HackerPapers

arXiv:1204.4616physics.hist-ph

There are no particles, there are only fields

Art Hobson

Abstract

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 unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying it's also true of non-relativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields. Thus the Schroedinger 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 2-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 2-slit experiment, rigorous theorems showing particles are inconsistent with relativistic quantum theory, and several phenomena showing particles are incompatible with quantum field theories.

arXiv comments
To be published in Am. J. Phys
Journal reference
Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013, 211-223
DOI
doi:10.1119/1.4789885
Subjects
physics.hist-phHistory and Philosophy of Physics quant-phQuantum Physics

On Hacker News

Linked by 7 identifiable commenters in 12 comments across 12 threads, from Aug 2015 to Jun 2026. Found in 3 HN submissions from Aug 2016 to Jul 2026. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments12 threads

  1. How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really? 1 comment

    • > if you're looking for the short list of simplest things, the number of types of fields there are is probably what you're looking for Definitely. It's rather strange that the OP article doesn't even mention the word "field". It seems that people in general have a hard time…

      antonvsView on HNParent context

  2. Cosmologically Unique IDs 1 comment

    • Yes, but the issue is that they don't have identity. The idea of assigning unique identifiers to particles is doomed because, basically, "there are no particles, there are only fields" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616). Particles are how quantized fields present themselves when…

      antonvsView on HNParent context

  3. It might be possible to detect gravitons after all 1 comment

    • it's important to realise that particles are an artefact of living in a monkey sized body. at the basic level, the equations are useful if they match observations, not if they make sense intuitively. https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

      exe34View on HNParent context

  4. What Is a Particle? (2020) 1 comment

    • See also Hobson (2012): There are no particles, there are only fields https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

      amaiView on HNParent context

  5. Large Hadron Collider discovers three new exotic particles 1 comment

    • > I thought in q field theory there is on a fundamentally level no particle. They are artificial excite state in a field. That is correct. "Particle" is another one of those "white lies." https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

      lisperView on HNParent context

  6. Thirty Years of ‘Against Measurement’ 1 comment

    • Just about any modern book on QM interpretation will tell you this, though not in so many words. (They won't necessarily endorse this point of view, but they will tell you about it.) Here is my take on it: http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf (Or the movie version…

      lisperView on HNParent context

  7. The Trouble with Many Worlds 1 comment

    • > We decide to have a theory about particles. I would say that's exactly where Bohm runs off the rails. The fact of the matter is that quantum systems are not particles. They are waves [1]. They can sometimes bunch up into very small spaces and behave to a very good…

      lisperView on HNParent context

  8. What’s Going on During Wave Function ‘Collapse’ 1 comment

    • > Wasn't it a famous physicist who said "If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics then you don't understand Quantum Mechanics"? No. That's an apocryphal quote. Richard Feynman said in 1965, " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." It turns out…

      lisperView on HNParent context

  9. Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference 1 comment

    • All the paradoxes disappear if we use Quantum Field Theory instead of Quantum Mechanics. I would really like someone with deep knowledge on Quantum Theory to explain if something is wrong with a theory that otherwise makes a lot of sense to me. A good read on the topic is the…

      soveranView on HNParent context

  10. Quantum magic: A skeptical perspective (2011) 1 comment

    • > Personally I think the concept of "particle" needs to go away completely. For those who haven't already seen it, "There are no particles, there are only fields" is a good paper about this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

      antonvsView on HNParent context

  11. Struggles with the Continuum 1 comment
  12. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory 1 comment

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.