There Are No Particles, There Are Only Fields: Related Articles

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/AJPIAS/v81/i3
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers
Related Articles
Perimeter Institute 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 Information: http://ajp.aapt.org/about/about_the_journal
Top downloads: http://ajp.aapt.org/most_downloaded
Information for Authors: http://ajp.dickinson.edu/Contributors/contGenInfo.html
Downloaded 20 Feb 2013 to 142.103.160.110. Redistribution subject to AAPT license or copyright; see http://ajp.aapt.org/authors/copyright_permission
There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobsona)
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
fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not
bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that
it’s also true of nonrelativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields. Thus, the
Schr€odinger field is a space-filling physical field whose value at any spatial point is the probability
amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point. The field 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. It’s 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 fields,
the two-slit experiment, rigorous theorems showing particles are inconsistent with relativistic
quantum theory, and several phenomena showing particles are incompatible with quantum field
theories. VC 2013 American Association of Physics Teachers.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885]
I. INTRODUCTION Here, I’ll discuss just one fundamental quantum issue:

field-particle (or wave-particle) duality. More precisely, this
Physicists are still unable to reach consensus on the princi- paper answers the following question: Based on standard
ples or meaning of science’s most fundamental and accurate nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum physics, do experi-
theory, quantum physics. An embarrassment of enigmas ment and theory lead us to conclude that the universe is ulti-
abounds concerning wave-particle duality, measurement, mately made of fields, or particles, or both, or neither? There
nonlocality, superpositions, uncertainty, and the meaning of are other embarrassing quantum enigmas, especially the
quantum states.1 After more than a century of quantum his- measurement problem, as well as the ultimate ontology (i.e.,
tory, this is scandalous.2,3 reality) implied by quantum physics. This paper studies only
It’s not only an academic matter. This confusion has field-particle duality. In particular, it is neutral on the inter-
huge real-life implications. In a world that cries out for gen- pretations (e.g., many worlds) and modifications (e.g., hid-
eral scientific literacy,4 quantum-inspired pseudoscience has den variables, objective collapse theories) designed to
become dangerous to science and society. What the Bleep resolve the measurement problem.
Do We Know, a popular 2004 film, won several film awards Many textbooks and physicists apparently don’t realize
and grossed $10 million; its central tenet is that we create that a strong case, supported by leading quantum field theo-
our own reality through consciousness and quantum rists, for a pure fields view has developed during the past
mechanics. It features physicists saying things like “The three decades.10–17 Three popular books are arguments for
material world around us is nothing but possible movements an all-fields perspective.18–20 I have argued the advantages
of consciousness,” it purports to show how thoughts change of teaching nonrelativistic quantum physics (NRQP, or
the structure of ice crystals, and it interviews a 35,000 year- “quantum mechanics”) from an all-fields perspective;21 my
old spirit “channeled” by a psychic.5 “Quantum mysticism” conceptual physics textbook for non-science college students
ostensibly provides a basis for mind-over-matter claims assumes this viewpoint.22
from ESP to alternative medicine, and provides intellectual There is plenty of evidence today for physicists to come to
support for the postmodern assertion that science has no a consensus supporting an all-fields view. Such a consensus
claim on objective reality.6 According to the popular televi- would make it easier to resolve other quantum issues. But
sion physician Deepak Chopra, “quantum healing” can cure fields-versus-particles is still alive and kicking, as you can
all our ills by the application of mental power.7 Chopra’s see by noting that “quantum field theory” (QFT) and
book Ageless Body, Timeless Mind, a New York Times “particle physics” are interchangeable names for the same
Bestseller that sold over two million copies worldwide, is discipline! And there’s a huge gap between the views of
subtitled The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old.8 Quan- leading quantum physicists on the one hand; (Refs. 10–18)
tum Enigma, a highly advertised book from Oxford Univer- and virtually every quantum physics textbook on the other
sity Press that’s used as a textbook in liberal arts physics hand.
courses at the University of California and elsewhere, bears Physicists are schizophrenic about fields and particles. At
the sub-title Physics Encounters Consciousness.9 It is the high-energy end, most quantum field theorists agree for
indeed scandalous when librarians and book store managers good reasons (Secs. III, V, and VI) that relativistic quantum
wonder whether to shelve a book under “quantum physics,” physics is about fields and that electrons, photons, and so forth
“religion,” or “new age.” For further documentation of this are merely excitations (waves) in the fundamental fields. But at
point, see the Wikipedia article “Quantum mysticism” and the low-energy end, most NRQP education and popular talk is
references therein. about particles. Working physicists, teachers, and NRQP
211 Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2013 American Association of Physics Teachers
V 211
textbooks treat electrons, photons, protons, atoms, etc. as par- Hegerfeldt showing that, even if we assume a very broad
ticles that exhibit paradoxical behavior. Yet NRQP is the non- definition of “particle” (namely, that a particle should extend
relativistic limit of the broader relativistic theory, namely QFT, over only a finite, not infinite, region), particles contradict
which for all the world appears to be about fields. If QFT is relativistic quantum physics. Section VI argues that quan-
about fields, how can its restriction to nonrelativistic phenom- tized fields imply a quantum vacuum that contradicts an all-
ena be about particles? Do infinitely extended fields turn into particles view while confirming the field view. Furthermore,
bounded particles as the energy drops? two vacuum effects—the Unruh effect and single-quantum
As an example of the field/particle confusion, the two-slit nonlocality—imply a field view. Thus, many lines of reason-
experiment is often considered paradoxical, and it is a para- ing contradict the particles view and confirm the field view.
dox if one assumes that the universe is made of particles. For Section VII summarizes the conclusions.
Richard Feynman, this paradox was unavoidable. Feynman
was a particles guy. As Frank Wilczek put it, “uniquely (so II. A HISTORY OF CLASSICAL FIELDS
far as I know) among physicists of high stature, Feynman
hoped to remove field-particle dualism by getting rid of the Fields are one of physics’ most plausible notions, arguably
fields.”16 As a preface to his lecture about this experiment, more intuitively credible than point-like particles drifting in
Feynman advised his students, empty space. It’s perhaps surprising that, despite the com-
plete absence of fields from Isaac Newton’s Principia
Do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that (1687), Newton’s intuition told him the universe is filled
you really have to understand in terms of some with fields. In an exchange of letters with Reverend Richard
model what I am going to describe, but just relax Bentley explaining the Principia in non-scientists’ language,
and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature Newton wrote:
behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter
she does behave like this, you will find her a should, without the mediation of something else
delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to which is not material, operate upon and affect other
yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, “But how can matter without mutual contact… That gravity should
it be like that?” because you will get “down the be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that
drain,” into a blind alley from which nobody has yet one body may act upon another at a distance through
escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.23 a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by
and through which their action and force may be
There are many interpretational difficulties with the two-
conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
slit experiment, and I’m not going to solve all of them here.
absurdity that I believe no man who has in
But the puzzle of wave-particle duality in this experiment
philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking
can be resolved by switching to an all-fields perspective
can ever fall into it.24
(Sec. IV).
Physics education is affected directly, and scientific liter- But Newton couldn’t find empirical evidence to support a
acy indirectly, by what textbooks say about wave-particle causal explanation of gravity, and any explanation remained
duality and related topics. To find out what textbooks say, I purely hypothetical. When writing or speaking of a possible
perused the 36 textbooks in my university’s library having underlying mechanism for gravity, he chose to remain silent,
the words “quantum mechanics” in their title and published firmly maintaining “I do not feign hypotheses” (Ref. 18,
after 1989. Of these, 30 implied a universe made of particles p. 138). Thus, it was generally accepted by the beginning of
that sometimes act like fields, 6 implied the fundamental the 19th century that a fundamental physical theory would
constituents behaved sometimes like particles and sometimes contain equations for direct forces-at-a-distance between tiny
like fields, and none viewed the universe as made of fields indestructible atoms moving through empty space. Before
that sometimes appear to be particles. Yet the leading quan- long, however, electromagnetism and relativity would shift
tum field theorists argue explicitly for the latter view (Refs. the emphasis from action-at-a-distance to fields.
10–18). Something’s amiss here. The shift was largely due to Michael Faraday (1791–1867).
The purpose of this paper is to assemble the strands of the Working about 160 years after Newton, he introduced the
fields-versus-particles discussion in order to hasten a consen- modern concept of fields as properties of space having physi-
sus that will resolve the wave-particle paradoxes while cal effects.25 Faraday argued against action-at-a-distance, pro-
bringing the conceptual structure of quantum physics into posing instead that interactions occur via space-filling “lines
agreement with the requirements of special relativity and the of force” and that atoms are mere convergences of these lines
views of leading quantum field theorists. Section II argues of force. He recognized that a demonstration of non-
that Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein viewed classical elec- instantaneous electromagnetic (EM) interactions would be
tromagnetism as a field phenomenon. Section III argues that fatal to action-at-a-distance because interactions would then
quantum field theory developed from classical electrodynam- proceed gradually from one body to the next, suggesting that
ics and then extended the quantized field notion to matter. some physical process occurred in the intervening space. He
Quantization introduced certain particle-like characteristics, saw lines of force as space-filling physical entities that could
namely, individual quanta that could be counted, but the move, expand, and contract. He concluded that magnetic lines
theory describes these quanta as extended disturbances in of force, in particular, are physical conditions of “mere space”
space-filling fields. Section IV analyzes the two-slit experi- (i.e., space containing no material substance). Today this
ment to illustrate the necessity for an all-fields view of description of fields as “conditions of space” is standard.26
NRQP. The phenomena and the theory lead to paradoxes if James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) was less visionary,
interpreted in terms of particles but are comprehensible in more Newtonian, and more mathematical than Faraday. By
terms of fields. Section V presents a rigorous theorem due to invoking a mechanical ether that obeyed Newton’s laws, he
212 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 81, No. 3, March 2013 Art Hobson 212
brought Faraday’s conception of continuous transmission of of space-time and to the right-hand side as “a hovel of wood”
forces rather than instantaneous action-at-a-distance into the because it represents a condition of matter.
philosophical framework of Newtonian mechanics. Thus Thus by 1915 classical physics described all known forces
Faraday’s lines of force became the state of a material me- in terms of fields—conditions of space—and Einstein
dium, “the ether,” much as a velocity field is a state of a ma- expressed dissatisfaction that matter couldn’t be described in
terial fluid. He found the correct dynamical field equations the same way.
for EM phenomena, consistent with all known experimental
results. His analysis led to the predictions of (1) a finite III. A HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF QUANTUM
transmission time for EM actions, and (2) light as an EM FIELDS
field phenomenon. Both were later spectacularly confirmed.
Despite the success of his equations, and despite the non- From the early Greek and Roman atomists to Newton to sci-
appearance of ether in the actual equations, Maxwell insisted entists such as Dalton, Robert Brown, and Rutherford, the mi-
throughout his life that Newtonian mechanical forces in the croscopic view of matter was always dominated by particles.
ether produce all electric and magnetic phenomena, a view Thus, the nonrelativistic quantum physics of matter that devel-
that differed crucially from Faraday’s view of the EM field oped in the mid-1920s was couched in particle language, and
as a state of “mere space.” quantum physics was called “quantum mechanics” in analogy
Experimental confirmations of the field nature of light, with the Newtonian mechanics of indestructible particles in
and of a time delay for EM actions, were strong confirma- empty space.30 But ironically, the central equation of the quan-
tions of the field view. After all, light certainly seems real. tum physics of matter, the Schr€odinger equation, is a field
And a time delay demands the presence of energy in the equation. Rather than an obvious recipe for particle motion, it
intervening space in order to conserve energy. That is, if appears to describe a time-dependent field W(x,t) throughout a
energy is emitted here and now, and received there and later, spatial region. Nevertheless, this field picked up a particle
then where is it in the meantime? Clearly, it’s in the field.27 interpretation when Max Born proposed that W(x0,t) is the
Faraday and Maxwell created one of history’s most telling probability amplitude that, upon measurement at time t, the
changes in our physical worldview: the change from particles presumed particle “will be found” at the point x0. Another sug-
to fields. As Albert Einstein put it, “Before Maxwell, Physical gestion, still in accord with the Copenhagen interpretation but
Reality…was thought of as consisting in material particles…. less confining, would be that W(x0,t) is the probability ampli-
Since Maxwell’s time, Physical Reality has been thought of tude for an interaction to occur at x0. This preserves the Born
as represented by continuous fields,…and not capable of any rule while allowing either a field or particle interpretation.
mechanical interpretation. This change in the conception of In the late 1920s, physicists sought a relativistic theory that
Reality is the most profound and the most fruitful that physics incorporated quantum principles. EM fields were not
has experienced since the time of Newton.”28 described by the nonrelativistic Schr€odinger equation; they
As the preceding quotation shows, Einstein supported a spread at the speed of light, so any quantum theory of them
“fields are all there is” view of classical (but not necessarily must be relativistic. Such a theory must also describe emission
quantum) physics. He put the final logical touch on classical (creation) and absorption (destruction) of radiation. Further-
fields in his 1905 paper proposing the special theory of relativ- more, NRQP says energy spontaneously fluctuates, and SR
ity, where he wrote “The introduction of a “luminiferous” (E ¼ mc2) says matter can be created from non-material forms
ether will prove to be superfluous.”29 For Einstein, there was of energy, so a relativistic quantum theory must describe crea-
no material ether to support light waves. Instead, the tion and destruction of matter. Schr€odinger’s equation needed
“medium” for light was space itself. That is, for Einstein, fields to be generalized to include such phenomena. QFTs, described
are states or conditions of space. This is the modern view. The in the remainder of this section, arose from these efforts.
implication of special relativity (SR) that energy has inertia
further reinforces both Einstein’s rejection of the ether and the A. Quantized radiation fields
significance of fields. Since fields have energy, they have iner-
tia and should be considered “substance like” themselves “How can any physicist look at radio or microwave anten-
rather than simply states of some substance such as ether. nas and believe they were meant to capture particles?”31 It’s
The general theory of relativity (1916) resolves Newton’s implausible that EM signals transmit from antenna to
dilemma concerning the “absurdity” of gravitational action- antenna by emitting and absorbing particles; how do anten-
at-a-distance. According to general relativity, the universe is nas “launch” or “catch” particles? In fact, how do signals
full of gravitational fields, and physical processes associated propagate? Instantaneous transmission is ruled out by the
with this field occur even in space that is free from matter and evidence. Delayed transmission by direct action-at-a-dis-
EM fields. Einstein’s field equations of general relativity are tance without an intervening medium has been tried in theory
and found wanting.32 The 19th-century answer was that
Rlv ðxÞ ð1=2Þglv ðxÞRðxÞ ¼ Tlv ðxÞ; (1) transmission occurs via the EM field. Quantum physics pre-
serves this notion, while “quantizing” the field. The field
where x represents space-time points, l and run over the itself remains continuous, filling all space.
four dimensions, gl (x) is the metric tensor field, Rl (x) and The first task in developing a relativistic quantum theory
R(x) are defined in terms of gl (x), and Tl (x) is the energy- was to describe EM radiation—an inherently relativistic phe-
momentum tensor of matter. These field (because they hold nomenon—in a quantum fashion. So it’s not surprising that
at every x) equations relate the geometry of space-time (left- QFT began with a quantum theory of radiation.33–35 This
hand side) to the energy and momentum of matter (right- problem was greatly simplified by the Lorentz covariance of
hand side). The gravitational field is described solely by the Maxwell’s equations: they satisfy SR by taking the same
metric tensor gl (x). Einstein referred to the left-hand side of form in every inertial reference frame. Maxwell was lucky,
Eq. (1) as “a palace of gold” because it represents a condition or brilliant, in this regard.
A straightforward approach to the quantization of the jWi. But the Hilbert space for such states cannot have the
“free” (no source charges or currents) EM field begins with same structure as for the single-body Schr€odinger equation,
the classical vector potential field A(x,t) from which we can or even its N-body analog, because N must be allowed to
calculate E(x,t) and B(x,t).36 Expanding this field in the set vary in order to describe creation and destruction of quanta.
of spatial fields exp(6ik x) (orthonormalized in the delta- So the radiation field’s quantum states exist in a Hilbert
function sense for large spatial volumes) for each vector k space of variable N, called “Fock space.” Fock space is the
having positive components, we write (direct) sum of N-body Hilbert spaces for N ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3,…
X Each component N-body Hilbert space is the properly sym-
Aðx; tÞ ¼ ½aðk; tÞ expðik xÞ þ a ðk; tÞexpðik xÞ: metrized (for bosons or fermions) product of N single-body
k Hilbert spaces. Each normalized component has its own
(2) complex amplitude, and the full state jWi is (in general) a
superposition of states having different numbers of quanta.
The field equation for A(x,t) then implies that each coefficient An important feature of QFT is the existence of a vacuum
a(k,t) satisfies a classical harmonic oscillator equation. One state j0i, a unit vector in Fock space (which must not be con-
regards these equations as the equations of motion for a me- fused with the zero vector, whose length is zero), having no
chanical system having an infinite number of degrees of free- quanta (Nk ¼ 0 for all k). Each mode’s vacuum state has
dom, and quantizes this classical mechanical system by energy hfk/2. The vacuum state manifests itself experimentally
assuming the a(k,t) are operators aop(k,t) satisfying appropriate in many ways, which would be curious if particles were really
commutation relations and the a*(k,t) are their adjoints. The fundamental because there are no particles (quanta) in this
result is that Eq. (2) becomes a vector operator-valued field, state. We’ll expand on this particular argument in Sect. VI.
X The operator field of Eq. (3), like other observables such as
Aop ðx;tÞ ¼ ½aop ðk;tÞexpðik xÞ þ aop ðk;tÞexpðik xÞ; energy, operates on jWi, creating and destroying photons. For
k example, the expected value of the vector potential is a vector-
(3) valued relativistic field A(x,t) ¼ hAop(x,t)i ¼ hWjAop(x,t) jWi,
an expression in which Aop(x,t) operates on jWi. We see again
in which the amplitudes a*op(k,t) and aop(k,t) of the kth that Aop(x,t) is actually a physically meaningful field because
“field mode” satisfy the Heisenberg equations of motion (in it has a physically measurable expectation value at every point
which the time dependence resides in the operators while the x throughout a region of space. So a classical field that is quan-
system’s quantum state jWi remains fixed) for a set of quantized does not cease to be a field.
tum harmonic oscillators. For bosons, one can show that Some authors conclude, incorrectly, that the countability
a*op and aop are the familiar raising and lowering operators of quanta implies a particle interpretation of the quantized
from the harmonic oscillator problem in NRQP, satisfying system.38 Discreteness is a necessary but not sufficient condi-
the same commutation relation. Hence, Aop(x,t) is now an tion for particles. Quanta are countable, but they are spatially
operator-valued field whose dynamics obey quantum extended and certainly not particles. Equation (3) implies
physics. Since the classical field obeyed SR, the quantized that a single mode’s spatial dependence is sinusoidal and fills
field satisfies quantum physics and SR. all space, so that adding a monochromatic quantum to a field
Thus, as in the harmonic oscillator problem, the kth mode uniformly increases the entire field’s energy (uniformly dis-
has an infinite discrete energy spectrum hfk(Nk þ 1/2) with tributed throughout all space!) by hf. This is nothing like
Nk ¼ 0, 1, 2,…, where fk ¼ cjkj/2p is the mode’s frequency.37 adding a particle. Quanta that are superpositions of different
As Max Planck had hypothesized, the energy of a single frequencies can be more spatially bunched and in this sense
mode has an infinite spectrum of discrete possible values more localized, but they are always of infinite extent. So it’s
separated by DE ¼ hfk. The integer Nk is the number of hard to see how photons could be particles.
Planck’s energy bundles or quanta in the kth mode. Each Phenomena such as “particle” tracks in bubble chambers,
quantum is called an “excitation” of the field, because its and the small spot appearing on a viewing screen when a sin-
energy hfk represents additional field energy. EM field gle quantum interacts with the screen, are often cited as evi-
quanta are called “photons,” from the Greek word for light. dence that quanta are particles, but these are insufficient
A distinctly quantum aspect is that, even in the vacuum state evidence of particles39,40 (see Sec. IV). In the case of radia-
where Nk ¼ 0, each mode has energy hfk/2. This is because tion, it’s especially difficult to argue that the small interac-
the individual modes act like quantum harmonic oscillators, tion points are evidence that a particle impacted at that
and these must have energy even in the ground state because position because photons never have positions–position is
of the uncertainty principle. Another quantum aspect is that not an observable and photons cannot be said to be “at” or
EM radiation is “digitized” into discrete quanta of energy hf. “found at” any particular point.41–45 Instead, the spatially
You can’t have a fraction of a quantum. extended radiation field interacts with the screen in the vicin-
Because it defines an operator for every point x throughout ity of the spot, transferring one quantum of energy to the
space, the operator-valued field Eq. (3) is properly called a screen.
“field.” Note that, unlike the NRQP case, x is not an operator
but rather a parameter, putting x on an equal footing with t B. Quantized matter fields
as befits a relativistic theory. For example, we can speak of
the expectation value of the field Aop at x and t, but we can- QFT puts matter on the same all-fields footing as radia-
not speak of the expectation value of x because x is not an tion. This is a big step toward unification. In fact, it’s a gen-
observable. This is because fields are inherently extended in eral principle of all QFTs that fields are all there is.10–21 For
space and don’t have specific positions. example the Standard Model, perhaps the most successful
But what does the operator field Eq. (3) operate on? Just scientific theory of all time, is a QFT. But if fields are all
as in NRQP, operators operate on the system’s quantum state there is, where do electrons and atoms come from? QFT’s
answer is that they are field quanta, but quanta of matter physics, it’s no wonder that it took most of the 20th century
fields rather than quanta of force fields.46 to come to grips with the field nature of quantum physics.
“Fields are all there is” suggests beginning the quantum Were it not for Newtonian preconceptions, quantum
theory of matter from Schr€odinger’s equation, which mathe- physics might have been recognized as a field theory by
matically is a field equation similar to Maxwell’s field equa- 1926 (Schr€odinger’s equation) or 1927 (QFT). The superpo-
tions, and quantizing it. But you can’t create a relativistic sition principle should have been a dead giveaway: A sum of
theory (the main purpose of QFT) this way because quantum states is a quantum state. Such superposition is
Schr€ odinger’s equation is not Lorentz covariant. Dirac characteristic of all linear wave theories and at odds with the
invented, for just this purpose, a covariant generalization of generally nonlinear nature of Newtonian particle physics.
Schr€ odinger’s equation for the field W(x,t) associated with a A benefit of QFTs is that quanta of a given field must be
single electron.47 It incorporates the electron’s spin, accounts identical because they are all excitations of the same field,
for the electron’s magnetic moment, and is more accurate somewhat as two ripples on the same pond are in many ways
than Schr€ odinger’s equation in predicting the hydrogen identical. Because a single field explains the existence and
atom’s spectrum. It, however, has undesirable features such nature of gazillions of quanta, QFTs represent an enormous
as the existence of non-physical negative-energy states. unification. The universal electron-positron field, for exam-
These can be overcome by treating Dirac’s equation as a ple, explains the existence and nature of all electrons and all
classical field equation for matter analogous to Maxwell’s positrons.
equations for radiation, and quantizing it in the manner out- When a field changes its energy by a single quantum, it
lined in Sec. III A. The resulting quantized matter field must do so instantaneously, because a non-instantaneous
Wop(x,t) is called the “electron-positron field.” It’s an change would imply that, partway through the change, the
operator-valued field operating in the anti-symmetric Fock field had gained or lost only a fraction of a quantum. Such
space. Thus the non-quantized Dirac equation describes a fractions are not allowed because energy is quantized. Field
matter field occupying an analogous role in the QFT of mat- quanta have an all-or-nothing quality. The QFT language of
ter to the role of Maxwell’s equations in the QFT of radia- creation and annihilation of quanta expresses this nicely. A
tion.12,45 The quantized theory of electrons comes out quantum is a unified entity even though its energy might be
looking similar to the preceding QFT of the EM field, but spread out over light years—a feature that raises issues of
with material quanta and with field operators that now create nonlocality intrinsic to the quantum puzzle.
or destroy these quanta in quantum-antiquantum pairs.36 “Fields are all there is” should be understood literally. For
It’s not difficult to show that standard NRQP is a special example, it’s a common misconception to imagine a tiny par-
case, for nonrelativistic material quanta, of relativistic ticle imbedded somewhere in the Schr€odinger field. There is
QFT.36 Thus, the Schr€odinger field is the nonrelativistic ver- no particle. An electron is its field.
sion of the Dirac equation’s relativistic field. It follows that As is well known, Einstein never fully accepted quantum
the Schr€ odinger matter field, the analog of the classical EM physics, and spent the last few decades of his life trying to
field, is a physical, space-filling field. Just like the Dirac explain all phenomena, including quantum phenomena, in
field, this field is the electron. terms of a classical field theory. Nevertheless, and although
Einstein would not have agreed, it seems to me that QFT
achieves Einstein’s dream to regard nature as fields. QFT
C. Further properties of quantum fields promotes the right-hand side of Eq. (1) to field status. But it
is not yet a “palace of gold” because Einstein’s goal of
Thus the quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation is a explaining all fields entirely in terms of zero-rest-mass fields
re-formulation of classical electromagnetic theory to account such as the gravitational field has not yet been achieved,
for quantization—the “bundling” of radiation into discrete although the QFT of the strong force comes close to this
quanta. It remains, like the classical theory, a field theory. The goal of “mass without mass.”13,16,17
quantum theory of matter introduces the electron-positron field
and a new field equation, the Dirac equation, the analog for
matter of the classical Maxwell field equations for radiation. IV. THE TWO-SLIT EXPERIMENT
Quantization of the Dirac equation is analogous to quantiza- A. Phenomena
tion of Maxwell’s equations, and the result is the quantized
electron-positron field. The Schr€odinger equation, the nonrela- Field-particle duality appears most clearly in the context
tivistic version of the Dirac equation, is thus a field equation. of the time-honored two-slit experiment, which Feynman
There are no particles in any of this; there are only field claimed “contains the only mystery.”48,49 Figures 1 and 2
quanta—excitations of spatially extended continuous fields. show the outcome of the two-slit experiment using a dim
For over three decades, the Standard Model—a QFT—has light beam (Fig. 1) and a “dim” electron beam (Fig. 2) as
been our best theory of the microscopic world. It’s clear sources, with time-lapse photography. The set-up is a source
from the structure of QFTs (Secs. III A and III B) that they emitting monochromatic light (Fig. 1)50 or mono-energetic
actually are field theories, not particle theories in disguise. electrons (Fig. 2),51 an opaque screen with two parallel slits,
Nevertheless, I’ll offer further evidence for their field nature and a detection screen with which the beam collides. In both
here and in Secs. V and VI. figures, particle-like impacts build up on the detection screen
Quantum fields have one particle-like property that classi- to form interference patterns. The figures show both field
cal fields don’t have: They are made of countable quanta. aspects (the extended patterns) and particle aspects (the
Thus quanta cannot partly vanish but must (like particles) be localized impacts). The similarity between the two figures is
entirely and instantly created or destroyed. Quanta carry striking and indicates a fundamental similarity between pho-
energy and momenta and can thus “hit like a particle.” Fol- tons and electrons. It’s intuitively hard to believe that one
lowing three centuries of particle-oriented Newtonian figure was made by waves and the other by particles.
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.)
Consider, first, the extended pattern. It’s easy to explain if teristic of the detector, which is made of localized atoms,
each quantum (photon or electron) is an extended field that rather than of the detected quanta. The detection, however,
comes through both slits. But could the pattern arise from localizes (“collapses”—Secs. IV B and IV C) the quantum.
particles? The experiments can be performed using an en- Similar arguments apply to the observation of thin particle
semble of separately emitted individual quanta, implying tracks in bubble chambers and other apparent particle detec-
that the results cannot arise from interactions between differ- tions. Localization is characteristic of the detection process,
ent quanta.52 Preparation is identical for all the quanta in the not of the quantum that is being detected.
ensemble. Thus, given this particular experimental context Thus the interference patterns in Figs. 1 and 2 confirm field
(namely, the two-slit experiment with both slits open, no de- behavior and rule out particle behavior, while the small inter-
tector at the slits, and a “downstream” screen that detects action points neither confirm particle behavior nor rule out
each ensemble member), each quantum must carry informa- field behavior. The experiment thus confirms field behavior.
tion about the entire pattern that appears on the screen (in As Dirac famously put it in connection with experiments of
order, e.g., to avoid all the nodes). In this sense, each quan- the two-slit type, “The new theory [namely quantum mechan-
tum can be said to be spread out over the pattern. ics], which connects the wave function with probabilities for
If we close one slit, the pattern shifts to the single-slit pat- one photon, gets over the difficulty [of explaining the interfer-
tern behind the open slit, showing no interference. Thus each ence] by making each photon go partly into each of the two
quantum carries different information depending on whether components. Each photon then interferes only with itself.”54
two slits are open or just one. (The phrases in square brackets are mine, not Dirac’s.)
How does one quantum get information as to how many Given the extended field nature of each electron, Fig. 2
slits are open? If a quantum is a field that is extended over also confirms von Neumann’s famous collapse postulate:55
both slits, there’s no problem. But could a particle coming Each electron carries information about the entire pattern and
through just one slit obtain this information by detecting collapses to a much smaller region upon interaction. Most
physical forces from the other, relatively distant, slit? The textbooks set up a paradox by explicitly or implicitly assum-
effect is the same for photons and electrons, and the experi- ing each quantum to come through one or the other slit, and
ment has been done with neutrons, atoms, and many molecu- then struggle to resolve the paradox. But if each quantum
lar types, making it difficult to imagine gravitational, EM, or comes through both slits, there’s no paradox.
nuclear forces causing such a long-distance force effect.
What more direct evidence could there be that a quantum is B. Theory, at the slits
an extended field? Thus we cannot explain the extended pat-
terns by assuming each quantum is a particle, but we can Now assume detectors are at each slit so that a quantum
explain the patterns by assuming each quantum is a field.53 passing through slit 1 (with slit 2 closed) triggers detector 1,
Now consider the particle-like small impact points. We and similarly for slit 2. Let jw1i and jw2i, which we assume
can obviously explain these if quanta are particles, but can form an orthonormal basis for the quantum’s Hilbert space,
we explain them with fields? The flashes seen in both figures denote the states of a quantum passing through slit 1 with slit
are multi-atom events initiated by interactions of a single 2 closed, and through slit 2 with slit 1 closed, respectively.
quantum with the screen. In Fig. 2, for example, each elec- We assume, with von Neumann, that the detector also obeys
tron interacts with a portion of a fluorescent film, creating quantum physics, with jreadyi denoting the “ready” state of
some 500 photons; these photons excite a photo cathode, the detectors, and j1i and j2i denoting the “clicked” states of
producing photo-electrons that are then focused into a point each detector. Then the evolution of the composite quan-
image that is displayed on a TV monitor.51 This shows that a tum þ detector system, when the quantum passes through slit
quantum can interact locally with atoms, but it doesn’t show i alone (with the other slit closed), is of the form jwii jreadyi
that quanta are point particles. A large object (a big balloon, ! jwii jii (i ¼ 1,2) (assuming, with von Neumann, that these
say) can interact quite locally with another object (a tiny nee- are “ideal” processes that don’t disturb the state of the
dle, say). The localization seen in the two figures is charac- quantum).56,57
With both slits open, the single quantum approaching the
slits is described by a superposition that’s extended over
both slits:
ðjw1 i þ jw2 iÞ=冑2 jwi: (4)
Linearity of the time evolution implies that the composite

system’s evolution during detection at the slits is
jw1 ijreadyi ! ðjw1 ij1i þ jw2 ij2iÞ=冑2 jWslits i: (5)
The “measurement state” jWslitsi 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 finding detector i in the state jii when de-
tector j 6¼ i is in its clicked state jji, so j1i and j2i are orthog-
onal and we assume they are normalized.
It’s mathematically convenient to form the pure state den-
sity operator
qslits jWslits ihWslits j; (6)
and to form the reduced density operator for the quantum

alone by tracing over the detector:
qq slits ¼ Trdetector ðqslits Þ ¼ ðjw1 ihw1 j þ jw2 ihw2 jÞ=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 jw1i or jw2i 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 jw1i and jw2i. 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 field nature of the measurement, sup-
pose there is a “which slit” detector only at slit 1 with no de-
tector at slit 2. Then jwii jreadyi ! jwii jii holds only for
i ¼ 1, while for i ¼ 2 we have jw2i jreadyi ! jw2i 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
Fig. 2. The two-slit experiment outcome using a “dim” electron beam with
comes through slit 2 it still encodes the presence of a detec-
time-lapse photography. As in Fig. 1, an interference pattern builds up tor at slit 1. This behavior is nonlocal, and it tells us that the
from particle-like impacts (Reprinted with permission from A. Tonomura, quantum extends over both slits, i.e., the quantum is a field,
J. Endo, T. Matsuda, T. Kawasaki, and H. Exawa, Am. J. Phys. 57(2), not a particle.
117–120 (1989).Copyright # 1989 American Association of Physics Thus the experiment (Sec. IV A) and the theory both imply
Teachers) 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 field (but not a
particle) to do.
C. Theory, at the detecting screen V. RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM PHYSICS
We’ll see that the above analysis at the slits carries over at NRQP (Sec. IV) is not the best basis for analyzing field-
the detecting screen, with the screen acting as detector. particle duality. The spontaneous energy fluctuations of
The screen is an array of small but macroscopic detectors quantum physics, plus SR’s principle of mass-energy equiva-
such as single photographic grains. Suppose one quantum lence, imply that quanta, be they fields or particles, can be
described by Eq. (4) passes through the slits and approaches created or destroyed. Since relativistic quantum physics was
the screen. Expanding in position eigenstates, just before invented largely to deal with such creation and destruction,
interacting with the screen the quantum’s state is one might expect relativistic quantum physics to offer the
ð ð deepest insights into fields and particles.
Quantum physics doesn’t fit easily into a special-
jwi ¼ jxidxhxjwi ¼ jxiwðxÞdx; (8)
relativistic framework. As one example, we saw in Sec. III A
that photons (relativistic phenomena for sure) cannot be
where the integral is over the two-dimensional screen, and quantum point particles because they don’t have position
w(x) is the Schr€odinger field. Equation (8) is a (continuous) eigenstates.
superposition over position eigenstates, just as Eq. (4) is a A more striking example is nonlocality, a phenomenon
(discrete) superposition over slit eigenstates. Both superposi- shown by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen,59 and more quanti-
tions are extended fields. tatively by John Bell,60 to inhere in the quantum foundations.
Rewriting Eq. (8) in a form that displays the quantum’s Using Bell’s inequality, Aspect, Clauser, and others showed
superposition over the non-overlapping detection regions, experimentally that nature is nonlocal and that this would be
true even if quantum physics were not true.61 The implication
Xð X
jwi ¼ jxiwðxÞdx A jw i; (9) is that, by altering the way she measures one of the quanta in
i i i an experiment involving two entangled quanta, Alice in New
i i
Ð Ð York City can instantly (i.e., in a time too short to allow for
where jwii (1/Ai) i jxi w(x)dx and Ai [ i jw(x)j2dx]1/2. signal propagation) change the outcomes observed when Bob
The detection regions are labeled by i and the jwii form an measures the other quantum in Paris. This sounds like it vio-
orthonormal set. Equation (9) is analogous to Eq. (4). lates the special-relativistic prohibition on super-luminal sig-
The detection process at the screen is represented by the naling, but quantum physics manages to avoid a contradiction
analog of Eq. (5): by camouflaging the signal so that Alice’s measurement
X choice is “averaged out” in the statistics of Bob’s observations
jwijreadyi ! Ai jwi ijii jWscreen i; (10) in such a way that Bob detects no change in the statistics of
i his experiment.62 Thus Bob receives no signal, even though
nonlocality changes his observed results. Quantum physics’
where jii represents the “clicked” state of the ith detecting particular mixture of uncertainty and nonlocality preserves
region, whose output can be either “detection” or “no consistency with SR. It’s only when Alice and Bob later com-
detection” of the quantum. Localization occurs at the time of pare their data that they can spot correlations showing that
this click. Each region i responds by interacting or not inter- Alice’s change of measurement procedure altered Bob’s out-
acting, with just one region registering an interaction comes. Quantum physics must thread a fine needle, being
because a quantum must give up all, or none, of its energy. “weakly local” in order to prevent superluminal signaling but,
As we’ll see in Sec. VI C, these other sections of the screen in order to allow quantum nonlocality, not “strongly local.”62
actually register the vacuum—a physical state that can entan- Quantum field spreading can transmit information and is lim-
gle nonlocally with the registered quantum. The nonlocality ited by the speed of light, while nonlocal effects are related to
inherent in the entangled superposition state jWscreeni has superluminal field collapse and cannot transmit information
been verified by Bell-type measurements (Sec. VI C). As lest they violate SR.
was the case for detection at the slits (Eq. (5)), Eq. (10) rep- When generalizing NRQP to include such relativistic
resents the mechanism by which the macro world registers quantum phenomena as creation and destruction, conflicts
the quantum’s impact on the screen. with SR can arise unless one proceeds carefully. Heger-
The argument from Eq. (10) goes through precisely like feldt63 and Malament64 have each presented rigorous “no-go
the argument from Eq. (5) to Eq. (7). The result is that, theorems” demonstrating that, if one assumes a universe con-
assuming the states jii are reliable detectors, the reduced taining particles, then the requirements of SR and quantum
density operator for the quantum alone is physics lead to contradictions. This supports the “widespread
(within the physics community) belief that the only relativis-
X
qq screen ¼ jwi iA2i hwi j: (11) tic quantum theory is a theory of fields.”65 Neither theorem
i assumes QFT. They assume only SR and the general princi-
ples of quantum physics, plus broadly inclusive definitions
Equation (11) tells us that the quantum is registered either in of what one means by a “particle.” Each then derives a con-
region 1 or region 2 or… It’s this “all or nothing” nature of tradiction, showing that there can be no particles in any
quantum interactions, rather than any presumed particle na- theory obeying both SR and quantum physics. I will describe
ture of quanta, that produces the particle-like interaction only Hegerfeldt’s theorem here, because it is the more intui-
regions in Figures 1 and 2. tive of the two, and because Malement’s theorem is more
In summary, “only spatial fields must be postulated to subject to difficulties of interpretation.
form the fundamental objects to be quantized,.while apparent Hegerfeldt shows that any free (i.e., not constrained by
“particles” are a mere consequence of decoherence” (i.e., of boundary conditions or forces to remain for all time within
localization by the detection process).58 some finite region) relativistic quantum “particle” must, if
it’s localized to a finite region to begin with, instantly have a verified phenomena such as the Lamb shift, the Casimir
positive probability of being found an arbitrarily large dis- effect, and the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment, this
tance away. But this result turns out to violate Einstein cau- “state that has no particles” is hard to ignore. This section dis-
sality (no superluminal signaling). The conclusion is then cusses QFT vacuum phenomena that are difficult to reconcile
that an individual free quantum can never—not even for a with particles. Section VI A discusses the quantum vacuum
single instant—be localized to any finite region. itself. The remaining parts are implications of the quantum
More specifically, a presumed particle is said to be vacuum. The Unruh effect (Sec. VI B), related to Hawking
“localized” at to if it is prepared in such a way as to ensure radiation, has not yet been observed, while single-quantum
that it will upon measurement be found, with probability 1, nonlocality (Sec. VI C) is experimentally confirmed.
to be within some arbitrarily large but finite region Vo at to. On the other hand, we do not yet really understand the
Hegerfeldt then assumes two conditions: First, the presumed quantum vacuum. The most telling demonstration of this is
particle has quantum states that can be represented in a that the most plausible theoretical QFT estimate of the energy
Hilbert space with unitary time-development operator Ut density of the vacuum implies a value of the cosmological
¼ exp(iHt), where H is the energy operator. Second, the constant that is some 120 orders of magnitude larger than the
particle’s energy spectrum has a lower bound. The first con- upper bound placed on this parameter by astronomical obser-
dition says that the particle obeys standard quantum dynam- vations. Possible solutions, such as the anthropic principle,
ics. The second says that the Hamiltonian that drives the have been suggested, but these remain speculative.71
dynamics cannot provide infinite energy by itself dropping to
lower and lower energies. Hegerfeldt then proves that a par- A. The necessity for the quantum vacuum
ticle that is localized at t0 is not localized at any t > t0. See
Ref. 63 for the proof. It’s remarkable that even localizability Both theory and experiment demonstrate that the quan-
in an arbitrarily large finite region can be so difficult for tized EM field can never be sharply (with probability 1)
a relativistic quantum particle: its probability amplitude zero, but rather that there must exist, at every spatial point,
spreads instantly to infinity. at least a randomly fluctuating “vacuum field” having no
Now here is the contradiction: Consider a particle that is quanta.72 Concerning the theory, recall (Sec. III) that a quan-
localized within V0 at t0. At any t > t0, there is then a nonzero tized field is equivalent to a set of oscillators. An actual me-
probability that it will be found at any arbitrarily large dis- chanical oscillator cannot be at rest in its ground state
tance away from V0. This is not a problem for a nonrelativistic because this would violate the uncertainty principle; its
theory, and in fact such instantaneous spreading of wavefunc- ground state energy is instead hf/2. Likewise, each field os-
tions is easy to show in NRQP.66 But in a relativistic theory, cillator must have a ground state where it has energy but no
such instantaneous spreading contradicts relativity’s prohibi- excitations. In the “vacuum state,” where the number of exci-
tion on superluminal transport and communication, because it tations Nk is zero for every mode k, the expectation values of
implies that a particle localized on Earth at t0 could, with non- E and B are zero yet the expectation values of E2 and B2 are
zero probability, be found on the moon an arbitrarily short not zero. Thus the vacuum energy arises from random
time later. We conclude that “particles” cannot ever be local- “vacuum fluctuations” of E and B around zero.
ized. To call a thing a “particle” when it cannot ever be local- As a second and more direct argument for the necessity of
ized in any finite region is surely a gross misuse of that word. EM vacuum energy, consider a charge e of mass m bound by
Because QFTs reject the notion of position observables in an elastic restoring force to a large mass of opposite charge.
favor of parameterized field observables (Sec. III), QFTs have The equation of motion for the Heisenberg-picture position
no problem with Hegerfeldt’s theorem. In QFT the interac- operator x(t) has the same form as the corresponding classi-
tions, including creation and destruction, occur at specific cal equation, namely
locations x, but the fundamental objects of the theory, namely,
the fields, do not have positions because they are infinitely d 2 x=dt2 þ x2o x ¼ ðe=mÞ½Err ðtÞ þ Eo ðtÞ: (12)
extended.
Summarizing: even under a broadly inclusive definition of Here, xo is the oscillator’s natural frequency, Err(t) is the
“particle,” quantum particles conflict with Einstein causality. “radiation reaction” field produced by the charged oscillator
itself, Eo(t) is the external field, and it’s assumed that the
spatial dependence of Eo(t) can be neglected. It can be
VI. THE QUANTUM VACUUM shown that the radiation reaction has the same form as the
The Standard Model, a QFT (more precisely two QFTs), classical radiation reaction field for an accelerating charged
is today the favored way of looking at relativistic quantum particle, Err(t) ¼ (2e/3c3) d3x/dt3, so Eq. (12) becomes
phenomena. In fact, QFT is “the only known version of rela-
tivistic quantum theory.”67 Since NRQP can also be d 2 x=dt2 þ x2o x ð2e2 =3mc3 Þd3 x=dt3 ¼ ðe=mÞEo ðtÞ:
expressed as a QFT,68 all of quantum physics can be (13)
expressed consistently as QFTs. We’ve seen (Sec. V) that
quantum particles conflict with SR. This suggests (but If the term Eo(t) were absent, Eq. (13) would become a dissi-
doesn’t prove) that QFTs are the only logically consistent pative equation with x(t) exponentially damped, and commu-
version of relativistic quantum physics.69 Thus, it appears tators like [z(t), pz(t)] would approach zero for large t, in
that QFTs are the natural language of quantum physics. contradiction with the uncertainty principle and in contradic-
Because it has energy and nonvanishing expectation val- tion with the unitary time development of quantum physics
ues, the QFT vacuum is embarrassing for particle interpreta- according to which commutators like [z(t), pz(t)] are time-
tions. If one believes particles to be the basic reality, then independent. Thus Eo(t) cannot be absent for quantum
what is it that has this energy and these values in the state that systems. Furthermore, if Eo(t) is the vacuum field then com-
has no particles?70 Because it is the source of empirically mutators like [z(t), pz(t)] turn out to be time-independent.
B. The Unruh effect “outputs”) going, respectively, to “Alice” and “Bob.” They
could be any distance apart and were equipped with beam
QFT predicts that an accelerating observer in vacuum sees splitters with phase-sensitive photon detectors.
quanta that are not there for an inertial observer of the same But nonlocality normally involves two entangled quantum
vacuum. More concretely, consider Mort who moves at con- entities. With just one photon, what was there to entangle
stant velocity in Minkowski space-time, and Velma who is with? If photons are field mode excitations, the answer is
uniformly accelerating (i.e., her acceleration is unchanging natural: the entanglement was between two quantized field
relative to her instantaneous inertial rest frame). If Mort finds modes, with one of the modes happening to be in its vacuum
himself in the quantum vacuum, Velma finds herself bathed state. Like all fields, each mode fills space, making nonlocal-
in quanta—her “particle” detector clicks. Quantitatively, she ity between modes more intuitive than nonlocality between
observes a thermal bath of photons having the Planck radia- particles: If a space-filling mode were to instantly change
tion spectrum with kT ¼ ha/4p2c where a is her accelera- states, the process would obviously be nonlocal. This high-
tion.73 This prediction might be testable in high energy lights the importance of thinking of quantum phenomena in
hadronic collisions, and for electrons in storage rings.74 In terms of fields.79
fact, it appears to have been verified years ago in the In Tan et al.’s suggested experiment, Alice’s and Bob’s
Sokolov-Ternov effect.75 wave vectors were the two entangled modes. According to
The Unruh effect lies at the intersection of thermodynam- QFT, an output “beam” with no photon is an actual physical
ics, QFT, SR, and general relativity. Combined with the state, namely, the vacuum state j0i. Alice’s mode having
equivalence principle of general relativity, it entails that wave vector kA was then in a superposition j1iAþj0iA of hav-
strong gravitational fields create thermal radiation. This is ing a single excitation and having no excitation, Bob’s mode
most pronounced near the event horizon of a black hole, kB was in an analogous superposition j1iBþj0iB, and the two
where a stationary (relative to the event horizon) Velma sees superpositions were entangled by the source beam splitter to
a thermal bath of particles that then fall into the black hole, create a two-mode composite system in the nonlocal Bell
but some of which can, under the right circumstances, escape state
as Hawking radiation.76
The Unruh effect is counterintuitive for a particle ontol- jwi5j1iA j0iB þ j0iA j1iB (14)
ogy, as it seems to show that the particle concept is observer-
dependent. If particles form the basic reality, how can they
(omitting normalization). Note the analogy with Eq. (5): In
be present for the accelerating Velma but absent for the non-
Eq. (14), Alice and Bob act as detectors for each others’
accelerating Mort who observes the same space-time region?
superposed quanta, collapsing (decohering) both quanta. This
But if fields are basic, things fall into place: Both experience
entangled superposition state emerged from the source; Alice
the same field, but Velma’s acceleration promotes Mort’s
then detected only mode kA and Bob detected only mode kB.
vacuum fluctuations to the level of thermal fluctuations. The
Quantum theory predicted that coincidence experiments
same field is present for both observers, but an accelerated
would show correlations that violated Bell’s inequality,
observer views it differently.
implying nonlocality that cannot be explained classically.
Analogously to Eq. (7), Alice’s and Bob’s reduced density
C. Single-quantum nonlocality operators are
Nonlocality is pervasive, arguably the characteristic quan- qA ¼ TrB ðjwihwjÞ ¼j1iAA h1j þ j0iAA h0j;
tum phenomenon. It would be surprising, then, if it were (15)
merely an “emergent” property possessed by two or more qB ¼ TrA ðjwihwjÞ ¼j1iBB h1j þ j0iBB h0j:
quanta but not by a single quantum.
During the 1927 Solvay Conference, Einstein noted that “a Each observer has a perfectly random 50-50 chance of
peculiar action-at-a-distance must be assumed to take place” receiving 0 or 1, a “signal” containing no information. All
when the Schr€ odinger field for a single quantum passes coherence and nonlocality are contained in the composite
through a single slit, diffracts in a spherical wave, and strikes state, Eq. (14).
a detection screen. Theoretically, when the interaction local- This returns us to Einstein’s concerns: In the single-
izes as a small flash on the screen, the field instantly vanishes photon interference experiment (Sec. IV), interaction of the
over the rest of the screen. Supporting de Broglie’s theory that photon with the screen creates a nonlocal entangled superpo-
supplemented the Schr€odinger field with particles, Einstein sition (Eq. (10)) that is analogous (but with N terms) to Eq.
commented “if one works only with Schr€odinger waves, the (14). As Einstein suspected, this state is odd, nonlocal. Vio-
interpretation of psi, I think, contradicts the postulate of rela- lation of Bell’s inequality shows that the analogous state of
tivity.”77 Since that time, however, the peaceful coexistence Eq. (14) is, indeed, nonlocal in a way that cannot be inter-
of quantum nonlocality and SR has been demonstrated.62,67 preted classically.
It’s striking that Einstein’s 1927 remark anticipated In 1994, another single-photon experiment was proposed
single-quantum nonlocality in much the same way that that would demonstrate nonlocality without Bell inequal-
Einstein’s EPR paper59 anticipated nonlocality of two ities.80 The 1991 and 1994 proposals triggered extended
entangled quanta. Today, single-quantum nonlocality has a debate about whether such experiments really demonstrate
20-year history that further demonstrates nonlocality as well nonlocality involving only one photon.81 The discussion gen-
as the importance of fields in understanding it. erated three papers describing proposed new experiments to
Single-photon nonlocality was first described in detail test single-photon nonlocality.82 One of these proposals was
by Tan et al. in 1991.78 In this suggested experiment, a sin- implemented in 2002, when a single-photon Bell state was
gle photon passed through a 50-50 beam-splitting mirror teleported to demonstrate (by the nonlocal teleportation) the
(the “source”), with reflected and transmitted beams (the single-photon nonlocality. In this experiment, “The role of
the two entangled quantum systems which form the nonlocal books filled almost exclusively with “particles talk,” and
channel is played by the EM fields of Alice and Bob. In other pseudoscientific fantasies (Sec. I). The relativistic general-
words, the field modes rather than the photons associated ization of Schr€odinger’s equation, namely Dirac’s equation,
with them should be properly taken as the information and is clearly a field equation that is quantized to obtain the
entanglement carriers” (italics in the original).83 There was electron-positron field, in perfect analogy to the way Max-
also an experimental implementation of a single-photon Bell well’s field are quantized (Sec. III B). It makes no sense,
test based on the 1991 and 1994 proposals.84 then, to insist that the nonrelativistic version of Dirac’s equa-
It was then suggested that the state Eq. (14) can transfer tion, namely the Schr€odinger equation, be interpreted in
its entanglement to two atoms in different locations, both ini- terms of particles. After all, the electron-positron field, which
tially in their ground states jgi, by using the state Eq. (14) to fills all space, surely doesn’t shrink back to tiny particles
generate the joint atomic state jeiAjgiB þ jgiAjeiB (note that when the electrons slow down.
the vacuum won’t excite the atom).85 Here, jei represents an Thus Schr€odinger’s W(x,t) is a spatially extended field
excited state of an atom, while A and B now refer to different representing the probability amplitude for an electron (i.e.,
modes kA and kB of a matter field (different beam directions the electron-positron field) to interact at x rather than an am-
for atoms A and B). Thus the atoms (i.e., modes kA and kB) plitude for finding, upon measurement, a particle. In fact, the
are placed in a nonlocal entangled superposition of being field W(x,t) is the so-called “particle.” Fields are all there is.
excited and not excited. Since this nonlocal entanglement Analysis of the two-slit experiment (Sec. IV) shows why,
arises from the single-photon nonlocal state by purely local from a particle viewpoint, “nobody knows how it [i.e., the
operations, it’s clear that the single-photon state must have experiment] can be like that.”23 The two-slit experiment is in
been nonlocal too. Nevertheless, there was controversy about fact logically inconsistent with a particle viewpoint. But
whether this proposal really represents single-quantum everything becomes consistent, and students don’t “get down
nonlocality.86 the drain,” if the experiment is viewed in terms of fields.
Another experiment, applicable to photons or atoms, was Textbooks need to reflect that fields, not particles, form
proposed to remove all doubt as to whether these experi- our most fundamental description of nature. This can be
ments demonstrated single-quantum nonlocality. The pro- done easily, not by trying to teach the formalism of QFT in
posal concluded by stating, “This strengthens our belief that introductory courses, but rather by talking about fields,
the world described by quantum field theory, where fields explaining that there are no particles but only particle-like
are fundamental and particles have only a secondary impor- phenomena caused by field quantization.21 In the two-slit
tance, is closer to reality than might be expected from a na- experiment, for example, the quantized field for each elec-
ive application of quantum mechanical principles.”87 tron or photon comes simultaneously through both slits,
spreads over the entire interference pattern, and collapses
VII. CONCLUSION nonlocally, upon interacting with the screen, into a small
(but still spread-out) region of the detecting screen.
There are overwhelming grounds to conclude that all the Field-particle duality exists only in the sense that quan-
fundamental constituents of quantum physics are fields rather tized fields have certain particle-like appearances: quanta are
than particles. unified bundles of field that carry energy and momentum and
Rigorous analysis shows that, even under a broad definition thus “hit like particles"; quanta are discrete and thus count-
of “particle,” particles are inconsistent with the combined able. But quanta are not particles; they are excitations of spa-
principles of relativity and quantum physics (Sec. V). Photons, tially unbounded fields. Photons and electrons, along with
in particular, cannot be point particles because relativistic and atoms, molecules, and apples, are ultimately disturbances in
quantum principles imply that a photon cannot “be found” at a a few universal fields.
specific location, even in principle (Sec. III A). Many relativis-
tic quantum phenomena are paradoxical in terms of particles
but natural in terms of fields: the necessity for the quantum ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
vacuum (Sec. VI A), the Unruh effect where an accelerated ob-
My University of Arkansas colleagues Julio Gea-
server detects quanta while an inertial observer detects none
Banacloche, Daniel Kennefick, Michael Lieber, Surendra
(Sec. VI B), and single-quantum nonlocality where two field
Singh, and Reeta Vyas discussed my incessant questions and
modes are put into entangled superpositions of a singly-
commented on the manuscript. Rodney Brooks and Peter
excited state and a vacuum state (Sec. VI C).
Milonni read and commented on the manuscript. I received
Classical field theory and experiment imply that fields are
helpful comments from Nathan Argaman, Casey Blood,
fundamental, and indeed Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein
Edward Gerjuoy, Daniel Greenberger, Nick Herbert, David
concluded as much (Sec. II). Merely quantizing these fields
Mermin, Michael Nauenberg, Roland Omnes, Marc Sher,
doesn’t change their field nature. Beginning in 1900, quan-
and Wojciech Zurek. I especially thank the referees for their
tum effects implied that Maxwell’s field equations needed
careful attention and helpful comments.
modification, but the quantized equations were still based on
fields (Maxwell’s fields, in fact, but quantized), not particles
(Sec. III A). On the other hand, Newton’s particle equations a)
Email [email protected]
1
were replaced by a radically different concept for matter, M. Schlosshauer, Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews
namely Schr€ odinger’s field equation, whose field solution (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2011).
2
W(x,t) was, however, inconsistently interpreted as the proba- N. G. van Kampen, “The scandal of quantum mechanics,” Am. J. Phys.
76(11), 989–990 (2008); A. Hobson, “Response to ‘The scandal of quan-
bility amplitude for finding, upon measurement, a particle at tum mechanics,’ by N. G. Van Kampen,” Am. J. Phys. 77(4), 293 (2009).
the point x. The result has been confusion about particles 3
W. Zurek, “Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical,”
and measurements, including mentally-collapsed wave pack- Phys. Today 44(10), 36–44 (1991): “Quantum mechanics works exceed-
ets, students going “down the drain into a blind alley,” text- ingly well in all practical applications…Yet well over half a century after
its inception, the debate about the relation of quantum mechanics to the fa- 49, 434–437 (2011); “Teaching quantum nonlocality,” The Phys. Teach.
miliar physical world continues. How can a theory that can account with 50, 270–273 (2012).
22
precision for everything we can measure still be deemed lacking?" A. Hobson, Physics: Concepts & Connections (Addison-Wesley/Pearson,
4
C. Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark San Francisco, 2010).
23
(Random House, New York, 1995), p. 26: “We’ve arranged a civilization R. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technol- 1965), p. 129. Feynman also says, in the same lecture, “I think I can safely
ogy. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands sci- say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
24
ence and technology. This is a prescription for disaster…Sooner or later A. Janiak, Newton: Philosophical Writings (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge,
this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in 2004), p. 102.
25
our faces.” N. J. Nersessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific
5
M. Shermer, “Quantum Quackery,” Sci. Am. 292(1), 34 (2005). Theories (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 1984), p. 37. The remain-
6
V. Stenger, “Quantum Quackery,” Sceptical Inquirer 21(1), 37–42 der of Sec. III relies strongly on this book.
26
(1997). It’s striking that this article has, by coincidence, the same title as S. Weinberg, Ref. 11, p. 167: “Fields are conditions of space itself, consid-
Ref. 5. ered apart from any matter that may be in it.”
7 27
D. Chopra, Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Med- This argument was Maxwell’s and Einstein’s justification for the reality of
icine (Bantam, New York, 1989). the EM field. R. H. Stuewer, Ed., Historical and Philosophical Perspec-
8
D. Chopra, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to tives of Science (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1989), p. 299.
28
Growing Old (Harmony Books, New York, 1993). A. Einstein, “Maxwell’s influence on the development of the conception
9
B. Rosenblum and F. Kuttner, Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Con- of physical reality,” in James Clerk Maxwell: A Commemorative
sciousness (Oxford U.P., New York, 2006). Volume 1831–1931 (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1931),
10
S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental pp. 66–73.
29
Laws of Nature (Random House, Inc., New York, 1992): “Furthermore, all A. Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper,” Ann. Phys. 17,
these particles are bundles of the energy, or quanta, of various sorts of 891–921 (1905).
30
fields. A field like an electric or magnetic field is a sort of stress in space. I. Newton, Optiks (4th edition, W. Innys, 1730): “It seems probable to me
The equations of a field theory like the Standard Model deal not with par- that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetra-
ticles but with fields; the particles appear as manifestations of those fields” ble, movable particles…and that these primitive particles being solids are
(p. 25). incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even
11
S. Weinberg, Facing Up: Science and its Cultural Adversaries (Harvard so hard as never to wear or break in pieces…”
31
U.P., Cambridge, MA, 2001): “Just as there is an electromagnetic field R. Brooks, author of Ref. 19, private communication.
32
whose energy and momentum come in tiny bundles called photons, so J. A. Wheeler and R. P. Feynman, “Interaction With the Absorber as the
there is an electron field whose energy and momentum and electric charge Mechanism of Radiation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 157–181 (1945).
33
are found in the bundles we call electrons, and likewise for every species P. A. M. Dirac, “The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of
of elementary particles. The basic ingredients of nature are fields; particles radiation,” Proc. R. Soc. A 114, 243–267 (1927).
34
are derivative phenomena.” M. Kuhlmann, The Ultimate Constituents Of The Material World: In
12
R. Mills, Space, Time, and Quanta: An Introduction to Modern Physics Search Of An Ontology For Fundamental Physics (Ontos Verlag, Heusen-
(W. H. Freeman, New York, 1994), Chap. 16: “The only way to have a stamm, Germany, 2010), Chap. 4; a brief but detailed history of QFT.
35
consistent relativistic theory is to treat all the particles of nature as the The first comprehensive account of a general theory of quantum fields, in
quanta of fields, like photons. Electrons and positrons are to be treated as particular the method of canonical quantization, was presented in W. Hei-
the quanta of the electron-positron field, whose ‘classical’ field equation, senberg and W. Pauli, “Zur quantendynamik der Wellenfelder,” Z. Phys.
the analog of Maxwell’s equations for the EM field, turns out to be the 56, 1–61 (1929).
36
Dirac equation, which started life as a relativistic version of the single- E. G. Harris, A Pedestrian Approach to Quantum Field Theory (Wiley-
particle Schr€odinger equation.…This approach now gives a unified pic- Interscience, New York, 1972).
37
ture, known as quantum field theory, of all of nature.” More precisely, there are two vector modes for each nonzero k, one for
13
F. Wilczek, “Mass Without Mass I: Most of Matter,” Phys. Today 52(11), each possible field polarization direction, both perpendicular to k. See Ref.
11–13 (1999): “In quantum field theory, the primary elements of reality 36 for other details.
38
are not individual particles, but underlying fields. Thus, e.g., all electrons For example, L. H. Ryder, Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge U.P., Cam-
are but excitations of an underlying field,… the electron field, which fills bridge, 1996), p 131: “This completes the justification for interpreting
all space and time.” N(k) as the number operator and hence for the particle interpretation of the
14
M. Redhead, “More ado about nothing,” Found. Phys. 25(1), 123–137 quantized theory.”
39
(1995): “Particle states are never observable—they are an idealization H. D. Zeh, “There are no quantum jumps, nor are there particles!,” Phys.
which leads to a plethora of misunderstandings about what is going on in Lett. A 172, 189–195 (1993): “All particle aspects observed in measure-
quantum field theory. The theory is about fields and their local excitations. ments of quantum fields (like spots on a plate, tracks in a bubble chamber,
That is all there is to it.” or clicks of a counter) can be understood by taking into account this deco-
15
A. Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton U.P., Princeton, herence of the relevant local (i.e. subsystem) density matrix.”
40
NJ, 2003), p. 24: “We thus interpret the physics contained in our simple C. Blood, “No evidence for particles,” http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf:
field theory as follows: In region 1 in spacetime there exists a source that “There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue
sends out a ‘disturbance in the field,’ which is later absorbed by a sink in for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton
region 2 in spacetime. Experimentalists choose to call this disturbance in effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave func-
the field a particle of mass m.” tion, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown,
16
F. Wilczek, “The persistence of ether,” Phys. Today 52(1), 11–13 (1999). however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using
17
F. Wilczek, “Mass Without Mass II: The Medium Is the Mass-age,” Phys. properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evi-
Today 53(1), 13–14 (2000). dence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave func-
18
F. Wilczek, The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of tions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties.”
41
Forces (Basic Books, New York, 2008). T. D. Newton and E. P. Wigner, “Localized states for elementary sys-
19
R. Brooks, Fields of Color: The Theory That Escaped Einstein, 2nd ed. tems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 21(3), 400–406 (1949).
42
(Rodney A. Brooks, Prescott, AZ, 2011). This is a lively history of classi- I. Bialynicki-Birula and Z. Bialynicki-Birula, “Why photons cannot be
cal and quantum fields, with many quotations from leading physicists, sharply localized,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 032112 (2009).
43
organized to teach quantum field theory to the general public. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cam-
20
P. R. Wallace, Paradox Lost: Images of the Quantum (Springer-Verlag, bridge U.P., New York, 1995).
44
New York, 1996). R. E. Peierls, Surprises in Theoretical Physics (Princeton U.P., Princeton,
21
A. Hobson, “Electrons as field quanta: A better way to teach quantum 1979), pp. 12–14.
45
physics in introductory general physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 73, 630– M. G. Raymer and B. J. Smith, “The Maxwell wave function of the pho-
634 (2005); “Teaching quantum physics without paradoxes,” Phys. ton,” in SPIE Conference on Optics and Photonics, San Diego, Aug 2005,
Teach. 45, 96–99 (2007); “Teaching quantum uncertainty,” Phys. Teach. Conf #5866: The Nature of Light.
46 69
Molecules, atoms, and protons are excitations of “composite fields” made S. Weinberg, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics, The 1986
of the presumably fundamental Standard Model fields. Dirac Memorial Lectures (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1987), pp. 78–79:
47
The Dirac field is a four-component relativistic “spinor” field Wi(x, t) “Although it is not a theorem, it is widely believed that it is impossible to
(i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4). reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity, except in the context of a
48
R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on quantum field theory.”
70
Physics, Vol. I (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA, 1963), Michael Redhead, “A philosopher looks at quantum field theory,” in Philo-
Chap. 37, p. 2: “[The 2-slit experiment is] a phenomenon which is impos- sophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory, edited by Harvey R.
sible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which Brown and Rom Harre (Oxford U.P., 1988), pp. 9–23: “What is the nature
has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only of the QFT vacuum? In the vacuum state… there is still plenty going on,
mystery. We cannot explain the mystery in the sense of ’explaining’ how as evidenced by the zero-point energy…[which] reflects vacuum fluctua-
it works. We will tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we tions in the field amplitude. These produce observable effects…I am now
will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics.” inclined to say that vacuum fluctuation phenomena show that the particle
(The italics are in the original.) picture is not adequate to QFT. QFT is best understood in terms of quan-
49
Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics (Doubleday, tized excitations of a field and that is all there is to it.”
71
New York, 1985), pp. 60–67; conceptual discussion of the wave-particle S. Weinberg, “The cosmological constant problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 61,
duality of electrons. 1–23 (1989).
50 72
Wolfgang Rueckner and Paul Titcomb, “A lecture demonstration of single My main source for Secs. VI A and VI B is Peter W. Milonni, The Quan-
photon interference,” Am J. Phys. 64(2), 184–188 (1996). tum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics (Academic
51
A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda, T. Kawasaki, and H. Exawa, Press Limited, London, 1994).
73
“Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern,” W. G. Unruh, “Notes on black hole evaporation,” Phys. Rev. D 14, 870–
Am. J. Phys. 57(2), 117–120 (1989). 892 (1976); P. C. W. Davies, “Scalar production in Schwarzschild and
52
Michler et al., “A quantum dot single-photon turnstile device,” Science Rindler metrics,” J. Phys. A 8, 609 (1975).
74
290, 2282–2285 (2000). S. Barshay and W. Troost, “A possible origin for temperature in strong
53
For a more formal argument, see A. J. Leggett, “Testing the limits of quan- interactions,” Phys. Lett. B 73, 4 (1978); S. Barshay, H. Braun, J. P.
tum mechanics: Motivation, state of play, prospects,” J. Phys: Condensed Gerber, and G. Maurer, “Possible evidence for fluctuations in the hadronic
Matter 14, R415–R451 (2002). temperature,” Phys. Rev. D 21, 7 (1980); J. S. Bell and J. M. Leinaas,
54
P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Oxford at “Electrons as accelerated thermometers,” Nucl. Phys. B 212, 131 (1983).
75
the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1947), p. 9. The quoted statement appears in E. T. Akhmedov and Douglas Singleton, “On the physical meaning of the
the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions, published respectively in 1935, 1947, and Unruh effect,” JRTP Lett. 86, 615–619 (2008).
76
1958. B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum gravity: the new synthesis,” in General Relativ-
55
J. von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics ity: An Einstein Centenary, edited by S. Hawking and W. Israel (Cam-
(Princeton U.P., Princeton, 1955), p. 351. bridge U.P., Cambridge, 1979), pp. 680–745.
56 77
The central feature of this analysis, namely how decoherence localizes the M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience,
quantum, was first discussed in W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, New York, 1974), pp. 115–118.
78
“Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparability S. M. Tan, D. F. Walls, and M. J. Collett, “Nonlocality of a single photon,”
and a quantitative statement of Bohr’s principle,” Phys. Rev. D 19, 473– Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 252–255 (1991).
79
484 (1979). M. O. Terra Cunha, J.A. Dunningham, and V. Vedral, “Entanglement in
57
M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition single-particle systems,” Proc. R. Soc. A 463, 2277–2286 (2007): “If we
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007), pp. 63–65. want to increase the breadth of applicability of entanglement, we should
58
H. D. Zeh, “There is no ’first’ quantization,” Phys. Lett. A 309, 329–334 think in terms of fields which are a fundamental description of nature. Par-
(2003). ticles are only a manifestation of certain special configurations of quantum
59
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical fields. If entanglement is to be considered a fundamental property of na-
description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev. ture, and even a resource to be understood and applied, one would like to
47(10), 777–780 (1935). understand entangled fields.”
60 80
J. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox,” Physics 1(3), 195–200 L. Hardy, “Nonlocality of a single photon revisited,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 73,
(1964). 2277–2286 (1994).
61 81
A. Aspect, “To be or not to be local,” Nature 446, 866–867 (2007); S. Gro- L. Hardy, “N-measurement Bell inequalities, N-atom entangled, states,
blacher, A. Zeilinger et al., “An experimental test of nonlocal realism,” and the nonlocality of one photon,” Phys. Lett. A 160, 1–8 (1991); E. San-
Nature 446, 871–875 (2007); G. C. Ghirardi, “The interpretation of quan- tos, “Comment on ’Nonlocality of a single photon’,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 68,
tum mechanics: where do we stand?” Fourth International Workshop 894 (1992); D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger,
DICE 2008, J. Phys.: Conf. Series 174, 012013 (2009). “Nonlocality of a single photon?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2064 (1995); Lev
62
L. E. Ballentine and J. P. Jarrett, “Bell’s theorem: Does quantum mechan- Vaidman, “Nonlocality of a single photon revisited again,” Phys. Rev.
ics contradict relativity?” Am. J. Phys. 55(8), 696–701 (1987). Lett. 75, 2063 (1995); A. Peres, “Nonlocal effects in Fock space,” Phys.
63
G. C. Hegerfeldt, “Particle localization and the notion of Einstein Rev. Lett. 74, 4571 (1995); L. Hardy, “Hardy replies,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
causality,” in Extensions of Quantum Theory 3, edited by A. Horzela and 2065–2066 (1995); R. J. C. Spreeuw, “A classical analogy of
E. Kapuscik (Apeiron, Montreal, 2001), pp. 9–16; “Instantaneous spread- entanglement,” Found. Phys. 28, 361–374 (1998).
82
ing and Einstein causality in quantum theory,” Ann. Phys. 7, 716–725 C. C. Gerry, “Nonlocality of a single photon in cavity QED,” Phys. Rev. A
(1998); “Remark on causality and particle localization,” Phys. Ref. D 10, 53, 4583–4586 (1996); H. W. Lee and J. Kim, “Quantum teleportation and
3320–3321 (1974). Bell’s inequality using single-particle entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 63,
64
D. B. Malament, “In defense of dogma: why there cannot be a relativistic 012305 (2000); G. Bjork, P. Jonsson, and L. L. Sanchez-Soto, “Single-par-
QM of localizable particles,” in Perspectives on Quantum Reality (Kluwer ticle nonlocality and entanglement with the vacuum,” Phys. Rev. A 64,
Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 1996), pp. 1–10. See also Refs. 34 and 65. 042106 (2001).
65 83
H. Halvorson and R. Clifton, “No place for particles in relativistic quan- E. Lombardi, F. Sciarrino, S. Popescu, and F. De Martini, “Teleportation
tum theories?” Philos. Sci. 69, 1–28 (2002). of a vacuum—one-photon qubit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 070402 (2002).
66 84
Rafael de la Madrid, “Localization of non-relativistic particles,” Int. J. B. Hessmo, P. Usachev, H. Heydari, and G. Bjork, “Experimental demon-
Theor. Phys. 46, 1986–1997 (2007). Hegerfeldt’s result for relativistic par- stration of single photon nonlocality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 180401 (2004).
85
ticles generalizes Madrid’s result. S. J. van Enk, “Single-particle entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 064306
67
P. H. Eberhard and R. R. Ross, “Quantum field theory cannot provide (2005).
86
faster-than-light communication,” Found. Phys. Lett. 2, 127–148 (1989). A. Drezet, “Comment on single-particle entanglement,” Phys. Rev. 74,
68
In other words, the Schr€ odinger equation can be quantized, just like the 026301 (2006).
87
Dirac equation. But the quantized version implies nothing that isn’t al- J. Dunningham and V. Vedral, “Nonlocality of a single particle,” Phys.
ready in the non-quantized version. See Ref. 36. Rev. Lett. 99, 180404 (2007).

There Are No Particles, There Are Only Fields: Related Articles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

There Are No Particles, There Are Only Fields: Related Articles

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 Fields: Related Articles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

There are no particles, there are only fields

Citation: Am. J. Phys. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Additional information on Am. J. Phys.

I. INTRODUCTION Here, I’ll discuss just one fundamental quantum issue:

ðjw1 i þ jw2 iÞ=冑2 jwi: (4)

Linearity of the time evolution implies that the composite

jw1 ijreadyi ! ðjw1 ij1i þ jw2 ij2iÞ=冑2 jWslits i: (5)

The “measurement state” jWslitsi involves both spatially dis-

qslits jWslits ihWslits j; (6)

and to form the reduced density operator for the quantum

qq slits ¼ Trdetector ðqslits Þ ¼ ðjw1 ihw1 j þ jw2 ihw2 jÞ=2:

Equation (7) has a simple interpretation: Even though the

You might also like

There Are No Particles, There Are Only Fields: Related Articles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

There Are No Particles, There Are Only Fields: Related Articles

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 Fields: Related Articles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

There are no particles, there are only fields

Citation: Am. J. Phys. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Additional information on Am. J. Phys.

I. INTRODUCTION Here, I’ll discuss just one fundamental quantum issue:

ðjw1 i þ jw2 iÞ=冑2  jwi: (4)

Linearity of the time evolution implies that the composite

jw1 ijreadyi ! ðjw1 ij1i þ jw2 ij2iÞ=冑2  jWslits i: (5)

The “measurement state” jWslitsi involves both spatially dis-

qslits  jWslits ihWslits j; (6)

and to form the reduced density operator for the quantum

qq slits ¼ Trdetector ðqslits Þ ¼ ðjw1 ihw1 j þ jw2 ihw2 jÞ=2:

Equation (7) has a simple interpretation: Even though the

You might also like

ðjw1 i þ jw2 iÞ=冑2 jwi: (4)

jw1 ijreadyi ! ðjw1 ij1i þ jw2 ij2iÞ=冑2 jWslits i: (5)

qslits jWslits ihWslits j; (6)