It's the majority view in physics. Real particles are excitations of fields and virtual particles are fluctuations. The real particles are what we observe in the lab, in scattering processes, while virtual particles are just mathematical trickery to calculate what we observe in relation to the real particles. Now if this were so then also real particles would be math.

What is an excitation? A field is just a mathematical aid which consists of distributions assigned to all points of spacetime, and these distributions have operators as "value". These operators are creation and annihilation operators. These operators create or annihilate one particle states in so-called Fock-space, a direct product of single particle Hilbert spaces. A free particle field is just a particle with a single momentum state or, when localized, a normalized superposition of a spectrum. In a Feynman diagram, there is one line only and begin and end state have the same momentum. The particle is localized if it has a spectrum of momenta. If it has a well defined position though there are infinite associated momenta, due to uncertainty.

There are no such things as pointparticles, no creation and destruction of particles (only couplings), and the virtual particle math scheme is referring to something real. One week ago I actually got suspended for a week on a physics forum because I argued against point particles, the existence preons, the existence of hidden variables, and real existence of virtual particles (which real particles are in fact too, but with related E and p). Low quality contribution. Of course. From the mainstream POV.

So, what is a particle? A particle is a tiny geometrical Planck-sized structure on which charge can safely reside, without leaking out. The extra space dimensions in which it exists are perpendicular to the 3D bulk and this ensures that the Planck length is Lorenz invariant (for which physics still has no answer...). The smallest measurable distance (the Planck length) follows naturally from the particles small extension in space. Within the bounds of the wavefunction (the temporal cross section of a field) the particle just hops around erratically if you propagate it in time. Which is to say it travels on tiny parts of all paths Feynman talks about, coupling to the timeless virtual field to reach others, and being itself a time extended virtual particle with its antiparticle component somewhere in space.

Now if this were so then also real particles would be math. — EugeneW

So this is one of your main divergences from the thinking of the current majority of physicists, yes?

What is an excitation? A field is just a mathematical aid which consists of distributions assigned to all points of spacetime, and these distributions have operators as "value". These operators are creation and annihilation operators. These operators create or annihilate one particle states in so-called Fock-space, a direct product of single particle Hilbert spaces. A free particle field is just a particle with a single momentum state or, when localized, a normalized superposition of a spectrum. In a Feynman diagram, there is one line only and begin and end state have the same momentum. The particle is localized if it has a spectrum of momenta. If it has a well defined position though there are infinite associated momenta, due to uncertainty — EugeneW

But in 3D space is a 'field' not a 'volume,' in that it has 'cubic spacial-expansion?'
This is how I have always perceived the term 'field' as used in physics.
For 'excitation' I conceive the cuboid area as containing liquid like water and I see excitation as a disturbance within the water, like shaking a snow globe.
So not a mathematical aid but a real area of space. I see the 'mathematical aid' part as the conceptual breaking up of space into a 3D grid of contiguous cuboids. So all of space is in reality one big field.
What do you mean by "distributions assigned to all points of spacetime"? what specifically do you mean by 'assigned?' What/who performed such assignment? Do you use the term 'distributed,' as random or is the distribution based on a mathematical function? Are these 'operators' you mention variables/parameters/inputs for a mathematical process?

Ok, these matter/antimatter annihilations seem to me to produce a kind of 'all square' outcome.
The conservation of the total energy of the Universe seems to indicate that this creation/annihalation cycle is much less interesting than the fact that something else happened which created an imbalance within this process and that's why the Universe has galaxies, planets and us.

A free particle field is just a particle with a single momentum state or, when localized, a normalized superposition of a spectrum.

How can a particle BE a field?

The particle is localized if it has a spectrum of momenta. If it has a well defined position though there are infinite associated momenta, due to uncertainty

I think you are typing here, that a particle/quanta/disturbance which forms within a field can move in a particular direction but how fast it will move and exactly which direction it will take and the exact shape of the path (straight, curved etc) will take, is very hard to predict. Is this correct?

no creation and destruction of particles (only couplings) — EugeneW

What do you mean by 'coupling' here?

So, what is a particle? A particle is a tiny geometrical Planck-sized structure on which charge can safely reside, without leaking out. The extra space dimensions in which it exists are perpendicular to the 3D bulk and this ensures that the Planck length is Lorenz invariant (for which physics still has no answer...). The smallest measurable distance (the Planck length) follows naturally from the particles small extension in space. Within the bounds of the wavefunction (the temporal cross section of a field) the particle just hops around erratically if you propagate it in time. Which is to say it travels on tiny parts of all paths Feynman talks about, coupling to the timeless virtual field to reach others, and being itself a time extended virtual particle with its antiparticle component somewhere in space. — EugeneW

So you are saying that the structures that you are calling particles, exist 'outside' of the known 3D of space, yes?

Do You mean 'Perpendicular' to 3D space as in 90 degrees to it? So your 4th spatial dimension is not 'wrapped around' every point of 3D space but is 'perpendicular' to every point in 3D space.
Would this be mathematically represented as a 90 degree direction away from a set of three spatial coordinates (so, dimensionless) and one instant/coordinate of time?
So a position in your space would be (x,y,z,t,90)?

the particle just hops around erratically if you propagate it in time. Which is to say it travels on tiny parts of all paths Feynman talks about,
But what makes it 'hop'? and what do you mean by 'hop'? Are you relating this to the proposed motion of an electron in orbit around a nucleus? A jump from an outer orbit to an orbit closer to the nucleus?
Does your particle jump right or left, then move forward for a time and then jump left or right again?

When you view the image of the hydrogen atom, why do you think the 'electron/cloud orbit' looks like it is made up of many much smaller quanta? and why does some of this quanta seem to 'break into' the 'blue area' between these concentric circular areas?

But what makes it 'hop'? and what do you mean by 'hop'? Are you relating this to the proposed motion of an electron in orbit around a nucleus? A jump from an outer orbit to an orbit closer to the nucleus?
Does your particle jump right or left, then move forward for a time and then jump left or right again — universeness

The particle hops around non-locally, instantaneously. The wavefunction is made of hidden variables. These surround the particle and you could even consider them space itself. These variables determine the evolution of the particle. If the overall velocity of the wavefunction is zero, the particle hops around the center of the wavefunction, like in the lowest energy orbital of hydrogen. If the electron is in a higher energy orbital the orbital has angular velocity, angular momentum. If that orbital decays to the ground state (non-instantaneous, it's no collapse) the electron couples to the virtual field. It is described as the creation of a photon, while the electron decaying to the ground state actually couples to a virtual photon, which breaks up from its circular shape to become an open stretched state which sooner or later can couple to another state and excite that state (say, another electron in hydrogen). After that the photon returns to its virtual state (so it's not absorbed by that electron, but only gave it a real kick).

We were thinking of hydrogen at the same time!

When you view the image of the hydrogen atom, why do you think the 'electron/cloud orbit' looks like it is made up of many much smaller quanta? and why does some of this quanta seem to 'break into' the 'blue area' between these concentric circular areas? — universeness

What quanta?

If the fundamental quanta are in-fact 'field excitements' and have 'no definte edge' and are 'cloud like' etc then does this not open all sorts of other possibilities for whats really happening during experiments like the double slit? Maybe its true that if you do fire a photon, one at a time towards two slits that due to the fact that there are none of its type near it, its cloud like structure spreads out and passes through both slits. This is pure conjecture on my part and I await and expect the suggestion to be quickly dismissed but I just suggest it merely as one of those 'other possibilities' I am trying to percieve. Any others? — universeness

Ah! The photograph of hydrogen. See all the specks? The electron hops constantly between all of them. Within the bounds of the wavefunction. QFT is difficult to use for a bound state. QFT only works for particles that are initially and finally free (asymptotically free). The position and velocity are well defined at all times in this picture of QM.

Most physicists wont agree, like with Bohm. The math shows exactly the same outcomes though. You could e do an experiment though to discern. But it's a though one.

I appreciate that it would take time to answer all the questions I asked you but even yes or no responses would help me understand your position better and any other detail would be a bonus.

The particle hops around non-locally, instantaneously. — EugeneW

To me, 'non-locally' means globally, so do you mean that this particle just spontaneously appears and disappears at ransom positions in your 5D space and that no time passes between hops so time=0 during hops. Does this not suggest that the actual movement occurs within your suggested 4th spatial dimension? and this is why no relative time passes within our experiential 3D space and your particle can traverse 3D space 'instantly,' without breaking the law of c within 3D space?

Surely this makes one of your hidden variables, your 4th spatial dimension?

Again, what do you mean by 'couples to'?

We were thinking of hydrogen at the same time! — EugeneW

Well, the hydrogen atom is in the link in the OP.

What quanta? — EugeneW

Click on the link in the OP, look at the image.

Well, the hydrogen atom is in the link in the OP. — universeness

Yeah, I saw that later...

Ah! The photograph of hydrogen. See all the specks? The electron hops constantly between all of them. Within the bounds of the wavefunction. QFT is difficult to use for a bound state. QFT only works for particles that are initially and finally free (asymptotically free). The position and velocity are well defined at all times in this picture of QM — EugeneW

I think all of the specs together ARE THE ELECTRON. The electron is not a single sphere in orbit around the nucleus. Its a 'smear' or 'cloud' orbiting the sphere, but a cloud or smear of what?

I think all of the specs together ARE THE ELECTRON. The electron is not a single sphere in orbit around the nucleus. Its a 'smear' or 'cloud' orbiting the sphere, but a cloud or smear of what? — universeness

Sorry I meant to type 'orbiting the nucleus' not orbiting the sphere.

I think all of the specs together ARE THE ELECTRON. The electron is not a single sphere in orbit around the nucleus. Its a 'smear' or 'cloud' orbiting the sphere, but a cloud or smear of what? — universeness

How can it be smeared out?

It can look smeared out if it hops like mad from one place to another. Prrrrrr.... hophophophophop..... If you imagine the s orbital, it's not everywhere at once but shortly after another it's here, there, there, making up the wavefunction.

How can it be smeared out? — EugeneW

Ha ha. I was hoping YOU could help ME understand that one.
From my recent reading and from what the physics professor said on Quora, an electron is more accurately described as a cloud and not a sphere. I have also read that the electron orbits a nucleus in a 'smeared' orbit. When looking at recent images or artist impressions of an atom, it looks like there is a lot of support for this 'cloud' or 'smeared' concept. So I assumed that this 'cloud' is a diffuse mass that orbits the nucleus of an atom and its 'smeared out' throughout the expanse of the orbit.

It can look smeared out if it hops like mad from one place to another. Prrrrrr.... hophophophophop..... If you imagine the s orbital, it's not everywhere at once but shortly after another it's here, there, there, making up the wavefunction — EugeneW

As I think about your 'hoping' imagery and this 'cloud' or 'smear' appearance, it sounds to me more like vibrating strings! The cloud/smear/hopping appearance may be the visual consequences in 3D of vibrational strings in 10D.

Yes. The description is allright. But the electron's charge is not pulled into a spherical form. That's why the hopping image is fine. The smeared out thing is the wavefunction. Electron hops around in it. The space around the nucleus gives a potential. The electron is continuously bound to virtual photons between itself and the proton.

How does this topic and its description relate to philosophy? :chin:

Metaphysica. You can't discuss this on physics fora.

How does this topic and its description relate to philosophy? — Alkis Piskas

I have admitted in the past to being an interloper here Alkis. I am sure you can find a philosophical aspect, relevant to the thread and if you look at the options when choosing a category for a posted thread, one of them is 'Science and Technology,' which is the one I chose. Scientific debate often prods those more focussed on philosophical aspects to muse on their perceived metaphysical aspects of the dialogue.

Metaphysica. — EugeneW

Kismet!

Kis who?

Kis who? — EugeneW

Kismet is just a term that relates to 'destiny' or 'fate' or 'providence' or 'predetermination.
We both seemed to go for 'metaphysics' as an answer to Alkis's complaint.

There are still many questions I asked above you have not answered.
Why won't you tell me what you mean by 'particle coupling,' for example?

Why won't you tell me what you mean by 'particle coupling,' for example? — universeness

The story continues. Let me say this. In a Feynman diagram there is a virtual photon between two charged particles. A wiggly line taking care of both changes in momenta of the charged particles. The vertex is where the coupling happens. The virtual photon gives both particles a push or pull. Then it returns to its solitary timeless state, a closed wiggly line (representing a sole virtual photon, uncoupled). The charge of a particle is a measure of the coupling strength and it's a generator to induce local phase transformations of both electrons. This is how the EM field is introduced, but the electron doesn't generate an EM field, that's misleading. The EM field is always there in virtual form and charge couples to it and can even cause real photons to exist (say during the fall to a lower orbital in hydrogen; during inflation, real photons can be pulled out of their virtual state without charge).

Metaphysica. You can't discuss this on physics fora. — EugeneW

If you think that questions like whether "the fundamental quanta are in-fact 'field excitements' and have 'no definte edge' and are 'cloud like' etc." are abstract ideas and belong to metaphysics, it's fine with me. :smile:

questions like whether "the fundamental quanta are in-fact 'field excitements' and have 'no definte edge' and are 'cloud like' etc." are abstract ideas and belong to metaphysics, — Alkis Piskas

I couldn't agree less! That's why I find it rather strange that these concepts are seen as physical reality. :smile:

I have admitted in the past to being an interloper here Alkis. I — universeness

I had to look up "interloper" ... I learned a new word today. Thanks! :smile:
I really have no problem with that. If I could say I have a problem --I don't, actually-- it's only with people who do not consider themselves "interlopers", and indeed, they don't look like ones, yet I wonder what they are doing in here! :grin: ... Sometimes, I think of myself as one of them! :grin:

I am sure you can find a philosophical aspect, relevant to the thread — universeness

That could be maybe nice, but, as I often mention, I'm bad in Physics! :smile:

questions like whether "the fundamental quanta are in-fact 'field excitements' and have 'no definte edge' and are 'cloud like' etc." are abstract ideas and belong to metaphysics,
— Alkis Piskas
I couldn't agree less! That's why I find it rather strange that these concepts are seen as physical reality. — EugeneW

I didn't say that. But nice try ... Turning the negative element of my stetement to positive. You should be a journalist! :grin:

That could be maybe nice, but, as I often mention, I'm bad in Physics! — Alkis Piskas

Don't muse about the physics, comment on the concept/persistence/gnawing of human imagination. When a really intelligent scientists such as Sean Carroll or Carlo Rovelli and many of their contemporaries cannot prove exactly how the Universe works, they turn to their imagination to try to make progress. As do I, even with my very limited physics. Why do I just not accept that I don't know and probably never will in my lifetime?
Why does my Cerebral Cortex pester me with, but why, why WHY?
It seems that many humans just can't accept that 'there is no answer yet,' Why will my imagination not leave me in peace and tell me to just go and have as much mindless fun as I can Alkis, help us!!

On a more serious note, I understand why philosophical purists may be unhappy that those of us who don't prioritise philosophy as 'numero uno' on TPF and we are taking up space in their playground but I hope that we can be seen as a minority who don't take up too much space and we can have our wee exchanges and still make a wee contribution to the 'heavy hitter' philosophical threads as well.