Wednesday, 19 November 2025

Quantum Interaction: Rethinking Exchange in a Relational Field

In standard quantum field theory, interactions are described in terms of particle exchanges: virtual photons mediate electromagnetic forces; gluons bind quarks inside protons and neutrons. These processes are visualised through Feynman diagrams — spacetime pictures where lines meet, split, or merge in localised events.

But while such diagrams are powerful calculational tools, they carry strong metaphysical baggage. They suggest:

  • That particles are discrete things entering and exiting interactions,

  • That interactions are localised events between entities,

  • That fields are passive channels for the exchange of “quantum stuff.”

From a relational perspective, this picture must be radically rethought. Interactions are not exchanges between particles. They are reconfigurations of constraint — shifts in coherence across a structured field of potential.


1. The Myth of Exchange

  • The metaphor of “exchange” implies that something is handed from one particle to another — as if forces are packages thrown across spacetime,

  • But virtual particles do not exist in any classical sense; they are internal terms in a perturbative series,

  • In relational terms, nothing is being exchanged. What changes is the relational structure — a mutual reorganisation of affordance under constraint.


2. No Independent Actors

  • In conventional QFT, interacting particles are treated as separate entities brought together in a vertex,

  • But if individuation is perspectival, then what we see as multiple particles is just a cut in a deeper coherence,

  • Interactions are not collisions of actors; they are folds in relation — zones where construal shifts due to mutual modulation of potential.


3. Diagram as Cut, Not Process

  • A Feynman diagram is not a literal depiction of a process unfolding in time. It is a formal cut: a construal of contribution to amplitude,

  • The lines do not track things moving through space. They encode constraints on the resolution of the field, given certain boundary conditions,

  • The diagram is not a picture of reality; it is a map of possible transitions, under selected approximations.


4. Interaction as Coherence Reorganisation

  • What we call an “interaction” is a redistribution of coherence across the field,

  • It occurs not between objects, but within a relational topology — a reweaving of potential that gives rise to observable outcomes,

  • The field doesn’t mediate force. It structures transition: it shapes how and when one configuration gives way to another.


5. Locality Revisited

  • Standard quantum field theory preserves micro-causality — the principle that field operators commute outside the light cone,

  • But experiments (e.g. Bell tests) show that correlation can outrun local causation. The resolution? Interactions are not localised events between distant points,

  • Instead, they are nonlocal reorganisations of a shared potential — not faster-than-light signalling, but a non-separable field reconfiguring as a whole.


Closing

Quantum interactions are not exchanges of entities, but shifts in the coherence of a relational system. What we observe as “forces” or “collisions” are simply different cuts in a deeper field of constraint — momentary stabilisations of potential into phenomena.

From this perspective, the so-called “virtual” becomes real in a new way: not as ghostly particles in intermediate steps, but as structural tensions within the topology of the field — tensions that shape what can appear, where, and how.

In the next post, we’ll explore how this view reorients our understanding of measurement — not as a detection of pre-existing properties, but as a punctualisation: a constrained construal that draws resolution from a sea of potential.

No comments:

Post a Comment