Why are we so focused on particles - why are fields relegated to second place?

Science friends of ATS,

I salute you! But, I need some insight please.. I have been confused for some time as to why physics is dominated by the study of particles, when it seems that the most exciting front line of our expanding knowledge is in the realm of 'fields'..?! Didn't Tesla once say that science would advance more than a hundred years in the space of ten years, if we were to study fields rather than particles..

Here is a hint from the world of particle physics that fields may be of greater import than we are usually told, yet even here, the magnetism of muons seems only to trigger thoughts of exciting, shiny new particles to be discovered, rather than rallying science to the banner of the exploration of fields.

Muon magnetism challenging particle physicists

Not only magnetism, but gravity, not only gravity, but morphology (morphic resonance, as espoused by Dr Rupert Sheldrake) - even the ancestral unconscious of various species including ourselves may be unlocked by a study of fields & their ability to influence or be influenced by consciousness, and so on, as regards the work of Dr's. Stuart Hameroff & Roger Penrose...

But all they can think of is particles? Particles are point-like, they do not describe wide-area phenomena, and I hold to Tesla's advice, I truly believe that a study of fields will yield more engineerable outcomes than a navel-gazing focus on particles, no matter how varied they may be..

Let me know your thoughts, and especially please direct me to any interesting research in the subject of field study.


Many thanks!

FITO.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I really think it's because particles are easier to understand in our mind than fields. Fields are extra-dimensional constructs, whereas point particles are familiar 3D coordinate sort of things. I think, as Tesla said, it sets us back that we are complacent with explaining our world from a material-reductionist perspective. The field represents the infinitude of potential in front of us, whereas the particle represents the current paradigm that we suppose is the entirety of the truth. Not realizing there is this wave of probability waiting for us to pioneer it.

Edit: I just saw your Gospel of Truth mention in your signature... I am referring to this portion:

"Speak, therefore, from the heart, for it is you who
are the day that is perfect, and it is within you that there dwells the
star that does not set. "

To connect religion to science, I would suppose spirit and body are equivalent to field and particle. It takes faith to explore a probabilistic world and create new things. Whereas bodily sensation will tend to cling to the particle "worldly" realm. The difference is depending on internal forthcomings (Spirit), as opposed to external dependencies (matter). I realize now I went on a bit of a tangent but I figure i'll keep it I'd rather not delete what I said.

a reply to: cooperton

Fantastic answer, thank you. That makes a lot of sense - as Tesla indicated, it would invoke a paradigm shift if we were to move away from that reductionist model of analysis.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: cooperton

Fantastic answer, thank you. That makes a lot of sense - as Tesla indicated, it would invoke a paradigm shift if we were to move away from that reductionist model of analysis.

Yeah as more computers and more surveillance becomes prevalent, to continue the analogy, the wave particle is enduringly collapsed, encaging the Spirit in a world that disallows the forthcoming of its. Ever hear the phrase, 'the revolution will not be televised'? I suppose the revolution can't be televised. The mass observation of it ruins its potential and confines it to certain predisposed ideas of what ought to be.

We are trying to cage and control what should be set free. This is why material science prevails in the mainstream over field science.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Didn't Tesla once say that science would advance more than a hundred years in the space of ten years, if we were to study fields rather than particles..

Not quite: "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

In reality, at a quantum level, the 'particulate' nature of things fuzzes out and in reality it is only fields. What we describe as particles are oscillations in those fields.

For the standard model, it has been easier to describe the unique features of those oscillations in terms of particles. Take for instance the details about the Higgs field which explained the mechanism of inertia for those oscillations. Peter Higg's initial paper was rejected because it was entirely theoretical, with no testable predictions. So then, he added that there should be a measurable Boson (force carrying 'particle') that resided within a particular band of energies, and therefore could be experimentally testable. So we have now pretty much proven his theoretical framework with the measurement of at least one 'particle' within the energy band expected. Not only that, but we have narrowed down the energy to a fairly specific value.

So, even though they aren't actually smashing particles at the LHC (they are watching the oscillation collapse produce energy bursts that have specific values that we can equate to standard model 'particles') we still call them particles because they are something we can identify and measure.

People study particles because they can. To get into the real shape of reality requires venturing off into the lands of non-physical dimensions and philosophy.

My thought about particles is that the more energy you throw at.them, the more you're going to get. These things come from those non-physical dimensions, though (or at least accumulate around the paths that lead to them) and eventually they're going to have to accept that.

a reply to: schuyler

Elon Musk makes me so horny.
...how aweful I know.
I disagree out of a matter of principle, but he's so smart and interesting. He surprises me often with weird #, I totally love that!
I could even ignore the principle thing that's how interesting he is.

That won't end well, that's obvious. Shattering dogma. The mind is just an illusion of the meat they say. I don't see it like that.
Instead I'd say material life clumps where consciousness already swirls.
Our existence as particle and wave, as the peak of a probability , that's at least some kind of peak, people love that.
But we can't deny the possibility of something living in those 'fields' of the consciousness.
If we explore that we might see how densly populated Sol is.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
"Dr. David Hawkins: God is the Infinite Field".

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

In reality, at a quantum level, the 'particulate' nature of things fuzzes out and in reality it is only fields. What we describe as particles are oscillations in those fields.

I usually hear particles called "excitations" of the fields, but otherwise that's more or less the way it appears to be.

So, even though they aren't actually smashing particles at the LHC (they are watching the oscillation collapse produce energy bursts that have specific values that we can equate to standard model 'particles') we still call them particles because they are something we can identify and measure.

Some of this topic gets into semantics. If particles are excitations of fields, that may indeed mean fields are more fundamental, but it doesn't mean particles don't exist.

So, I really dislike the title of this article I was reading last week "There are no particles, there are only fields"

Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental.

That fields are more fundamental than particles is expressed much better in that part of the abstract, than the title.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Let me know your thoughts, and especially please direct me to any interesting research in the subject of field study.

First, regarding the topic of your thread, "Why are we so focused on particles - why are fields relegated to second place?", according to the paper I posted above, fields are not second place in the minds of theoretical physicists.

But physics has some ambiguity when it comes to quantum mechanics, with an interesting phenomenon that the physics textbooks say one thing (such as talking about particles a lot), but the leading physicists say another (that fields are more fundamental). Another example is that the physics textbooks talk about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but there's not even a majority of physicists who think the Copenhagen interpretation is correct. So the moral of that story is don't get too hung up on what the textbooks say, I see them as good learning tools, not "scientific bibles".

The author of that paper did some research on that subject of what the textbooks say versus what theoretical physicists actually say and explains why the particle concept seem hard to let go of.

I would just say though it doesn't seem right to say there are "no particles". For example, what was one of the main functions of the LHC? To find the Higgs boson, a particle, which is evidence for the theory of the Higgs field. So if you want to say there are no particles, why was all that effort put into detecting the Higgs boson? So part of it is a real issue, but I think part of it gets into semantics.

I think this physicist, Harry Cliff, does a great job of explaining how physicists see the world, in terms simplified for the layperson, and he explains how fields are more fundamental. I don't think he said there are no particles. I tend to agree with the way he explains things, it's a great presentation for anybody who wants a better understanding of a lot of important areas of fundamental physics in the standard model, without going into too much mind-numbing detail.

Beyond the Higgs: What's Next for the LHC? - with Harry Cliff

Leading up to Time Index 10:30, Cliff describes particles.
The part most relevant to this thread is the almost 2 minutes from 10:30-12:20 when he describes how fields are more fundamental, and particles are ripples moving through the fields.
Then from 12:20 to 14:20, he explains how the Higgs field was theorized, but the evidence that could show the existence of the Higgs field was the Higgs particle. Hence it was the latter discovered at the LHC, a Higgs particle that is a manifestation of the Higgs field.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
1 + 1 =3 you are 3 all energy is related both visible and non visible, you know mass and the whole rf spectrum