Posted: Oct 07, 2011 4:52 pm
by zaybu
twistor59 wrote:
zaybu wrote:
twistor59 wrote:

I'm not sure if we can say that it has a "physical nature", at least not in general, and not directly, it's a component in a model. Using this component you can construct observables, with which you can make (probabilistic) predictions about measurable quantities.

And those measurable quantities are mass, charge, spin, parity. Never mind that the initial assumption is that we have particles in the model.

This reminds me of Boltzman who postulated that a gas was made of atoms and proceeded to change the whole field of thermodynamics. He never saw atoms, and atoms were only confirmed years after his death. Yet, during his lifetime, he was ridiculed for believing that atoms were real. I guess you would have been one of these people laughing at him.

I really don't understand where you get this impression that I don't believe in particles. Could you quote a post from me which states or implies this ...

Well, you started this thread in a debate that started on another thread, in which you wrote: "I would prefer to refer to photons as "field quanta", and reserve the term "particle" for entities that had position operators." After which I pointed out in QFT, the position operators are fields, and from there we were arguing about fields being "particle exchanges", which you disagree that we only see in and out states, which I questioned why we should even pursue the Higg boson, a so-called virtual particles not to be found in any in or out states, but then you claimed we should do our outmost to see a free Higgs boson, which would be an out state. So I really don't know where you stand. You've been skirting around the issue.

For me, the Standard Model is very clear: there are two types of "particles": 1) fermions with half-integral spins, which make up what we consider as bulk matter; 2) bosons, with integral spin that mediate the known four basic forces of nature (fields). My claim from the very beginning has been that when we explore nature at smaller and smaller scales, what we see is particles. You disagree, what exactly, I really don't know.