There are no particles, there are only fields · HackerPapers discussions

There are no particles, there are only fields — HN submission

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:00:14 GMT

There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)

4 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by antonvs

Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:25:26 GMT

> 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 letting go of the idea of particles as fundamental. A good overview of this is "There are no particles, there are only fields" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616) by physics prof Art Hobson. Fields collapse the zoo described in the article significantly, because particles and antiparticles arise from the same field, and…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by antonvs

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:16:22 GMT

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 probed by localized interactions. In general, they're also observer-dependent. The idea of assigning an "ID" to an object reflects a macro-level notion of re-identifiable objects persisting through time. But at the quantum level, that kind of classical individuality - object identity - doesn't exist.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by exe34

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 08:40:47 GMT

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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by amai

Sun, 22 Sep 2024 17:57:29 GMT

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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — HN submission

Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:42:03 GMT

There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)

36 points; 35 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by lisper

Tue, 05 Jul 2022 18:35:01 GMT

> 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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by lisper

Fri, 04 Dec 2020 20:09:13 GMT

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc ) (These are now a wee bit dated, but still defensible.) For something written by an actual physicist I recommend anything by Tim Maudlin (he's a Bohmian, but his pedagogy is without peer) or David Z. Alberts, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience." UPDATE: There's also…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by lisper

Sun, 21 Jul 2019 22:45:41 GMT

> 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 approximation as if they were particles, but they aren't. If you insist that your theory talk about particles, then Bohm is a not-entirely-unreasonable place to end up. But that's kind of like saying that if you insist that your theory tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that 42 is a not-entirely-unreasonable…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by lisper

Fri, 05 Jul 2019 05:36:22 GMT

> 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 it wasn't true even when Feynman said it, and it's certainly not true today. Feynman's problem is that he was committed to the idea that particles are real. They aren't [1]. There are a lot of arguments over the proper interpretation of QM but it turns out that when you get to the bottom of things they are all saying…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by soveran

Fri, 12 Oct 2018 04:33:19 GMT

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 paper "There are no particles, there are only fields" — https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by antonvs

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:50:03 GMT

> 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

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by musgravepeter

Wed, 07 Sep 2016 15:23:27 GMT

Together with "There are no particles, only fields" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616) at the top of my web reading list.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — HN submission

Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:25:50 GMT

There are no particles, there are only fields (2012)

294 points; 199 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

There are no particles, there are only fields — mentioned by T-A

Sat, 22 Aug 2015 18:54:40 GMT

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616 :)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.