There Are No Particles, There Are Only QM Fields - Art Hobson

There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobson

Citation: Am. J. Phys. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885
View Table of Contents: http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/AJPAS/v81/i3
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Related Articles
Perimeter nstitute for Theoretical Physics director and theoretical physicist Neil Turok's 2012 CBC Massey
Lecture videos, "The Universe Within: From Quantum to Cosmos, itunes.apple.com/ca/album/cbc-massey-
lectures-2012-by/id577245484
Phys. Teach. 51, 190 (2013)
Transmission resonances and Bloch states for a periodic array of delta function potentials
Am. J. Phys. 81, 190 (2013)
Wave transmission through periodic, quasiperiodic, and random one-dimensional finite lattices
Am. J. Phys. 81, 104 (2013)
Re-examining the value of old quantization and the Bohr atom approach
Am. J. Phys. 81, 92 (2013)
Conductance quantization: A laboratory experiment in a senior-level nanoscale science and technology course
Am. J. Phys. 81, 14 (2013)

Additional information on Am. J. Phys.
Journal Homepage: http://ajp.aapt.org/
Journal nformation: http://ajp.aapt.org/about/about_the_journal
Top downloads: http://ajp.aapt.org/most_downloaded
nformation for Authors: http://ajp.dickinson.edu/Contributors/contGennfo.html
Downloaded 07 Mar 2013 to 130.184.202.223. Redistribution subject to AAPT license or copyright; see http://ajp.aapt.org/authors/copyright_permission
There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobson
a)
Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
(Received 18 April 2012; accepted 15 January 2013)
Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it
should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents
elds or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply that unbounded elds, not
bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that
its also true of nonrelativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from elds. Thus, the
Schrodinger eld is a space-lling physical eld whose value at any spatial point is the probability
amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point. The eld for an electron is the electron; each
electron extends over both slits in the two-slit experiment and spreads over the entire pattern; and
quantum physics is about interactions of microscopic systems with the macroscopic world rather
than just about measurements. Its important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a
particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among
students and pseudoscience among the public. This article reviews classical and quantum elds,
the two-slit experiment, rigorous theorems showing particles are inconsistent with relativistic
quantum theory, and several phenomena showing particles are incompatible with quantum eld
theories. VC
2013 American Association of Physics Teachers.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885]
I. INTRODUCTION
Physicists are still unable to reach consensus on the princi-
ples or meaning of sciences most fundamental and accurate
theory, quantum physics. An embarrassment of enigmas
abounds concerning wave-particle duality, measurement,
nonlocality, superpositions, uncertainty, and the meaning of
quantum states.
1
After more than a century of quantum his-
tory, this is scandalous.
2,3
Its not only an academic matter. This confusion has
huge real-life implications. In a world that cries out for gen-
eral scientic literacy,
4
quantum-inspired pseudoscience has
become dangerous to science and society. What the Bleep
Do We Know, a popular 2004 lm, won several lm awards
and grossed $10 million; its central tenet is that we create
our own reality through consciousness and quantum
mechanics. It features physicists saying things like The
material world around us is nothing but possible movements
of consciousness, it purports to show how thoughts change
the structure of ice crystals, and it interviews a 35,000 year-
old spirit channeled by a psychic.
5
Quantum mysticism
ostensibly provides a basis for mind-over-matter claims
from ESP to alternative medicine, and provides intellectual
support for the postmodern assertion that science has no
claim on objective reality.
6
According to the popular televi-
sion physician Deepak Chopra, quantum healing can cure
all our ills by the application of mental power.
7
Chopras
book Ageless Body, Timeless Mind, a New York Times
Bestseller that sold over two million copies worldwide, is
subtitled The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old.
8
Quan-
tum Enigma, a highly advertised book from Oxford Univer-
sity Press thats used as a textbook in liberal arts physics
courses at the University of California and elsewhere, bears
the sub-title Physics Encounters Consciousness.
9
It is
indeed scandalous when librarians and book store managers
wonder whether to shelve a book under quantum physics,
religion, or new age. For further documentation of this
point, see the Wikipedia article Quantum mysticism and
references therein.
Here, Ill discuss just one fundamental quantum issue:
eld-particle (or wave-particle) duality. More precisely, this
paper answers the following question: Based on standard
nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum physics, do experi-
ment and theory lead us to conclude that the universe is ulti-
mately made of elds, or particles, or both, or neither? There
are other embarrassing quantum enigmas, especially the
measurement problem, as well as the ultimate ontology (i.e.,
reality) implied by quantum physics. This paper studies only
eld-particle duality. In particular, it is neutral on the inter-
pretations (e.g., many worlds) and modications (e.g., hid-
den variables, objective collapse theories) designed to
resolve the measurement problem.
Many textbooks and physicists apparently dont realize
that a strong case, supported by leading quantum eld theo-
rists, for a pure elds view has developed during the past
three decades.
1017
Three popular books are arguments for
an all-elds perspective.
1820
I have argued the advantages
of teaching nonrelativistic quantum physics (NRQP, or
quantum mechanics) from an all-elds perspective;
21
my
conceptual physics textbook for non-science college students
assumes this viewpoint.
22
There is plenty of evidence today for physicists to come to
a consensus supporting an all-elds view. Such a consensus
would make it easier to resolve other quantum issues. But
elds-versus-particles is still alive and kicking, as you can
see by noting that quantum eld theory (QFT) and
particle physics are interchangeable names for the same
discipline! And theres a huge gap between the views of
leading quantum physicists on the one hand; (Refs. 1018)
and virtually every quantum physics textbook on the other
hand.
Physicists are schizophrenic about elds and particles. At
the high-energy end, most quantum eld theorists agree for
good reasons (Secs. III, V, and VI) that relativistic quantum
physics is about elds and that electrons, photons, and so forth
are merely excitations (waves) in the fundamental elds. But at
the low-energy end, most NRQP education and popular talk is
about particles. Working physicists, teachers, and NRQP
211 Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013 http://aapt.org/ajp VC
2013 American Association of Physics Teachers 211
textbooks treat electrons, photons, protons, atoms, etc. as par-
ticles that exhibit paradoxical behavior. Yet NRQP is the non-
relativistic limit of the broader relativistic theory, namely QFT,
which for all the world appears to be about elds. If QFT is
about elds, how can its restriction to nonrelativistic phenom-
ena be about particles? Do innitely extended elds turn into
bounded particles as the energy drops?
As an example of the eld/particle confusion, the two-slit
experiment is often considered paradoxical, and it is a para-
dox if one assumes that the universe is made of particles. For
Richard Feynman, this paradox was unavoidable. Feynman
was a particles guy. As Frank Wilczek put it, uniquely (so
far as I know) among physicists of high stature, Feynman
hoped to remove eld-particle dualism by getting rid of the
elds.
16
As a preface to his lecture about this experiment,
Feynman advised his students,
Do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that
you really have to understand in terms of some
model what I am going to describe, but just relax
and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature
behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe
she does behave like this, you will find her a
delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to
yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can
it be like that? because you will get down the
drain, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet
escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.
23
There are many interpretational difculties with the two-
slit experiment, and Im not going to solve all of them here.
But the puzzle of wave-particle duality in this experiment
can be resolved by switching to an all-elds perspective
(Sec. IV).
Physics education is affected directly, and scientic liter-
acy indirectly, by what textbooks say about wave-particle
duality and related topics. To nd out what textbooks say, I
perused the 36 textbooks in my universitys library having
the words quantum mechanics in their title and published
after 1989. Of these, 30 implied a universe made of particles
that sometimes act like elds, 6 implied the fundamental
constituents behaved sometimes like particles and sometimes
like elds, and none viewed the universe as made of elds
that sometimes appear to be particles. Yet the leading quan-
tum eld theorists argue explicitly for the latter view (Refs.
1018). Somethings amiss here.
The purpose of this paper is to assemble the strands of the
elds-versus-particles discussion in order to hasten a consen-
sus that will resolve the wave-particle paradoxes while
bringing the conceptual structure of quantum physics into
agreement with the requirements of special relativity and the
views of leading quantum eld theorists. Section II argues
that Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein viewed classical elec-
tromagnetism as a eld phenomenon. Section III argues that
quantum eld theory developed from classical electrodynam-
ics and then extended the quantized eld notion to matter.
Quantization introduced certain particle-like characteristics,
namely, individual quanta that could be counted, but the
theory describes these quanta as extended disturbances in
space-lling elds. Section IV analyzes the two-slit experi-
ment to illustrate the necessity for an all-elds view of
NRQP. The phenomena and the theory lead to paradoxes if
interpreted in terms of particles but are comprehensible in
terms of elds. Section V presents a rigorous theorem due to
Hegerfeldt showing that, even if we assume a very broad
denition of particle (namely, that a particle should extend
over only a nite, not innite, region), particles contradict
relativistic quantum physics. Section VI argues that quan-
tized elds imply a quantum vacuum that contradicts an all-
particles view while conrming the eld view. Furthermore,
two vacuum effectsthe Unruh effect and single-quantum
nonlocalityimply a eld view. Thus, many lines of reason-
ing contradict the particles view and conrm the eld view.
Section VII summarizes the conclusions.
II. A HISTORY OF CLASSICAL FIELDS
Fields are one of physics most plausible notions, arguably
more intuitively credible than point-like particles drifting in
empty space. Its perhaps surprising that, despite the com-
plete absence of elds from Isaac Newtons Principia
(1687), Newtons intuition told him the universe is lled
with elds. In an exchange of letters with Reverend Richard
Bentley explaining the Principia in non-scientists language,
Newton wrote:
It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter
should, without the mediation of something else
which is not material, operate upon and affect other
matter without mutual contact That gravity should
be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that
one body may act upon another at a distance through
a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by
and through which their action and force may be
conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity that I believe no man who has in
philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking
can ever fall into it.
24
But Newton couldnt nd empirical evidence to support a
causal explanation of gravity, and any explanation remained
purely hypothetical. When writing or speaking of a possible
underlying mechanism for gravity, he chose to remain silent,
rmly maintaining I do not feign hypotheses (Ref. 18,
p. 138). Thus, it was generally accepted by the beginning of
the 19th century that a fundamental physical theory would
contain equations for direct forces-at-a-distance between tiny
indestructible atoms moving through empty space. Before
long, however, electromagnetism and relativity would shift
the emphasis from action-at-a-distance to elds.
The shift was largely due to Michael Faraday (17911867).
Working about 160 years after Newton, he introduced the
modern concept of elds as properties of space having physi-
cal effects.
25
Faraday argued against action-at-a-distance, pro-
posing instead that interactions occur via space-lling lines
of force and that atoms are mere convergences of these lines
of force. He recognized that a demonstration of non-
instantaneous electromagnetic (EM) interactions would be
fatal to action-at-a-distance because interactions would then
proceed gradually from one body to the next, suggesting that
some physical process occurred in the intervening space. He
saw lines of force as space-lling physical entities that could
move, expand, and contract. He concluded that magnetic lines
of force, in particular, are physical conditions of mere space
(i.e., space containing no material substance). Today this
description of elds as conditions of space is standard.
26
James Clerk Maxwell (18311879) was less visionary,
more Newtonian, and more mathematical than Faraday. By
invoking a mechanical ether that obeyed Newtons laws, he
212 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 81, No. 3, March 2013 Art Hobson 212
brought Faradays conception of continuous transmission of
forces rather than instantaneous action-at-a-distance into the
philosophical framework of Newtonian mechanics. Thus
Faradays lines of force became the state of a material me-
dium, the ether, much as a velocity eld is a state of a ma-
terial uid. He found the correct dynamical eld equations
for EM phenomena, consistent with all known experimental
results. His analysis led to the predictions of (1) a nite
transmission time for EM actions, and (2) light as an EM
eld phenomenon. Both were later spectacularly conrmed.
Despite the success of his equations, and despite the non-
appearance of ether in the actual equations, Maxwell insisted
throughout his life that Newtonian mechanical forces in the
ether produce all electric and magnetic phenomena, a view
that differed crucially from Faradays view of the EM eld
as a state of mere space.
Experimental conrmations of the eld nature of light,
and of a time delay for EM actions, were strong conrma-
tions of the eld view. After all, light certainly seems real.
And a time delay demands the presence of energy in the
intervening space in order to conserve energy. That is, if
energy is emitted here and now, and received there and later,
then where is it in the meantime? Clearly, its in the eld.
27
Faraday and Maxwell created one of historys most telling
changes in our physical worldview: the change from particles
to elds. As Albert Einstein put it, Before Maxwell, Physical
Realitywas thought of as consisting in material particles.
Since Maxwells time, Physical Reality has been thought of
as represented by continuous elds,and not capable of any
mechanical interpretation. This change in the conception of
Reality is the most profound and the most fruitful that physics
has experienced since the time of Newton.
28
As the preceding quotation shows, Einstein supported a
elds are all there is view of classical (but not necessarily
quantum) physics. He put the nal logical touch on classical
elds in his 1905 paper proposing the special theory of relativ-
ity, where he wrote The introduction of a luminiferous
ether will prove to be superuous.
29
For Einstein, there was
no material ether to support light waves. Instead, the
medium for light was space itself. That is, for Einstein, elds
are states or conditions of space. This is the modern view. The
implication of special relativity (SR) that energy has inertia
further reinforces both Einsteins rejection of the ether and the
signicance of elds. Since elds have energy, they have iner-
tia and should be considered substance like themselves
rather than simply states of some substance such as ether.
The general theory of relativity (1916) resolves Newtons
dilemma concerning the absurdity of gravitational action-
at-a-distance. According to general relativity, the universe is
full of gravitational elds, and physical processes associated
with this eld occur even in space that is free from matter and
EM elds. Einsteins eld equations of general relativity are
R
lv
x 1=2g
lv
xRx T
lv
x; (1)
where x represents space-time points, l and run over the
four dimensions, g
l
(x) is the metric tensor eld, R
l
(x) and
R(x) are dened in terms of g
l
(x), and T
l
(x) is the energy-
momentum tensor of matter. These eld (because they hold
at every x) equations relate the geometry of space-time (left-
hand side) to the energy and momentum of matter (right-
hand side). The gravitational eld is described solely by the
metric tensor g
l
(x). Einstein referred to the left-hand side of
Eq. (1) as a palace of gold because it represents a condition
of space-time and to the right-hand side as a hovel of wood
because it represents a condition of matter.
Thus by 1915 classical physics described all known forces
in terms of eldsconditions of spaceand Einstein
expressed dissatisfaction that matter couldnt be described in
the same way.
III. A HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF QUANTUM
FIELDS
From the early Greek and Roman atomists to Newton to sci-
entists such as Dalton, Robert Brown, and Rutherford, the mi-
croscopic view of matter was always dominated by particles.
Thus, the nonrelativistic quantum physics of matter that devel-
oped in the mid-1920s was couched in particle language, and
quantum physics was called quantum mechanics in analogy
with the Newtonian mechanics of indestructible particles in
empty space.
30
But ironically, the central equation of the quan-
tum physics of matter, the Schrodinger equation, is a eld
equation. Rather than an obvious recipe for particle motion, it
appears to describe a time-dependent eld W(x,t) throughout a
spatial region. Nevertheless, this eld picked up a particle
interpretation when Max Born proposed that W(x
0
,t) is the
probability amplitude that, upon measurement at time t, the
presumed particle will be found at the point x
0
. Another sug-
gestion, still in accord with the Copenhagen interpretation but
less conning, would be that W(x
0
,t) is the probability ampli-
tude for an interaction to occur at x
0
. This preserves the Born
rule while allowing either a eld or particle interpretation.
In the late 1920s, physicists sought a relativistic theory that
incorporated quantum principles. EM elds were not
described by the nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation; they
spread at the speed of light, so any quantum theory of them
must be relativistic. Such a theory must also describe emission
(creation) and absorption (destruction) of radiation. Further-
more, NRQP says energy spontaneously uctuates, and SR
(Emc
2
) says matter can be created from non-material forms
of energy, so a relativistic quantum theory must describe crea-
tion and destruction of matter. Schrodingers equation needed
to be generalized to include such phenomena. QFTs, described
in the remainder of this section, arose from these efforts.
A. Quantized radiation fields
How can any physicist look at radio or microwave anten-
nas and believe they were meant to capture particles?
31
Its
implausible that EM signals transmit from antenna to
antenna by emitting and absorbing particles; how do anten-
nas launch or catch particles? In fact, how do signals
propagate? Instantaneous transmission is ruled out by the
evidence. Delayed transmission by direct action-at-a-dis-
tance without an intervening medium has been tried in theory
and found wanting.
32
The 19th-century answer was that
transmission occurs via the EM eld. Quantum physics pre-
serves this notion, while quantizing the eld. The eld
itself remains continuous, lling all space.
The rst task in developing a relativistic quantum theory
was to describe EM radiationan inherently relativistic phe-
nomenonin a quantum fashion. So its not surprising that
QFT began with a quantum theory of radiation.
3335
This
problem was greatly simplied by the Lorentz covariance of
Maxwells equations: they satisfy SR by taking the same
form in every inertial reference frame. Maxwell was lucky,
or brilliant, in this regard.
A straightforward approach to the quantization of the
free (no source charges or currents) EM eld begins with
the classical vector potential eld A(x,t) from which we can
calculate E(x,t) and B(x,t).
36
Expanding this eld in the set
of spatial elds exp(6ik x) (orthonormalized in the delta-
function sense for large spatial volumes) for each vector k
having positive components, we write
Ax; t
X
k
ak; t expik x a
k; texpik x:
(2)
The eld equation for A(x,t) then implies that each coefcient
a(k,t) satises a classical harmonic oscillator equation. One
regards these equations as the equations of motion for a me-
chanical system having an innite number of degrees of free-
dom, and quantizes this classical mechanical system by
assuming the a(k,t) are operators a
op
(k,t) satisfying appropriate
commutation relations and the a*(k,t) are their adjoints. The
result is that Eq. (2) becomes a vector operator-valued eld,
A
op
x; t
X
k
a
op
k; texpik xa
op
k; texpik x;
(3)
in which the amplitudes a*
op
(k,t) and a
op
(k,t) of the kth
eld mode satisfy the Heisenberg equations of motion (in
which the time dependence resides in the operators while the
systems quantum state jWi remains xed) for a set of quan-
tum harmonic oscillators. For bosons, one can show that
a*
op
and a
op
are the familiar raising and lowering operators
from the harmonic oscillator problem in NRQP, satisfying
the same commutation relation. Hence, A
op
(x,t) is now an
operator-valued eld whose dynamics obey quantum
physics. Since the classical eld obeyed SR, the quantized
eld satises quantum physics and SR.
Thus, as in the harmonic oscillator problem, the kth mode
has an innite discrete energy spectrum hf
k
(N
k
1/2) with
N
k
0, 1, 2,, where f
k
cjkj/2p is the modes frequency.
37
As Max Planck had hypothesized, the energy of a single
mode has an innite spectrum of discrete possible values
separated by DEhf
k
. The integer N
k
is the number of
Plancks energy bundles or quanta in the kth mode. Each
quantum is called an excitation of the eld, because its
energy hf
k
represents additional eld energy. EM eld
quanta are called photons, from the Greek word for light.
A distinctly quantum aspect is that, even in the vacuum state
where N
k
0, each mode has energy hf
k
/2. This is because
the individual modes act like quantum harmonic oscillators,
and these must have energy even in the ground state because
of the uncertainty principle. Another quantum aspect is that
EM radiation is digitized into discrete quanta of energy hf.
You cant have a fraction of a quantum.
Because it denes an operator for every point x throughout
space, the operator-valued eld Eq. (3) is properly called a
eld. Note that, unlike the NRQP case, x is not an operator
but rather a parameter, putting x on an equal footing with t
as bets a relativistic theory. For example, we can speak of
the expectation value of the eld A
op
at x and t, but we can-
not speak of the expectation value of x because x is not an
observable. This is because elds are inherently extended in
space and dont have specic positions.
But what does the operator eld Eq. (3) operate on? Just
as in NRQP, operators operate on the systems quantum state
jWi. But the Hilbert space for such states cannot have the
same structure as for the single-body Schrodinger equation,
or even its N-body analog, because N must be allowed to
vary in order to describe creation and destruction of quanta.
So the radiation elds quantum states exist in a Hilbert
space of variable N, called Fock space. Fock space is the
(direct) sum of N-body Hilbert spaces for N0, 1, 2, 3,
Each component N-body Hilbert space is the properly sym-
metrized (for bosons or fermions) product of N single-body
Hilbert spaces. Each normalized component has its own
complex amplitude, and the full state jWi is (in general) a
superposition of states having different numbers of quanta.
An important feature of QFT is the existence of a vacuum
state j0i, a unit vector in Fock space (which must not be con-
fused with the zero vector, whose length is zero), having no
quanta (N
k
0 for all k). Each modes vacuum state has
energy hf
k
/2. The vacuum state manifests itself experimentally
in many ways, which would be curious if particles were really
fundamental because there are no particles (quanta) in this
state. Well expand on this particular argument in Sect. VI.
The operator eld of Eq. (3), like other observables such as
energy, operates on jWi, creating and destroying photons. For
example, the expected value of the vector potential is a vector-
valued relativistic eld A(x,t) hA
op
(x,t)i hWjA
op
(x,t) jWi,
an expression in which A
op
(x,t) operates on jWi. We see again
that A
op
(x,t) is actually a physically meaningful eld because
it has a physically measurable expectation value at every point
x throughout a region of space. So a classical eld that is quan-
tized does not cease to be a eld.
Some authors conclude, incorrectly, that the countability
of quanta implies a particle interpretation of the quantized
system.
38
Discreteness is a necessary but not sufcient condi-
tion for particles. Quanta are countable, but they are spatially
extended and certainly not particles. Equation (3) implies
that a single modes spatial dependence is sinusoidal and lls
all space, so that adding a monochromatic quantum to a eld
uniformly increases the entire elds energy (uniformly dis-
tributed throughout all space!) by hf. This is nothing like
adding a particle. Quanta that are superpositions of different
frequencies can be more spatially bunched and in this sense
more localized, but they are always of innite extent. So its
hard to see how photons could be particles.
Phenomena such as particle tracks in bubble chambers,
and the small spot appearing on a viewing screen when a sin-
gle quantum interacts with the screen, are often cited as evi-
dence that quanta are particles, but these are insufcient
evidence of particles
39,40
(see Sec. IV). In the case of radia-
tion, its especially difcult to argue that the small interac-
tion points are evidence that a particle impacted at that
position because photons never have positionsposition is
not an observable and photons cannot be said to be at or
found at any particular point.
4145
Instead, the spatially
extended radiation eld interacts with the screen in the vicin-
ity of the spot, transferring one quantum of energy to the
screen.
B. Quantized matter fields
QFT puts matter on the same all-elds footing as radia-
tion. This is a big step toward unication. In fact, its a gen-
eral principle of all QFTs that elds are all there is.
1021
For
example the Standard Model, perhaps the most successful
scientic theory of all time, is a QFT. But if elds are all
there is, where do electrons and atoms come from? QFTs
answer is that they are eld quanta, but quanta of matter
elds rather than quanta of force elds.
46
Fields are all there is suggests beginning the quantum
theory of matter from Schrodingers equation, which mathe-
matically is a eld equation similar to Maxwells eld equa-
tions, and quantizing it. But you cant create a relativistic
theory (the main purpose of QFT) this way because
Schrodingers equation is not Lorentz covariant. Dirac
invented, for just this purpose, a covariant generalization of
Schrodingers equation for the eld W(x,t) associated with a
single electron.
47
It incorporates the electrons spin, accounts
for the electrons magnetic moment, and is more accurate
than Schrodingers equation in predicting the hydrogen
atoms spectrum. It, however, has undesirable features such
as the existence of non-physical negative-energy states.
These can be overcome by treating Diracs equation as a
classical eld equation for matter analogous to Maxwells
equations for radiation, and quantizing it in the manner out-
lined in Sec. III A. The resulting quantized matter eld
W
op
(x,t) is called the electron-positron eld. Its an
operator-valued eld operating in the anti-symmetric Fock
space. Thus the non-quantized Dirac equation describes a
matter eld occupying an analogous role in the QFT of mat-
ter to the role of Maxwells equations in the QFT of radia-
tion.
12,45
The quantized theory of electrons comes out
looking similar to the preceding QFT of the EM eld, but
with material quanta and with eld operators that now create
or destroy these quanta in quantum-antiquantum pairs.
36
Its not difcult to show that standard NRQP is a special
case, for nonrelativistic material quanta, of relativistic
QFT.
36
Thus, the Schrodinger eld is the nonrelativistic ver-
sion of the Dirac equations relativistic eld. It follows that
the Schrodinger matter eld, the analog of the classical EM
eld, is a physical, space-lling eld. Just like the Dirac
eld, this eld is the electron.
C. Further properties of quantum fields
Thus the quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation is a
re-formulation of classical electromagnetic theory to account
for quantizationthe bundling of radiation into discrete
quanta. It remains, like the classical theory, a eld theory. The
quantum theory of matter introduces the electron-positron eld
and a new eld equation, the Dirac equation, the analog for
matter of the classical Maxwell eld equations for radiation.
Quantization of the Dirac equation is analogous to quantiza-
tion of Maxwells equations, and the result is the quantized
electron-positron eld. The Schrodinger equation, the nonrela-
tivistic version of the Dirac equation, is thus a eld equation.
There are no particles in any of this; there are only eld
quantaexcitations of spatially extended continuous elds.
For over three decades, the Standard Modela QFThas
been our best theory of the microscopic world. Its clear
from the structure of QFTs (Secs. III A and III B) that they
actually are eld theories, not particle theories in disguise.
Nevertheless, Ill offer further evidence for their eld nature
here and in Secs. V and VI.
Quantum elds have one particle-like property that classi-
cal elds dont have: They are made of countable quanta.
Thus quanta cannot partly vanish but must (like particles) be
entirely and instantly created or destroyed. Quanta carry
energy and momenta and can thus hit like a particle. Fol-
lowing three centuries of particle-oriented Newtonian
physics, its no wonder that it took most of the 20th century
to come to grips with the eld nature of quantum physics.
Were it not for Newtonian preconceptions, quantum
physics might have been recognized as a eld theory by
1926 (Schrodingers equation) or 1927 (QFT). The superpo-
sition principle should have been a dead giveaway: A sum of
quantum states is a quantum state. Such superposition is
characteristic of all linear wave theories and at odds with the
generally nonlinear nature of Newtonian particle physics.
A benet of QFTs is that quanta of a given eld must be
identical because they are all excitations of the same eld,
somewhat as two ripples on the same pond are in many ways
identical. Because a single eld explains the existence and
nature of gazillions of quanta, QFTs represent an enormous
unication. The universal electron-positron eld, for exam-
ple, explains the existence and nature of all electrons and all
positrons.
When a eld changes its energy by a single quantum, it
must do so instantaneously, because a non-instantaneous
change would imply that, partway through the change, the
eld had gained or lost only a fraction of a quantum. Such
fractions are not allowed because energy is quantized. Field
quanta have an all-or-nothing quality. The QFT language of
creation and annihilation of quanta expresses this nicely. A
quantum is a unied entity even though its energy might be
spread out over light yearsa feature that raises issues of
nonlocality intrinsic to the quantum puzzle.
Fields are all there is should be understood literally. For
example, its a common misconception to imagine a tiny par-
ticle imbedded somewhere in the Schrodinger eld. There is
no particle. An electron is its eld.
As is well known, Einstein never fully accepted quantum
physics, and spent the last few decades of his life trying to
explain all phenomena, including quantum phenomena, in
terms of a classical eld theory. Nevertheless, and although
Einstein would not have agreed, it seems to me that QFT
achieves Einsteins dream to regard nature as elds. QFT
promotes the right-hand side of Eq. (1) to eld status. But it
is not yet a palace of gold because Einsteins goal of
explaining all elds entirely in terms of zero-rest-mass elds
such as the gravitational eld has not yet been achieved,
although the QFT of the strong force comes close to this
goal of mass without mass.
13,16,17
IV. THE TWO-SLIT EXPERIMENT
A. Phenomena
Field-particle duality appears most clearly in the context
of the time-honored two-slit experiment, which Feynman
claimed contains the only mystery.
48,49
Figures 1 and 2
show the outcome of the two-slit experiment using a dim
light beam (Fig. 1) and a dim electron beam (Fig. 2) as
sources, with time-lapse photography. The set-up is a source
emitting monochromatic light (Fig. 1)
50
or mono-energetic
electrons (Fig. 2),
51
an opaque screen with two parallel slits,
and a detection screen with which the beam collides. In both
gures, particle-like impacts build up on the detection screen
to form interference patterns. The gures show both eld
aspects (the extended patterns) and particle aspects (the
localized impacts). The similarity between the two gures is
striking and indicates a fundamental similarity between pho-
tons and electrons. Its intuitively hard to believe that one
gure was made by waves and the other by particles.
Consider, rst, the extended pattern. Its easy to explain if
each quantum (photon or electron) is an extended eld that
comes through both slits. But could the pattern arise from
particles? The experiments can be performed using an en-
semble of separately emitted individual quanta, implying
that the results cannot arise from interactions between differ-
ent quanta.
52
Preparation is identical for all the quanta in the
ensemble. Thus, given this particular experimental context
(namely, the two-slit experiment with both slits open, no de-
tector at the slits, and a downstream screen that detects
each ensemble member), each quantum must carry informa-
tion about the entire pattern that appears on the screen (in
order, e.g., to avoid all the nodes). In this sense, each quan-
tum can be said to be spread out over the pattern.
If we close one slit, the pattern shifts to the single-slit pat-
tern behind the open slit, showing no interference. Thus each
quantum carries different information depending on whether
two slits are open or just one.
How does one quantum get information as to how many
slits are open? If a quantum is a eld that is extended over
both slits, theres no problem. But could a particle coming
through just one slit obtain this information by detecting
physical forces from the other, relatively distant, slit? The
effect is the same for photons and electrons, and the experi-
ment has been done with neutrons, atoms, and many molecu-
lar types, making it difcult to imagine gravitational, EM, or
nuclear forces causing such a long-distance force effect.
What more direct evidence could there be that a quantum is
an extended eld? Thus we cannot explain the extended pat-
terns by assuming each quantum is a particle, but we can
explain the patterns by assuming each quantum is a eld.
53
Now consider the particle-like small impact points. We
can obviously explain these if quanta are particles, but can
we explain them with elds? The ashes seen in both gures
are multi-atom events initiated by interactions of a single
quantum with the screen. In Fig. 2, for example, each elec-
tron interacts with a portion of a uorescent lm, creating
some 500 photons; these photons excite a photo cathode,
producing photo-electrons that are then focused into a point
image that is displayed on a TV monitor.
51
This shows that a
quantum can interact locally with atoms, but it doesnt show
that quanta are point particles. A large object (a big balloon,
say) can interact quite locally with another object (a tiny nee-
dle, say). The localization seen in the two gures is charac-
teristic of the detector, which is made of localized atoms,
rather than of the detected quanta. The detection, however,
localizes (collapsesSecs. IVB and IVC) the quantum.
Similar arguments apply to the observation of thin particle
tracks in bubble chambers and other apparent particle detec-
tions. Localization is characteristic of the detection process,
not of the quantum that is being detected.
Thus the interference patterns in Figs. 1 and 2 conrm eld
behavior and rule out particle behavior, while the small inter-
action points neither conrm particle behavior nor rule out
eld behavior. The experiment thus conrms eld behavior.
As Dirac famously put it in connection with experiments of
the two-slit type, The new theory [namely quantum mechan-
ics], which connects the wave function with probabilities for
one photon, gets over the difculty [of explaining the interfer-
ence] by making each photon go partly into each of the two
components. Each photon then interferes only with itself.
54
(The phrases in square brackets are mine, not Diracs.)
Given the extended eld nature of each electron, Fig. 2
also conrms von Neumanns famous collapse postulate:
55
Each electron carries information about the entire pattern and
collapses to a much smaller region upon interaction. Most
textbooks set up a paradox by explicitly or implicitly assum-
ing each quantum to come through one or the other slit, and
then struggle to resolve the paradox. But if each quantum
comes through both slits, theres no paradox.
B. Theory, at the slits
Now assume detectors are at each slit so that a quantum
passing through slit 1 (with slit 2 closed) triggers detector 1,
and similarly for slit 2. Let jw
1
i and jw
2
i, which we assume
form an orthonormal basis for the quantums Hilbert space,
denote the states of a quantum passing through slit 1 with slit
2 closed, and through slit 2 with slit 1 closed, respectively.
We assume, with von Neumann, that the detector also obeys
quantum physics, with jreadyi denoting the ready state of
the detectors, and j1i and j2i denoting the clicked states of
each detector. Then the evolution of the composite quan-
tumdetector system, when the quantum passes through slit
i alone (with the other slit closed), is of the form jw
i
i jreadyi
! jw
i
i jii (i 1,2) (assuming, with von Neumann, that these
are ideal processes that dont disturb the state of the
quantum).
56,57
Fig. 1. The two-slit experiment outcome using dim light with time-lapse photography. In successive images, an interference pattern builds up from particle-
like impacts. (Images courtesy of Wolfgang Rueckner, Harvard University Science Center. See Ref. 50.)
With both slits open, the single quantum approaching the
slits is described by a superposition thats extended over
both slits:
jw
1
i jw
2
i=2 jwi: (4)
Linearity of the time evolution implies that the composite
systems evolution during detection at the slits is
jw
1
ijreadyi !jw
1
ij1i jw
2
ij2i=2 jW
slits
i: (5)
The measurement state jW
slits
i involves both spatially dis-
tinguishable detector states jji. It is a Bell state of nonlocal
entanglement between the quantum and the detector (Ref.
57, pp. 29, 32). If the detectors are reliable, there must be
zero probability of nding detector i in the state jii when de-
tector j 6i is in its clicked state jji, so j1i and j2i are orthog-
onal and we assume they are normalized.
Its mathematically convenient to form the pure state den-
sity operator
q
slits
jW
slits
ihW
slits
j; (6)
and to form the reduced density operator for the quantum
alone by tracing over the detector:
q
q slits
Tr
detector
q
slits
jw
1
ihw
1
j jw
2
ihw
2
j=2:
(7)
Equation (7) has a simple interpretation: Even though the
quantum is in the entangled superposition of Eq. (5), the
result of any experiment involving the quantum alone will
come out precisely as though the quantum were in one of the
pure states jw
1
i or jw
2
i with probabilities of 1/2 for each
state.
57
In particular, Eq. (7) predicts that the quantum does
not interfere with itself, i.e., there are no interferences
between jw
1
i and jw
2
i. This of course agrees with observa-
tion: When detectors provide which path information, the
interference pattern (i.e., the evidence that the quantum
came through both slits) vanishes. The quantum is said to
decohere
57
or collapse to a single slit.
To clearly see the eld nature of the measurement, sup-
pose there is a which slit detector only at slit 1 with no de-
tector at slit 2. Then jw
i
i jreadyi ! jw
i
i jii holds only for
i 1, while for i 2 we have jw
2
i jreadyi ! jw
2
i jreadyi.
The previous analysis still holds, provided the clicked state
j1i is orthogonal to the unclicked state jreadyi (i.e., if the
two states are distinguishable with probability 1). The super-
position Eq. (4) evolves just as before, and Eq. (7) still
describes the quantum alone just after measurement. So the
experiment is unchanged by removal of one slit detector.
Even though there is no detector at slit 2, when the quantum
comes through slit 2 it still encodes the presence of a detec-
tor at slit 1. This behavior is nonlocal, and it tells us that the
quantum extends over both slits, i.e., the quantum is a eld,
not a particle.
Thus the experiment (Sec. IVA) and the theory both imply
that each quantum comes through both slits when both slits
are open with no detectors, but through one slit when there is
a detector at either slit, just as we expect a eld (but not a
particle) to do.
Fig. 2. The two-slit experiment outcome using a dim electron beam with
time-lapse photography. As in Fig. 1, an interference pattern builds up
from particle-like impacts (Reprinted with permission from A. Tonomura,
J. Endo, T. Matsuda, T. Kawasaki, and H. Exawa, Am. J. Phys. 57(2),
117120 (1989).Copyright # 1989 American Association of Physics
Teachers)
C. Theory, at the detecting screen
Well see that the above analysis at the slits carries over at
the detecting screen, with the screen acting as detector.
The screen is an array of small but macroscopic detectors
such as single photographic grains. Suppose one quantum
described by Eq. (4) passes through the slits and approaches
the screen. Expanding in position eigenstates, just before
interacting with the screen the quantums state is
jwi
jxidxhxjwi
jxiwxdx; (8)
where the integral is over the two-dimensional screen, and
w(x) is the Schrodinger eld. Equation (8) is a (continuous)
superposition over position eigenstates, just as Eq. (4) is a
(discrete) superposition over slit eigenstates. Both superposi-
tions are extended elds.
Rewriting Eq. (8) in a form that displays the quantums
superposition over the non-overlapping detection regions,
jwi
X
i
i
jxiwxdx
X
i
A
i
jw
i
i; (9)
where jw
i
i (1/A
i
)
i
jxi w(x)dx and A
i
[
i
jw(x)j
2
dx]
1/2
.
The detection regions are labeled by i and the jw
i
i form an
orthonormal set. Equation (9) is analogous to Eq. (4).
The detection process at the screen is represented by the
analog of Eq. (5):
jwijreadyi !
X
i
A
i
jw
i
ijii jW
screen
i; (10)
where jii represents the clicked state of the ith detecting
region, whose output can be either detection or no
detection of the quantum. Localization occurs at the time of
this click. Each region i responds by interacting or not inter-
acting, with just one region registering an interaction
because a quantum must give up all, or none, of its energy.
As well see in Sec. VI C, these other sections of the screen
actually register the vacuuma physical state that can entan-
gle nonlocally with the registered quantum. The nonlocality
inherent in the entangled superposition state jW
screen
i has
been veried by Bell-type measurements (Sec. VI C). As
was the case for detection at the slits (Eq. (5)), Eq. (10) rep-
resents the mechanism by which the macro world registers
the quantums impact on the screen.
The argument from Eq. (10) goes through precisely like
the argument from Eq. (5) to Eq. (7). The result is that,
assuming the states jii are reliable detectors, the reduced
density operator for the quantum alone is
q
q screen

X
i
jw
i
iA
2
i
hw
i
j: (11)
Equation (11) tells us that the quantum is registered either in
region 1 or region 2 or Its this all or nothing nature of
quantum interactions, rather than any presumed particle na-
ture of quanta, that produces the particle-like interaction
regions in Figures 1 and 2.
In summary, only spatial elds must be postulated to
form the fundamental objects to be quantized,.while apparent
particles are a mere consequence of decoherence (i.e., of
localization by the detection process).
58
V. RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM PHYSICS
NRQP (Sec. IV) is not the best basis for analyzing eld-
particle duality. The spontaneous energy uctuations of
quantum physics, plus SRs principle of mass-energy equiva-
lence, imply that quanta, be they elds or particles, can be
created or destroyed. Since relativistic quantum physics was
invented largely to deal with such creation and destruction,
one might expect relativistic quantum physics to offer the
deepest insights into elds and particles.
Quantum physics doesnt t easily into a special-
relativistic framework. As one example, we saw in Sec. III A
that photons (relativistic phenomena for sure) cannot be
quantum point particles because they dont have position
eigenstates.
A more striking example is nonlocality, a phenomenon
shown by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen,
59
and more quanti-
tatively by John Bell,
60
to inhere in the quantum foundations.
Using Bells inequality, Aspect, Clauser, and others showed
experimentally that nature is nonlocal and that this would be
true even if quantum physics were not true.
61
The implication
is that, by altering the way she measures one of the quanta in
an experiment involving two entangled quanta, Alice in New
York City can instantly (i.e., in a time too short to allow for
signal propagation) change the outcomes observed when Bob
measures the other quantum in Paris. This sounds like it vio-
lates the special-relativistic prohibition on super-luminal sig-
naling, but quantum physics manages to avoid a contradiction
by camouaging the signal so that Alices measurement
choice is averaged out in the statistics of Bobs observations
in such a way that Bob detects no change in the statistics of
his experiment.
62
Thus Bob receives no signal, even though
nonlocality changes his observed results. Quantum physics
particular mixture of uncertainty and nonlocality preserves
consistency with SR. Its only when Alice and Bob later com-
pare their data that they can spot correlations showing that
Alices change of measurement procedure altered Bobs out-
comes. Quantum physics must thread a ne needle, being
weakly local in order to prevent superluminal signaling but,
in order to allow quantum nonlocality, not strongly local.
62
Quantum eld spreading can transmit information and is lim-
ited by the speed of light, while nonlocal effects are related to
superluminal eld collapse and cannot transmit information
lest they violate SR.
When generalizing NRQP to include such relativistic
quantum phenomena as creation and destruction, conicts
with SR can arise unless one proceeds carefully. Heger-
feldt
63
and Malament
64
have each presented rigorous no-go
theorems demonstrating that, if one assumes a universe con-
taining particles, then the requirements of SR and quantum
physics lead to contradictions. This supports the widespread
(within the physics community) belief that the only relativis-
tic quantum theory is a theory of elds.
65
Neither theorem
assumes QFT. They assume only SR and the general princi-
ples of quantum physics, plus broadly inclusive denitions
of what one means by a particle. Each then derives a con-
tradiction, showing that there can be no particles in any
theory obeying both SR and quantum physics. I will describe
only Hegerfeldts theorem here, because it is the more intui-
tive of the two, and because Malements theorem is more
subject to difculties of interpretation.
Hegerfeldt shows that any free (i.e., not constrained by
boundary conditions or forces to remain for all time within
some nite region) relativistic quantum particle must, if
its localized to a nite region to begin with, instantly have a
positive probability of being found an arbitrarily large dis-
tance away. But this result turns out to violate Einstein cau-
sality (no superluminal signaling). The conclusion is then
that an individual free quantum can nevernot even for a
single instantbe localized to any nite region.
More specically, a presumed particle is said to be
localized at t
o
if it is prepared in such a way as to ensure
that it will upon measurement be found, with probability 1,
to be within some arbitrarily large but nite region V
o
at t
o
.
Hegerfeldt then assumes two conditions: First, the presumed
particle has quantum states that can be represented in a
Hilbert space with unitary time-development operator U
t
exp(iHt), where H is the energy operator. Second, the
particles energy spectrum has a lower bound. The rst con-
dition says that the particle obeys standard quantum dynam-
ics. The second says that the Hamiltonian that drives the
dynamics cannot provide innite energy by itself dropping to
lower and lower energies. Hegerfeldt then proves that a par-
ticle that is localized at t
0
is not localized at any t >t
0
. See
Ref. 63 for the proof. Its remarkable that even localizability
in an arbitrarily large nite region can be so difcult for
a relativistic quantum particle: its probability amplitude
spreads instantly to innity.
Now here is the contradiction: Consider a particle that is
localized within V
0
at t
0
. At any t >t
0
, there is then a nonzero
probability that it will be found at any arbitrarily large dis-
tance away from V
0
. This is not a problem for a nonrelativistic
theory, and in fact such instantaneous spreading of wavefunc-
tions is easy to show in NRQP.
66
But in a relativistic theory,
such instantaneous spreading contradicts relativitys prohibi-
tion on superluminal transport and communication, because it
implies that a particle localized on Earth at t
0
could, with non-
zero probability, be found on the moon an arbitrarily short
time later. We conclude that particles cannot ever be local-
ized. To call a thing a particle when it cannot ever be local-
ized in any nite region is surely a gross misuse of that word.
Because QFTs reject the notion of position observables in
favor of parameterized eld observables (Sec. III), QFTs have
no problem with Hegerfeldts theorem. In QFT the interac-
tions, including creation and destruction, occur at specic
locations x, but the fundamental objects of the theory, namely,
the elds, do not have positions because they are innitely
extended.
Summarizing: even under a broadly inclusive denition of
particle, quantum particles conict with Einstein causality.
VI. THE QUANTUM VACUUM
The Standard Model, a QFT (more precisely two QFTs),
is today the favored way of looking at relativistic quantum
phenomena. In fact, QFT is the only known version of rela-
tivistic quantum theory.
67
Since NRQP can also be
expressed as a QFT,
68
all of quantum physics can be
expressed consistently as QFTs. Weve seen (Sec. V) that
quantum particles conict with SR. This suggests (but
doesnt prove) that QFTs are the only logically consistent
version of relativistic quantum physics.
69
Thus, it appears
that QFTs are the natural language of quantum physics.
Because it has energy and nonvanishing expectation val-
ues, the QFT vacuum is embarrassing for particle interpreta-
tions. If one believes particles to be the basic reality, then
what is it that has this energy and these values in the state that
has no particles?
70
Because it is the source of empirically
veried phenomena such as the Lamb shift, the Casimir
effect, and the electrons anomalous magnetic moment, this
state that has no particles is hard to ignore. This section dis-
cusses QFT vacuum phenomena that are difcult to reconcile
with particles. Section VI A discusses the quantum vacuum
itself. The remaining parts are implications of the quantum
vacuum. The Unruh effect (Sec. VI B), related to Hawking
radiation, has not yet been observed, while single-quantum
nonlocality (Sec. VI C) is experimentally conrmed.
On the other hand, we do not yet really understand the
quantum vacuum. The most telling demonstration of this is
that the most plausible theoretical QFT estimate of the energy
density of the vacuum implies a value of the cosmological
constant that is some 120 orders of magnitude larger than the
upper bound placed on this parameter by astronomical obser-
vations. Possible solutions, such as the anthropic principle,
have been suggested, but these remain speculative.
71
A. The necessity for the quantum vacuum
Both theory and experiment demonstrate that the quan-
tized EM eld can never be sharply (with probability 1)
zero, but rather that there must exist, at every spatial point,
at least a randomly uctuating vacuum eld having no
quanta.
72
Concerning the theory, recall (Sec. III) that a quan-
tized eld is equivalent to a set of oscillators. An actual me-
chanical oscillator cannot be at rest in its ground state
because this would violate the uncertainty principle; its
ground state energy is instead hf/2. Likewise, each eld os-
cillator must have a ground state where it has energy but no
excitations. In the vacuum state, where the number of exci-
tations N
k
is zero for every mode k, the expectation values of
E and B are zero yet the expectation values of E
2
and B
2
are
not zero. Thus the vacuum energy arises from random
vacuum uctuations of E and B around zero.
As a second and more direct argument for the necessity of
EM vacuum energy, consider a charge e of mass m bound by
an elastic restoring force to a large mass of opposite charge.
The equation of motion for the Heisenberg-picture position
operator x(t) has the same form as the corresponding classi-
cal equation, namely
d
2
x=dt
2
x
2
o
x e=mE
rr
t E
o
t: (12)
Here, x
o
is the oscillators natural frequency, E
rr
(t) is the
radiation reaction eld produced by the charged oscillator
itself, E
o
(t) is the external eld, and its assumed that the
spatial dependence of E
o
(t) can be neglected. It can be
shown that the radiation reaction has the same form as the
classical radiation reaction eld for an accelerating charged
particle, E
rr
(t) (2e/3c
3
) d
3
x/dt
3
, so Eq. (12) becomes
d
2
x=dt
2
x
2
o
x 2e
2
=3mc
3
d
3
x=dt
3
e=mE
o
t:
(13)
If the term E
o
(t) were absent, Eq. (13) would become a dissi-
pative equation with x(t) exponentially damped, and commu-
tators like [z(t), p
z
(t)] would approach zero for large t, in
contradiction with the uncertainty principle and in contradic-
tion with the unitary time development of quantum physics
according to which commutators like [z(t), p
z
(t)] are time-
independent. Thus E
o
(t) cannot be absent for quantum
systems. Furthermore, if E
o
(t) is the vacuum eld then com-
mutators like [z(t), p
z
(t)] turn out to be time-independent.
B. The Unruh effect
QFT predicts that an accelerating observer in vacuum sees
quanta that are not there for an inertial observer of the same
vacuum. More concretely, consider Mort who moves at con-
stant velocity in Minkowski space-time, and Velma who is
uniformly accelerating (i.e., her acceleration is unchanging
relative to her instantaneous inertial rest frame). If Mort nds
himself in the quantum vacuum, Velma nds herself bathed
in quantaher particle detector clicks. Quantitatively, she
observes a thermal bath of photons having the Planck radia-
tion spectrum with kT ha/4p
2
c where a is her accelera-
tion.
73
This prediction might be testable in high energy
hadronic collisions, and for electrons in storage rings.
74
In
fact, it appears to have been veried years ago in the
Sokolov-Ternov effect.
75
The Unruh effect lies at the intersection of thermodynam-
ics, QFT, SR, and general relativity. Combined with the
equivalence principle of general relativity, it entails that
strong gravitational elds create thermal radiation. This is
most pronounced near the event horizon of a black hole,
where a stationary (relative to the event horizon) Velma sees
a thermal bath of particles that then fall into the black hole,
but some of which can, under the right circumstances, escape
as Hawking radiation.
76
The Unruh effect is counterintuitive for a particle ontol-
ogy, as it seems to show that the particle concept is observer-
dependent. If particles form the basic reality, how can they
be present for the accelerating Velma but absent for the non-
accelerating Mort who observes the same space-time region?
But if elds are basic, things fall into place: Both experience
the same eld, but Velmas acceleration promotes Morts
vacuum uctuations to the level of thermal uctuations. The
same eld is present for both observers, but an accelerated
observer views it differently.
C. Single-quantum nonlocality
Nonlocality is pervasive, arguably the characteristic quan-
tum phenomenon. It would be surprising, then, if it were
merely an emergent property possessed by two or more
quanta but not by a single quantum.
During the 1927 Solvay Conference, Einstein noted that a
peculiar action-at-a-distance must be assumed to take place
when the Schrodinger eld for a single quantum passes
through a single slit, diffracts in a spherical wave, and strikes
a detection screen. Theoretically, when the interaction local-
izes as a small ash on the screen, the eld instantly vanishes
over the rest of the screen. Supporting de Broglies theory that
supplemented the Schrodinger eld with particles, Einstein
commented if one works only with Schrodinger waves, the
interpretation of psi, I think, contradicts the postulate of rela-
tivity.
77
Since that time, however, the peaceful coexistence
of quantum nonlocality and SR has been demonstrated.
62,67
Its striking that Einsteins 1927 remark anticipated
single-quantum nonlocality in much the same way that
Einsteins EPR paper
59
anticipated nonlocality of two
entangled quanta. Today, single-quantum nonlocality has a
20-year history that further demonstrates nonlocality as well
as the importance of elds in understanding it.
Single-photon nonlocality was rst described in detail
by Tan et al. in 1991.
78
In this suggested experiment, a sin-
gle photon passed through a 50-50 beam-splitting mirror
(the source), with reected and transmitted beams (the
outputs) going, respectively, to Alice and Bob. They
could be any distance apart and were equipped with beam
splitters with phase-sensitive photon detectors.
But nonlocality normally involves two entangled quantum
entities. With just one photon, what was there to entangle
with? If photons are eld mode excitations, the answer is
natural: the entanglement was between two quantized eld
modes, with one of the modes happening to be in its vacuum
state. Like all elds, each mode lls space, making nonlocal-
ity between modes more intuitive than nonlocality between
particles: If a space-lling mode were to instantly change
states, the process would obviously be nonlocal. This high-
lights the importance of thinking of quantum phenomena in
terms of elds.
79
In Tan et al.s suggested experiment, Alices and Bobs
wave vectors were the two entangled modes. According to
QFT, an output beam with no photon is an actual physical
state, namely, the vacuum state j0i. Alices mode having
wave vector k
A
was then in a superposition j1i
A
j0i
A
of hav-
ing a single excitation and having no excitation, Bobs mode
k
B
was in an analogous superposition j1i
B
j0i
B
, and the two
superpositions were entangled by the source beam splitter to
create a two-mode composite system in the nonlocal Bell
state
jwi5j1i
A
j0i
B
j0i
A
j1i
B
(14)
(omitting normalization). Note the analogy with Eq. (5): In
Eq. (14), Alice and Bob act as detectors for each others
superposed quanta, collapsing (decohering) both quanta. This
entangled superposition state emerged from the source; Alice
then detected only mode k
A
and Bob detected only mode k
B
.
Quantum theory predicted that coincidence experiments
would show correlations that violated Bells inequality,
implying nonlocality that cannot be explained classically.
Analogously to Eq. (7), Alices and Bobs reduced density
operators are
q
A
Tr
B
jwihwj j1i
AA
h1j j0i
AA
h0j;
q
B
Tr
A
jwihwj j1i
BB
h1j j0i
BB
h0j:
(15)
Each observer has a perfectly random 50-50 chance of
receiving 0 or 1, a signal containing no information. All
coherence and nonlocality are contained in the composite
state, Eq. (14).
This returns us to Einsteins concerns: In the single-
photon interference experiment (Sec. IV), interaction of the
photon with the screen creates a nonlocal entangled superpo-
sition (Eq. (10)) that is analogous (but with N terms) to Eq.
(14). As Einstein suspected, this state is odd, nonlocal. Vio-
lation of Bells inequality shows that the analogous state of
Eq. (14) is, indeed, nonlocal in a way that cannot be inter-
preted classically.
In 1994, another single-photon experiment was proposed
that would demonstrate nonlocality without Bell inequal-
ities.
80
The 1991 and 1994 proposals triggered extended
debate about whether such experiments really demonstrate
nonlocality involving only one photon.
81
The discussion gen-
erated three papers describing proposed new experiments to
test single-photon nonlocality.
82
One of these proposals was
implemented in 2002, when a single-photon Bell state was
teleported to demonstrate (by the nonlocal teleportation) the
single-photon nonlocality. In this experiment, The role of
the two entangled quantum systems which form the nonlocal
channel is played by the EM elds of Alice and Bob. In other
words, the eld modes rather than the photons associated
with them should be properly taken as the information and
entanglement carriers (italics in the original).
83
There was
also an experimental implementation of a single-photon Bell
test based on the 1991 and 1994 proposals.
84
It was then suggested that the state Eq. (14) can transfer
its entanglement to two atoms in different locations, both ini-
tially in their ground states jgi, by using the state Eq. (14) to
generate the joint atomic state jei
A
jgi
B
jgi
A
jei
B
(note that
the vacuum wont excite the atom).
85
Here, jei represents an
excited state of an atom, while A and B now refer to different
modes k
A
and k
B
of a matter eld (different beam directions
for atoms A and B). Thus the atoms (i.e., modes k
A
and k
B
)
are placed in a nonlocal entangled superposition of being
excited and not excited. Since this nonlocal entanglement
arises from the single-photon nonlocal state by purely local
operations, its clear that the single-photon state must have
been nonlocal too. Nevertheless, there was controversy about
whether this proposal really represents single-quantum
nonlocality.
86
Another experiment, applicable to photons or atoms, was
proposed to remove all doubt as to whether these experi-
ments demonstrated single-quantum nonlocality. The pro-
posal concluded by stating, This strengthens our belief that
the world described by quantum eld theory, where elds
are fundamental and particles have only a secondary impor-
tance, is closer to reality than might be expected from a na-
ive application of quantum mechanical principles.
87
VII. CONCLUSION
There are overwhelming grounds to conclude that all the
fundamental constituents of quantum physics are elds rather
than particles.
Rigorous analysis shows that, even under a broad denition
of particle, particles are inconsistent with the combined
principles of relativity and quantum physics (Sec. V). Photons,
in particular, cannot be point particles because relativistic and
quantum principles imply that a photon cannot be found at a
specic location, even in principle (Sec. III A). Many relativis-
tic quantum phenomena are paradoxical in terms of particles
but natural in terms of elds: the necessity for the quantum
vacuum(Sec. VI A), the Unruh effect where an accelerated ob-
server detects quanta while an inertial observer detects none
(Sec. VI B), and single-quantum nonlocality where two eld
modes are put into entangled superpositions of a singly-
excited state and a vacuumstate (Sec. VI C).
Classical eld theory and experiment imply that elds are
fundamental, and indeed Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein
concluded as much (Sec. II). Merely quantizing these elds
doesnt change their eld nature. Beginning in 1900, quan-
tum effects implied that Maxwells eld equations needed
modication, but the quantized equations were still based on
elds (Maxwells elds, in fact, but quantized), not particles
(Sec. III A). On the other hand, Newtons particle equations
were replaced by a radically different concept for matter,
namely Schrodingers eld equation, whose eld solution
W(x,t) was, however, inconsistently interpreted as the proba-
bility amplitude for nding, upon measurement, a particle at
the point x. The result has been confusion about particles
and measurements, including mentally-collapsed wave pack-
ets, students going down the drain into a blind alley, text-
books lled almost exclusively with particles talk, and
pseudoscientic fantasies (Sec. I). The relativistic general-
ization of Schrodingers equation, namely Diracs equation,
is clearly a eld equation that is quantized to obtain the
electron-positron eld, in perfect analogy to the way Max-
wells eld are quantized (Sec. III B). It makes no sense,
then, to insist that the nonrelativistic version of Diracs equa-
tion, namely the Schrodinger equation, be interpreted in
terms of particles. After all, the electron-positron eld, which
lls all space, surely doesnt shrink back to tiny particles
when the electrons slow down.
Thus Schrodingers W(x,t) is a spatially extended eld
representing the probability amplitude for an electron (i.e.,
the electron-positron eld) to interact at x rather than an am-
plitude for nding, upon measurement, a particle. In fact, the
eld W(x,t) is the so-called particle. Fields are all there is.
Analysis of the two-slit experiment (Sec. IV) shows why,
from a particle viewpoint, nobody knows how it [i.e., the
experiment] can be like that.
23
The two-slit experiment is in
fact logically inconsistent with a particle viewpoint. But
everything becomes consistent, and students dont get down
the drain, if the experiment is viewed in terms of elds.
Textbooks need to reect that elds, not particles, form
our most fundamental description of nature. This can be
done easily, not by trying to teach the formalism of QFT in
introductory courses, but rather by talking about elds,
explaining that there are no particles but only particle-like
phenomena caused by eld quantization.
21
In the two-slit
experiment, for example, the quantized eld for each elec-
tron or photon comes simultaneously through both slits,
spreads over the entire interference pattern, and collapses
nonlocally, upon interacting with the screen, into a small
(but still spread-out) region of the detecting screen.
Field-particle duality exists only in the sense that quan-
tized elds have certain particle-like appearances: quanta are
unied bundles of eld that carry energy and momentum and
thus hit like particles"; quanta are discrete and thus count-
able. But quanta are not particles; they are excitations of spa-
tially unbounded elds. Photons and electrons, along with
atoms, molecules, and apples, are ultimately disturbances in
a few universal elds.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My University of Arkansas colleagues Julio Gea-
Banacloche, Daniel Kenneck, Michael Lieber, Surendra
Singh, and Reeta Vyas discussed my incessant questions and
commented on the manuscript. Rodney Brooks and Peter
Milonni read and commented on the manuscript. I received
helpful comments from Nathan Argaman, Casey Blood,
Edward Gerjuoy, Daniel Greenberger, Nick Herbert, David
Mermin, Michael Nauenberg, Roland Omnes, Marc Sher,
and Wojciech Zurek. I especially thank the referees for their
careful attention and helpful comments.
a)
Email [email protected]
1
M. Schlosshauer, Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2011).
2
N. G. van Kampen, The scandal of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys.
76(11), 989990 (2008); A. Hobson, Response to The scandal of quan-
tum mechanics, by N. G. Van Kampen, Am. J. Phys. 77(4), 293 (2009).
3
W. Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical,
Phys. Today 44(10), 3644 (1991): Quantum mechanics works exceed-
ingly well in all practical applicationsYet well over half a century after
its inception, the debate about the relation of quantum mechanics to the fa-
miliar physical world continues. How can a theory that can account with
precision for everything we can measure still be deemed lacking?"
4
C. Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(Random House, New York, 1995), p. 26: Weve arranged a civilization
in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technol-
ogy. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands sci-
ence and technology. This is a prescription for disasterSooner or later
this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in
our faces.
5
M. Shermer, Quantum Quackery, Sci. Am. 292(1), 34 (2005).
6
V. Stenger, Quantum Quackery, Sceptical Inquirer 21(1), 3742
(1997). Its striking that this article has, by coincidence, the same title as
Ref. 5.
7
D. Chopra, Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Med-
icine (Bantam, New York, 1989).
8
D. Chopra, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to
Growing Old (Harmony Books, New York, 1993).
9
B. Rosenblum and F. Kuttner, Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Con-
sciousness (Oxford U.P., New York, 2006).
10
S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental
Laws of Nature (Random House, Inc., New York, 1992): Furthermore, all
these particles are bundles of the energy, or quanta, of various sorts of
elds. A eld like an electric or magnetic eld is a sort of stress in space.
The equations of a eld theory like the Standard Model deal not with par-
ticles but with elds; the particles appear as manifestations of those elds
(p. 25).
11
S. Weinberg, Facing Up: Science and its Cultural Adversaries (Harvard
U.P., Cambridge, MA, 2001): Just as there is an electromagnetic eld
whose energy and momentum come in tiny bundles called photons, so
there is an electron eld whose energy and momentum and electric charge
are found in the bundles we call electrons, and likewise for every species
of elementary particles. The basic ingredients of nature are elds; particles
are derivative phenomena.
12
R. Mills, Space, Time, and Quanta: An Introduction to Modern Physics
(W. H. Freeman, New York, 1994), Chap. 16: The only way to have a
consistent relativistic theory is to treat all the particles of nature as the
quanta of elds, like photons. Electrons and positrons are to be treated as
the quanta of the electron-positron eld, whose classical eld equation,
the analog of Maxwells equations for the EM eld, turns out to be the
Dirac equation, which started life as a relativistic version of the single-
particle Schrodinger equation.This approach now gives a unied pic-
ture, known as quantum eld theory, of all of nature.
13
F. Wilczek, Mass Without Mass I: Most of Matter, Phys. Today 52(11),
1113 (1999): In quantum eld theory, the primary elements of reality
are not individual particles, but underlying elds. Thus, e.g., all electrons
are but excitations of an underlying eld, the electron eld, which lls
all space and time.
14
M. Redhead, More ado about nothing, Found. Phys. 25(1), 123137
(1995): Particle states are never observablethey are an idealization
which leads to a plethora of misunderstandings about what is going on in
quantum eld theory. The theory is about elds and their local excitations.
That is all there is to it.
15
A. Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton U.P., Princeton,
NJ, 2003), p. 24: We thus interpret the physics contained in our simple
eld theory as follows: In region 1 in spacetime there exists a source that
sends out a disturbance in the eld, which is later absorbed by a sink in
region 2 in spacetime. Experimentalists choose to call this disturbance in
the eld a particle of mass m.
16
F. Wilczek, The persistence of ether, Phys. Today 52(1), 1113 (1999).
17
F. Wilczek, Mass Without Mass II: The Medium Is the Mass-age, Phys.
Today 53(1), 1314 (2000).
18
F. Wilczek, The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unication of
Forces (Basic Books, New York, 2008).
19
R. Brooks, Fields of Color: The Theory That Escaped Einstein, 2nd ed.
(Rodney A. Brooks, Prescott, AZ, 2011). This is a lively history of classi-
cal and quantum elds, with many quotations from leading physicists,
organized to teach quantum eld theory to the general public.
20
P. R. Wallace, Paradox Lost: Images of the Quantum (Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1996).
21
A. Hobson, Electrons as eld quanta: A better way to teach quantum
physics in introductory general physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 73, 630
634 (2005); Teaching quantum physics without paradoxes, Phys.
Teach. 45, 9699 (2007); Teaching quantum uncertainty, Phys. Teach.
49, 434437 (2011); Teaching quantum nonlocality, The Phys. Teach.
50, 270273 (2012).
22
A. Hobson, Physics: Concepts & Connections (Addison-Wesley/Pearson,
San Francisco, 2010).
23
R. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
1965), p. 129. Feynman also says, in the same lecture, I think I can safely
say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
24
A. Janiak, Newton: Philosophical Writings (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge,
2004), p. 102.
25
N. J. Nersessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientic
Theories (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 1984), p. 37. The remain-
der of Sec. III relies strongly on this book.
26
S. Weinberg, Ref. 11, p. 167: Fields are conditions of space itself, consid-
ered apart from any matter that may be in it.
27
This argument was Maxwells and Einsteins justication for the reality of
the EM eld. R. H. Stuewer, Ed., Historical and Philosophical Perspec-
tives of Science (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1989), p. 299.
28
A. Einstein, Maxwells inuence on the development of the conception
of physical reality, in James Clerk Maxwell: A Commemorative
Volume 18311931 (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1931),
pp. 6673.
29
A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper, Ann. Phys. 17,
891921 (1905).
30
I. Newton, Optiks (4th edition, W. Innys, 1730): It seems probable to me
that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetra-
ble, movable particlesand that these primitive particles being solids are
incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even
so hard as never to wear or break in pieces
31
R. Brooks, author of Ref. 19, private communication.
32
J. A. Wheeler and R. P. Feynman, Interaction With the Absorber as the
Mechanism of Radiation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 157181 (1945).
33
P. A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of
radiation, Proc. R. Soc. A 114, 243267 (1927).
34
M. Kuhlmann, The Ultimate Constituents Of The Material World: In
Search Of An Ontology For Fundamental Physics (Ontos Verlag, Heusen-
stamm, Germany, 2010), Chap. 4; a brief but detailed history of QFT.
35
The rst comprehensive account of a general theory of quantum elds, in
particular the method of canonical quantization, was presented in W. Hei-
senberg and W. Pauli, Zur quantendynamik der Wellenfelder, Z. Phys.
56, 161 (1929).
36
E. G. Harris, A Pedestrian Approach to Quantum Field Theory (Wiley-
Interscience, New York, 1972).
37
More precisely, there are two vector modes for each nonzero k, one for
each possible eld polarization direction, both perpendicular to k. See Ref.
36 for other details.
38
For example, L. H. Ryder, Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge U.P., Cam-
bridge, 1996), p 131: This completes the justication for interpreting
N(k) as the number operator and hence for the particle interpretation of the
quantized theory.
39
H. D. Zeh, There are no quantum jumps, nor are there particles!, Phys.
Lett. A 172, 189195 (1993): All particle aspects observed in measure-
ments of quantum elds (like spots on a plate, tracks in a bubble chamber,
or clicks of a counter) can be understood by taking into account this deco-
herence of the relevant local (i.e. subsystem) density matrix.
40
C. Blood, No evidence for particles, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf:
There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue
for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton
effects, exposure of only one lm grain by a spread-out photon wave func-
tion, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown,
however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using
properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evi-
dence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave func-
tions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties.
41
T. D. Newton and E. P. Wigner, Localized states for elementary sys-
tems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21(3), 400406 (1949).
42
I. Bialynicki-Birula and Z. Bialynicki-Birula, Why photons cannot be
sharply localized, Phys. Rev. A 79, 032112 (2009).
43
L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cam-
bridge U.P., New York, 1995).
44
R. E. Peierls, Surprises in Theoretical Physics (Princeton U.P., Princeton,
1979), pp. 1214.
45
M. G. Raymer and B. J. Smith, The Maxwell wave function of the pho-
ton, in SPIE Conference on Optics and Photonics, San Diego, Aug 2005,
Conf #5866: The Nature of Light.
46
Molecules, atoms, and protons are excitations of composite elds made
of the presumably fundamental Standard Model elds.
47
The Dirac eld is a four-component relativistic spinor eld W
i
(x, t)
(i 1, 2, 3, 4).
48
R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Vol. I (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA, 1963),
Chap. 37, p. 2: [The 2-slit experiment is] a phenomenon which is impos-
sible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which
has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only
mystery. We cannot explain the mystery in the sense of explaining how
it works. We will tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we
will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics.
(The italics are in the original.)
49
Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics (Doubleday,
New York, 1985), pp. 6067; conceptual discussion of the wave-particle
duality of electrons.
50
Wolfgang Rueckner and Paul Titcomb, A lecture demonstration of single
photon interference, Am J. Phys. 64(2), 184188 (1996).
51
A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda, T. Kawasaki, and H. Exawa,
Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern,
Am. J. Phys. 57(2), 117120 (1989).
52
Michler et al., A quantum dot single-photon turnstile device, Science
290, 22822285 (2000).
53
For a more formal argument, see A. J. Leggett, Testing the limits of quan-
tum mechanics: Motivation, state of play, prospects, J. Phys: Condensed
Matter 14, R415R451 (2002).
54
P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Oxford at
the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1947), p. 9. The quoted statement appears in
the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions, published respectively in 1935, 1947, and
1958.
55
J. von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
(Princeton U.P., Princeton, 1955), p. 351.
56
The central feature of this analysis, namely how decoherence localizes the
quantum, was rst discussed in W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek,
Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparability
and a quantitative statement of Bohrs principle, Phys. Rev. D 19, 473
484 (1979).
57
M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007), pp. 6365.
58
H. D. Zeh, There is no rst quantization, Phys. Lett. A 309, 329334
(2003).
59
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical
description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev.
47(10), 777780 (1935).
60
J. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics 1(3), 195200
(1964).
61
A. Aspect, To be or not to be local, Nature 446, 866867 (2007); S. Gro-
blacher, A. Zeilinger et al., An experimental test of nonlocal realism,
Nature 446, 871875 (2007); G. C. Ghirardi, The interpretation of quan-
tum mechanics: where do we stand? Fourth International Workshop
DICE 2008, J. Phys.: Conf. Series 174, 012013 (2009).
62
L. E. Ballentine and J. P. Jarrett, Bells theorem: Does quantum mechan-
ics contradict relativity? Am. J. Phys. 55(8), 696701 (1987).
63
G. C. Hegerfeldt, Particle localization and the notion of Einstein
causality, in Extensions of Quantum Theory 3, edited by A. Horzela and
E. Kapuscik (Apeiron, Montreal, 2001), pp. 916; Instantaneous spread-
ing and Einstein causality in quantum theory, Ann. Phys. 7, 716725
(1998); Remark on causality and particle localization, Phys. Ref. D 10,
33203321 (1974).
64
D. B. Malament, In defense of dogma: why there cannot be a relativistic
QM of localizable particles, in Perspectives on Quantum Reality (Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 1996), pp. 110. See also Refs. 34 and 65.
65
H. Halvorson and R. Clifton, No place for particles in relativistic quan-
tum theories? Philos. Sci. 69, 128 (2002).
66
Rafael de la Madrid, Localization of non-relativistic particles, Int. J.
Theor. Phys. 46, 19861997 (2007). Hegerfeldts result for relativistic par-
ticles generalizes Madrids result.
67
P. H. Eberhard and R. R. Ross, Quantum eld theory cannot provide
faster-than-light communication, Found. Phys. Lett. 2, 127148 (1989).
68
In other words, the Schrodinger equation can be quantized, just like the
Dirac equation. But the quantized version implies nothing that isnt al-
ready in the non-quantized version. See Ref. 36.
69
S. Weinberg, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics, The 1986
Dirac Memorial Lectures (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1987), pp. 7879:
Although it is not a theorem, it is widely believed that it is impossible to
reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity, except in the context of a
quantum eld theory.
70
Michael Redhead, A philosopher looks at quantum eld theory, in Philo-
sophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory, edited by Harvey R.
Brown and Rom Harre (Oxford U.P., 1988), pp. 923: What is the nature
of the QFT vacuum? In the vacuum state there is still plenty going on,
as evidenced by the zero-point energy[which] reects vacuum uctua-
tions in the eld amplitude. These produce observable effectsI am now
inclined to say that vacuum uctuation phenomena show that the particle
picture is not adequate to QFT. QFT is best understood in terms of quan-
tized excitations of a eld and that is all there is to it.
71
S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61,
123 (1989).
72
My main source for Secs. VI A and VI B is Peter W. Milonni, The Quan-
tum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics (Academic
Press Limited, London, 1994).
73
W. G. Unruh, Notes on black hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D 14, 870
892 (1976); P. C. W. Davies, Scalar production in Schwarzschild and
Rindler metrics, J. Phys. A 8, 609 (1975).
74
S. Barshay and W. Troost, A possible origin for temperature in strong
interactions, Phys. Lett. B 73, 4 (1978); S. Barshay, H. Braun, J. P.
Gerber, and G. Maurer, Possible evidence for uctuations in the hadronic
temperature, Phys. Rev. D 21, 7 (1980); J. S. Bell and J. M. Leinaas,
Electrons as accelerated thermometers, Nucl. Phys. B 212, 131 (1983).
75
E. T. Akhmedov and Douglas Singleton, On the physical meaning of the
Unruh effect, JRTP Lett. 86, 615619 (2008).
76
B. S. DeWitt, Quantum gravity: the new synthesis, in General Relativ-
ity: An Einstein Centenary, edited by S. Hawking and W. Israel (Cam-
bridge U.P., Cambridge, 1979), pp. 680745.
77
M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience,
New York, 1974), pp. 115118.
78
S. M. Tan, D. F. Walls, and M. J. Collett, Nonlocality of a single photon,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 252255 (1991).
79
M. O. Terra Cunha, J.A. Dunningham, and V. Vedral, Entanglement in
single-particle systems, Proc. R. Soc. A 463, 22772286 (2007): If we
want to increase the breadth of applicability of entanglement, we should
think in terms of elds which are a fundamental description of nature. Par-
ticles are only a manifestation of certain special congurations of quantum
elds. If entanglement is to be considered a fundamental property of na-
ture, and even a resource to be understood and applied, one would like to
understand entangled elds.
80
L. Hardy, Nonlocality of a single photon revisited, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73,
22772286 (1994).
81
L. Hardy, N-measurement Bell inequalities, N-atom entangled, states,
and the nonlocality of one photon, Phys. Lett. A 160, 18 (1991); E. San-
tos, Comment on Nonlocality of a single photon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68,
894 (1992); D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger,
Nonlocality of a single photon?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2064 (1995); Lev
Vaidman, Nonlocality of a single photon revisited again, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 75, 2063 (1995); A. Peres, Nonlocal effects in Fock space, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 74, 4571 (1995); L. Hardy, Hardy replies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
20652066 (1995); R. J. C. Spreeuw, A classical analogy of
entanglement, Found. Phys. 28, 361374 (1998).
82
C. C. Gerry, Nonlocality of a single photon in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A
53, 45834586 (1996); H. W. Lee and J. Kim, Quantum teleportation and
Bells inequality using single-particle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 63,
012305 (2000); G. Bjork, P. Jonsson, and L. L. Sanchez-Soto, Single-par-
ticle nonlocality and entanglement with the vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 64,
042106 (2001).
83
E. Lombardi, F. Sciarrino, S. Popescu, and F. De Martini, Teleportation
of a vacuumone-photon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 070402 (2002).
84
B. Hessmo, P. Usachev, H. Heydari, and G. Bjork, Experimental demon-
stration of single photon nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 180401 (2004).
85
S. J. van Enk, Single-particle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 72, 064306
(2005).
86
A. Drezet, Comment on single-particle entanglement, Phys. Rev. 74,
026301 (2006).
87
J. Dunningham and V. Vedral, Nonlocality of a single particle, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 99, 180404 (2007).

There Are No Particles, There Are Only QM Fields - Art Hobson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

There Are No Particles, There Are Only QM Fields - Art Hobson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

There Are No Particles, There Are Only QM Fields - Art Hobson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

There are no particles, there are only fields

You might also like