[geordief (OP)]

That is an uneducated question and I anticipate answers  along the lines of "of course not",

Still the idea of that possibility just occurred to me .Is there /could there be anything to it at all?

[Halc]

That is an uneducated question

And I will give a reply based on my limited education, which is likely not an entirely accurate answer.

First of all, quantum things are not classic things like particles or waves, but sometimes behave like them.

I don't know if there's such a thing as a 'particle field'. Some fundamental things (with or without mass) can be excitations of a field. A photon is an excitation of the EM field and the graviton an excitation of the gravitational field. For a massive example, there's the Higgs boson, being an excitation of the Higgs field. Is there a field for everything fundamental? Not sure, so I'm not going to make stuff up.

[geordief (OP)]

For a massive example, there's the Higgs boson, being an excitation of the Higgs field

Seems to shoot down my idea

[evan_au]

Are possibly all massless particles just travelling waves in particle fields?

Quantum Field Theory views all particles as excitations in a field (including the massless particles).
- But some other particles do have mass, and are also handled by QFT

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Looks like you're talking about QFT again.
There does seem to be a field for every particle in the standard model of particle physics.  There's about 17 of these things.  Depending on how you group these, you need to account for different spins, colour charges etc.  This often brings the total number of fields you need to consider up to 37.
     You asked "Are possibly all massless particles just travelling waves in  particle fields?"
I can say that they aren't in the conventional models of QFT,  every particle (even the massless ones) gets its own field.  However, the more general scope of your question is  "could they be?  Is there some model that would make sense in this way?"   The answer to that is possibly.  I don't know and this probably belongs in the New Theories section.

When Halc said -  "for a massive example....." he didn't mean here's a big example,  he just meant "for a particle with mass, quite a lot of mass in this case".

Here are some lecture notes on QFT that I've started looking at.  They seem reasonable but the choice of alternative lectures is extremely limited anyway.  Well, unless you can physically get to a university and enroll on a suitable course.   "Quantum Field Theory", lectures 1 through 18, by Tobias Osbourne, aimed at post-graduate level study, freely available on You Tube:

If you (anyone) are studying that course, great, you can tell me what's happening and/or if there's a better freely available resource I can use.  Pre-requisites include stuff from Physics degrees which I constantly have to go and find elsewhere.  (I know some Maths but I'm light on classical physics).

If you just want some lighter videos about QFT, well you've seen the one I recommended earlier on another thread.  To be honest, I think that one's the best Pop Sci video on the topic.  There's this one which is OK but it's just information:    "Quantum Field theory visualized" by ScienceClic, also on YouTube.

At about time scale 7:40 in that video they discuss the various fields that each correspond to particles in the standard model.
   
Best wishes.

[geordief (OP)]

Hi.

Looks like you're talking about QFT again.
There does seem to be a field for every particle in the standard model of particle physics.  There's about 17 of these things.  Depending on how you group these, you need to account for different spins, colour charges etc.  This often brings the total number of fields you need to consider up to 37.
     You asked "Are possibly all massless particles just travelling waves in  particle fields?"
I can say that they aren't in the conventional models of QFT,  every particle (even the massless ones) gets its own field.  However, the more general scope of your question is  "could they be?  Is there some model that would make sense in this way?"   The answer to that is possibly.  I don't know and this probably belongs in the New Theories section.

When Halc said -  "for a massive example....." he didn't mean here's a big example,  he just meant "for a particle with mass, quite a lot of mass in this case".

Here are some lecture notes on QFT that I've started looking at.  They seem reasonable but the choice of alternative lectures is extremely limited anyway.  Well, unless you can physically get to a university and enroll on a suitable course.   "Quantum Field Theory", lectures 1 through 18, by Tobias Osbourne, aimed at post-graduate level study, freely available on You Tube:

If you (anyone) are studying that course, great, you can tell me what's happening and/or if there's a better freely available resource I can use.  Pre-requisites include stuff from Physics degrees which I constantly have to go and find elsewhere.  (I know some Maths but I'm light on classical physics).

If you just want some lighter videos about QFT, well you've seen the one I recommended earlier on another thread.  To be honest, I think that one's the best Pop Sci video on the topic.  There's this one which is OK but it's just information:    "Quantum Field theory visualized" by ScienceClic, also on YouTube.

At about time scale 7:40 in that video they discuss the various fields that each correspond to particles in the standard model.
   
Best wishes.

Amazing how it can be possible to begin to appreciate something even though one actually understands practically nothing of it

Thanks for those two videos.Again ,maybe one day I will get some benefit from having seen them.

Who ,I wonder was or were  the  inventors of QFT? Some unholy collaboration,I'd guess.

I didn't realise it could be used to predict scenarios in the real world
I thought  this was ivory tower territory.

I also was not aware that they were trying to bring GR into the fold.....

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

Who ,I wonder was or were  the  inventors of WFT? Some unholy collaboration,I'd guess.

As a successful theoretical framework today, quantum field theory emerged from the work of generations of theoretical physicists spanning much of the 20th century....

[taken from the wikipedia link given earlier by evan_au]

     So, yes, it seems to be a collaboration of a great many.  I think most good models in Physics are like this.  I know that Pop Sci articles frequently attribute great strides to individuals, such as Relativity and Einstein, but in reality there's always a chain of work that leads to that development.  Einstein would not have written down his theory of relativity without a primary school teacher who taught him how to read and write.  More directly, there were Mathematician's like Minkowski that contributed major pieces to the theory of relativity.
     No modern day physicist can do their thing without farmers working in the fields to bring in the physicist's share of food.  It's all a collaborative effort.

Best wishes.

[Colin2B]

Who ,I wonder was or were  the  inventors of QFT? Some unholy collaboration,I'd guess.

If science were a religion then this would be a holy collaboration.
In fact as ES says it has been a progressive development over many years, starting as far back as the 1920s. What is now QFT is the modelling that underlies what we call the standard model so you will find that it is built on the work of some very famous names, each contributing a part, and some of those parts are famous in their own right eg QED. That’s how science often works.

I didn't realise it could be used to predict scenarios in the real world
I thought  this was ivory tower territory.

Although often called theoretical physics, much of the theory is in response to the results of experiments. If the theory didn’t fit the experimental results and predict accurately, it would be discarded or changed; and that really is how science works.
It’s worth repeating what has been said, that the current theory is very successful at predictions.

I think by particle fields you may have meant multiple fields, which is correct and as ES says, each particle has its own field. The reason for this is that each particle (the interaction we detect) has its own set of properties so if you are going to describe them and their interactions using a field model then each model will have its own set of properties and the particle will be a quantum of that field.

Waves? The field model supersedes the old idea of wave particle duality (which is still used for elementary teaching) and gets over questions like which slit did the photon go through. However, particles have wave properties and this has been demonstrated for those with mass as well as massless eg electrons. The quantum objects we describe as particles have wave properties (eg they interfere) and particle properties (eg mass or momentum) but they are neither. It’s important to remember that these are models and it is important not to assign a classical reality to them. However, if it helps you to imagine them as waves there is little harm as long as you bear in mind what Stephen Hawking said about virtual particles “just don’t take them too literally”.

[Eternal Student]

Hi Colin2B.
   Never mind the Physics.  How did your sailing go?  and what is wrong with you taking a WiFi device along?
- - - - - -
To everyone,
    I'm serious about taking advice for learning about QFT.  If anyone has a recommendation for a book or other resource, I'd be grateful.  General idea:  I can't actually travel to a University and enroll in a course at the moment so please don't recommend a place a study (unless it's distance learning).

Best Wishes.

[Colin2B]

Hi Colin2B.
   Never mind the Physics.  How did your sailing go? 

Whoa there! Sailing is physics. Vectors, venturi, wing stall speed, drag, etc; not to mention meterology, oceanography, wave/wind dynamics etc.
Been good sailing, but yesterday was gusts of gale force and although it’s ok if caught out in it, it’s not first choice, so walking boots on.

To everyone,
    I'm serious about taking advice for learning about QFT.  If anyone has a recommendation for a book or other resource, I'd be grateful.  General idea:  I can't actually travel to a University and enroll in a course at the moment so please don't recommend a place a study (unless it's distance learning).

Sorry, I missed your video post when replying to @geordief 
The Tobias Osbourne lecture starts by mentioning 2 people I always recommend. I’ve sat in on David’s lectures to update and Sidney Coleman is a legend in this area. Lots to keep you busy there.

@geordief  did you take up Pete’s offer of maths lessons, if so, how far did you get?
I don’t think it’s worth you studying the technical detail of QFT unless you really intended to use it, and it will be an uphill struggle. Just take all the Popsci articles and videos with a pinch of salt ie don’t take them literally.

[geordief (OP)]

@geordief  did you take up Pete’s offer of maths lessons, if so, how far did you get?
I don’t think it’s worth you studying the technical detail of QFT unless you really intended to use it, and it will be an uphill struggle. Just take all the Popsci articles and videos with a pinch of salt ie don’t take them literally

Well,I think Pete's website had gone very quiet by the time he invited me to join.
In addition my powers of learning "actual stuff" are now at a very low ebb  and I have to rely on crumbs that fall from the table of those who are able to study the nuts and bolts of the various subjects. for  him
Sorry to learn that Pete died.I hope it was not too difficult towards the end.

[Colin2B]

Sorry to learn that Pete died.I hope it was not too difficult towards the end.

Yes very sad. I heard via Alan Guth who was a really good friend and gave him a lot of support. He always had difficulty with pain management and that made him very irritable at times, but I count him as a friend who contributed a lot and will be missed.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.
This sounds awful  @geordief  and @Colin2B.  I am very sorry.

[yor_on]

Ouch, didn't know he had passed away. He was good for both TNS and us. Learnt some nice things from his thoughts on relativity. And will miss his input.

[yor_on]

As for treating it as particles or waves you have three choices as it seems to me. Waves, particles, or both, a 'duality'. Fields are an idea that covers the last one as I read it. But I've read physicists discussing it from a pure particle view too, although not recently.