in 3D space ?

What are the inter sheet interactions ?

For instance a real world example of the difference would be the difference between the structure and properties of graphite and diamond.

Both are made exclusively of carbon, graphite comes in 2D sheets diamond is a 3D lattice.

In 1930 P A M Dirac proposed the 'Dirac Sea', as the relativistically consistent Dirac equation required an equal ( infinite ) number of negative energy states as there are positive, and keep electrons from descending into ever lower energy states without limit.
This 'sea' was full of negative energy electrons, and if one was missing it could be considered a positive 'electron', or positron, which was later observed by C Anderson.
The Dirac sea interpretation has been replaced by a QFT for the electron, but is that what you had in mind ?

23 hours ago, swansont said:

If it’s tangible, what are these particles and what are their properties? How do you test to see if you’re right?

How does an “inert” particle respond to stimuli? What interactions are involved?

There was aether theory, but in trying to answer questions similar to the ones I asked, it failed to work.

Appreciate the interaction. If it wasnt clear, my apologies, the point of the proposal was to make communication of fields easier to understand, not an attempt to change anything in regards to mechanics. I believe a clear form of ontological communication could be valuable in a field where everything is defined by math. Adding tangibility to the description and communication of these concepts COULD help bring more people to the fields of physics, etc, whereas they may shy away from the complicated mathematical explanations that currently exist.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Since I don't expect swansont to do all the work around here I will ask a physics question.

Why are you confining fields to 2D surfaces in 3D space ?

What are the inter sheet interactions ?

For instance a real world example of the difference would be the difference between the structure and properties of graphite and diamond.

Both are made exclusively of carbon, graphite comes in 2D sheets diamond is a 3D lattice.

Good point, but i do believe i clarified that i didnt actually mean "sheets" and stated that i only meant it as a placeholder vehicle to convey the concept. These fields are 3-Dimensional structures. The ideas of a potential sub-Planck-scale lattice work or spacing came up while i was trying to refine my idea and is BRIEFLY mentioned in my "essay" but those specific concepts are not something i have any related knowledge on so remain entirely speculative in nature.

21 hours ago, MigL said:

In 1930 P A M Dirac proposed the 'Dirac Sea', as the relativistically consistent Dirac equation required an equal ( infinite ) number of negative energy states as there are positive, and keep electrons from descending into ever lower energy states without limit.
This 'sea' was full of negative energy electrons, and if one was missing it could be considered a positive 'electron', or positron, which was later observed by C Anderson.
The Dirac sea interpretation has been replaced by a QFT for the electron, but is that what you had in mind ?

Honestly, it is VERY close to what i had in mind. The personal analogy i went with was a guitar string. The string is tangible. Its there and exists silently until plucked, emitting a note, before returning to its zero energy state of silence. Now, i simply posited, for the sake of attempting to explain the concept, that the string is composed of every note that it can emit. When strummed or "energized", it kicks one of those notes (particles) out.

3 minutes ago, FloridaManPhysics said:

Appreciate the interaction. If it wasnt clear, my apologies, the point of the proposal was to make communication of fields easier to understand, not an attempt to change anything in regards to mechanics. I believe a clear form of ontological communication could be valuable in a field where everything is defined by math. Adding tangibility to the description and communication of these concepts COULD help bring more people to the fields of physics, etc, whereas they may shy away from the complicated mathematical explanations that currently exist.

But fields aren’t made of particles. Conveying incorrect information might be easier but it’s ultimately self-defeating.

Physics is driven by math and you have to understand that language. There are things that get lost in translation if you try and simplify it. The common approach is to start with simple concepts like motion and force and build on them. I don’t think anyone’s scared out of physics by what’s going on in the math of grad-school topics like QFT. If you get scared off by math wouldn’t that happen in calculus? And if you can’t handle the math of QFT or GR or whatever, you can choose an area where you don’t have to deal with it.

@FloridaManPhysics I think it is more straightforward to understand a field as a region in space where a force has influence. It quantitatively describes the magnitude and distribution of its influence. As was mentioned here once: it is a map (description) of the territory, but not the territory itself.

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

But fields aren’t made of particles. Conveying incorrect information might be easier but it’s ultimately self-defeating.

Physics is driven by math and you have to understand that language. There are things that get lost in translation if you try and simplify it. The common approach is to start with simple concepts like motion and force and build on them. I don’t think anyone’s scared out of physics by what’s going on in the math of grad-school topics like QFT. If you get scared off by math wouldn’t that happen in calculus? And if you can’t handle the math of QFT or GR or whatever, you can choose an area where you don’t have to deal with it.

Respectfully, what fields ARE or ARE NOT made of is actually still up for debate since there is no clear ontological definition. But im not actually arguing that. And yes, when you begin to engage on a scholastic level, the fundamentals and math, come gradually along with the technical understanding of such things. But what about a child? Or a grocery store clerk? These people, usually, dont have any frame of reference for what those maths entail or even what the characters in each specific formula means. E=mc^2 is meaningless to someone if they dont know what it means.

It was also clear to me, upon finishing my little thought experiment, that this MAY be one of those things that only meant something to me, but it was done from the frame of a lay person to help the lay person. Communication has many needs and seeding the idea of fields as, initially, something tangible that has an affect on our reality seemed like a worthy way to bring complete novices closer to a fundamental truth of that reality. The fact that something tangible can be so much easier to conceive for those people, may also help draw people with a curiosity towards the fields themselves.

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

@FloridaManPhysics I think it is more straightforward to understand a field as a region in space where a force has influence. It quantitatively describes the magnitude and distribution of its influence. As was mentioned here once: it is a map (description) of the territory, but not the territory itself.

That is, admittedly, a very straightforward way to explain them, but what do you say when asked, "Where do the particles come from, then?" How would you explain, in a straightforward and intuitive way, that they come from nothing based on a mathmatical set of circumstances?

I profer another angle to look at this: objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum despite their mass.

While this is, technically, a "lie" and is only true in an idealized situation, the truth is far more complicated. I bring this up because what we are discussing, essentially, is the "lie" used to easily explain a thing that is not necessarily true in reality. The degrees of innacuracy may be different but the intent is the same.

42 minutes ago, FloridaManPhysics said:

That is, admittedly, a very straightforward way to explain them, but what do you say when asked, "Where do the particles come from, then?" How would you explain, in a straightforward and intuitive way, that they come from nothing based on a mathmatical set of circumstances?

I think they arise out of the vacuum field, which is not 'nothing'. This is the field that has the lowest possible energy level, where things (virtual particles and their perturbations) only exist for fleeting moments and then disappear. I think the Casimir Effect is one piece of evidence of its existence.

Edited July 14Jul 14 by StringJunky
added stuff

1 hour ago, FloridaManPhysics said:

Respectfully, what fields ARE or ARE NOT made of is actually still up for debate since there is no clear ontological definition. But im not actually arguing that. And yes, when you begin to engage on a scholastic level, the fundamentals and math, come gradually along with the technical understanding of such things.

Fields are literally mathematical constructs in physics; they are not made of anything since they are not something that physically exists. They are mathematical conveniences for describing/predicting the behavior of things

If one offers a position that they are made of something, it’s incumbent on them to present scientific evidence.

1 hour ago, FloridaManPhysics said:

But what about a child? Or a grocery store clerk? These people, usually, dont have any frame of reference for what those maths entail or even what the characters in each specific formula means. E=mc^2 is meaningless to someone if they dont know what it means.

Are there lots of children inquiring about quantum field theory or the finer points of general relativity?

I can offer math-free explanations of E=mc^2 that don’t rely on either, but they would be somewhat limited, since there’s no math, but perhaps more importantly, because the underpinnings are missing.

Feynman did an IMO excellent job of discussing the issues here in telling an interviewer why he couldn’t explain magnetic repulsion to him.

There’s a lot to it, but it ends with

“But I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else that you’re more familiar with.”

https://fs.blog/richard-feynman-on-why-questions/

Included in this is the problem with using analogy-type explanations

So if you try and do a fields-are-sheets-of-particles you might just end up with questions like I asked in my first post, which you can’t answer, because fields aren’t made of particles.

Just now, FloridaManPhysics said:

Respectfully, what fields ARE or ARE NOT made of is actually still up for debate since there is no clear ontological definition. But im not actually arguing that. And yes, when you begin to engage on a scholastic level, the fundamentals and math, come gradually along with the technical understanding of such things. But what about a child? Or a grocery store clerk? These people, usually, dont have any frame of reference for what those maths entail or even what the characters in each specific formula means. E=mc^2 is meaningless to someone if they dont know what it means.

Really ?

First you tell the child that a field is 'sheets' , then you tell her that it is not like sheets at all.

It is just not correct that we don't know what fields are or that there is no satisfactory definition of them.

You just don't know what it is . So why not ask instead of proclaiming ?

Just now, StringJunky said:

I think it is more straightforward to understand a field as a region in space where a force has influence. It quantitatively describes the magnitude and distribution of its influence. As was mentioned here once: it is a map (description) of the territory, but not the territory itself.

Unfortunately StringJunky is also only partly correct here.

But perhaps that is because there are many types of Field in this physical world which is why a proper specification includes some additional words such as, the electric field of an isolated electric charge, a velocity field, a direction field and so on.
None of these are 'force fields' although force fields or fields of force also exist.

One thing about Fields is that the need for additiona wording is because Fields can only exist in relation to something other than the Field.

Note 'in relatiuon to' is not necessarily causative, but may be so.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Fields are literally mathematical constructs in physics; they are not made of anything since they are not something that physically exists. They are mathematical conveniences for describing/predicting the behavior of things

If one offers a position that they are made of something, it’s incumbent on them to present scientific evidence.

Are there lots of children inquiring about quantum field theory or the finer points of general relativity?

I can offer math-free explanations of E=mc^2 that don’t rely on either, but they would be somewhat limited, since there’s no math, but perhaps more importantly, because the underpinnings are missing.

Feynman did an IMO excellent job of discussing the issues here in telling an interviewer why he couldn’t explain magnetic repulsion to him.

There’s a lot to it, but it ends with

“But I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else that you’re more familiar with.”

https://fs.blog/richard-feynman-on-why-questions/

Included in this is the problem with using analogy-type explanations

So if you try and do a fields-are-sheets-of-particles you might just end up with questions like I asked in my first post, which you can’t answer, because fields aren’t made of particles.

I have never seen that Feynman interview before and I never really considered it from that angle. I have to agree that it would be incredibly naive to attempt to ascribe an overly simplistic definition to something inherently complicated when you read the way he stated it. It made sense at first but that rebuttal is something i can't really argue with. I'll concede the stance.

Appreciate the engagement. It was fun and enlightening, even if only for me. In the future ill have to be more aware of becoming hyperfixated on something that i fail to see the other angles approach. Thanks for time.