Re: Fields etc

[James McLean <jmclean@CHEM.UCSD.EDU>]

Apropos to this discussion on the reality of fields is the "Reference
Frame" article in the January '99 Physics Today, entitled "The
Persistence of Ether".  In it , Wilczek argues pretty convincingly that
physics understanding is evolving towards a point where fields are not
only "real", but are more fundamental (more "real"???) than particles.

Jim Green wrote:
> If I ever have the opportunity to talk personally with Prof Feynman, I will
> pin him down on these points.
Jim may actually get his opportunity through this article, or at least a
preview.

"[Feynman] told me that he had been very disappointed when he realized
that his theory of photons and electrons, the method of [...] Feynman
graphs, was mathematically equivalent to the usual quantum
electrodynamics.  He had hoped that [...] he would be avoiding the field
concept, and constructing something essentially new and different."

Finally, I would note that IF you believe in (1) locality, (2) energy
conservation, (3) that energy is a characteristic of something "real",
and (4) that electrons can accelerate without being near any other
particles (as they do in a non-zero E-field), THEN one seems forced to
admit the "reality" of the EM field.  I'd be interested to know which of
these Jim doesn't believe in (or what logical loophole I've missed).

--
--James McLean
jmclean@chem.ucsd.edu
post doc
UC San Diego, Chemistry