0
$\begingroup$

Since it is a strictly physics-related quote i thought this was the best place to ask. It goes something like:

"There are no particles, only fields", to which X replied "there are no fields, but just operators."

Not trying to open a discussion about it's phenomenology, just looking for sources. I remember reading it on the web: either from a paper or a site, so no help there (yes, i've googled any key word and searched every page).

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Quotes like this are merely a low form of wit rather than history itself. It's rather like the notion of how physics can be reduced to a single equation to be printed and promoted on a t-shirt. If this really is the case, then why does it take six to nine years to reach the frontiers of physics where one can begin to do research? If all it takes to learns physics is a single equation then we can all do it, which of course is obviously not the case. It's a con to pretend otherwise. A response to the prompting question is that quantum fields are fields of operators and represented by sections of $\endgroup$
    – Mozibur Ullah
    Aug 30, 2020 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ [continuation of Mozibur Ullah's comment] certain vector bundles. Whilst X seems to be more interested in scientific positivism, that is a form of operationalism. Another apposite reply is the argument presented by Rovelli in his book, Quantum Gravity where he insists on the primacy of fields, and this is because he goes away with space time altogether, considering it to be simply another field and hence, in this picture, reality is 'fields upon fields'. $\endgroup$
    – Danu ♦
    Aug 31, 2020 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ [continuation of Mozibur Ullah's comment] (This reminds me of the parable of the tortoise: An old woman when asked by a young man what did she think the world rested upon, told him it rested upon an a turtle swimming in an ocean. When he then enquired what did that turtle rest upon. She said, 'I can see that you are a tricky young man, but you can't fool me - it's turtles all the way down.') $\endgroup$
    – Danu ♦
    Aug 31, 2020 at 10:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

@Oбжорoв answered this in the PSE: a source is Robert J. Sciamanda, Am. J. Phys. 81, 645 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4812316,

By extending some of Hobson’s ideas, I arrive at the conclusion that in addition to there being no particles, there are not even fields!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Closest thing so far, yet I remembered it to be older. Not being sure, i'll pin your answer if nothing else comes up. Thank you! $\endgroup$
    – modellatore
    Aug 30, 2020 at 21:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.