Quantum field theory (QFT) is the most precise and successful physical theory ever developed. It dispenses with the old notion of particles as primary, replacing them with quantised excitations of underlying fields. In QFT, every particle is a “mode” of a field: electrons are excitations of the electron field; photons, of the electromagnetic field; and so on.
But what are these fields? If we treat them as physical substances filling space, we are back to an object-based metaphysics — only now with continuous media instead of discrete particles. A relational ontology resists this temptation. It does not replace particles with wavy stuff. It rethinks the very status of fields, not as things, but as structured spaces of relational potential.
1. A Field Is Not a Thing That Exists
-
In mainstream QFT, fields are often described as if they “pervade” space — entities that exist everywhere and vibrate in quantised modes,
-
But this imagery inherits assumptions from classical physics: that there is a space, filled with stuff, and that dynamics are changes in the properties of this stuff,
-
From a relational perspective, the field is not a thing, but a system of constraints and interdependencies — a map of how potential actualisation can unfold across spacetime-like structure.
2. Excitation as Local Coherence
-
A particle is not “sitting on” a field like a bump on a rug. It is a temporary coherence within a relational matrix,
-
An “excitation” is not a disturbance of a substance, but a local patterning of affordances — a perspectival resolution in the system’s potential structure,
-
This reframing removes the need for a substance-ontology and replaces it with eventuality as patterned becoming.
3. The Field as a Theory of Instance
-
In relational terms, a field is best understood as a system’s theory of itself — a structure of constraints that delimits what can become, where, and how,
-
A quantum field is not a background. It is a map of coordinated potential, and what we observe are cuts through this potential: coherent transitions we construe as events, particles, or measurements.
4. No Background Space Required
-
If the field is not “in” space, but defines the topology of possible becoming, then space itself is no longer a passive stage,
-
Instead, spacetime is a construal of the relational field: a geometric rendering of how potential coheres under constraint,
-
The field does not sit in space. Space is a perspective on the field — one that emerges from the internal structure of constraint.
5. Ontological Implications
-
We should stop asking “what is the field made of?” — this is a category error. The field is not made of anything,
-
It is a formalisation of relational affordance: a system-level description of how coherence emerges, transforms, and resolves under constraint,
-
The quantum field is not a thing vibrating in space. It is a dynamic web of possibility, actualised locally and temporarily as coherence that we construe as “a particle”.
Closing
To reimagine quantum fields relationally is to stop treating them as invisible substances, and start seeing them as systems of constraint that structure potential becoming. Nothing exists in the field in itself. What we encounter — what we call particles, waves, events — are the traces of coherence that emerge when the field reorganises itself under new conditions.
In the next post, we will explore entanglement from this same perspective — not as a spooky action-at-a-distance, but as a feature of how potential becomes coordinated across a shared relational field.
No comments:
Post a Comment