Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1204.6384 · American Journal of Physics

Quantum fields are not fields; comment on “There are no particles, there are only fields,” by Art Hobson [Am. J. Phys. 81(3), 211–223 (2013)]

Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi

Published Aug 19, 2013• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We comment on a recent paper by Hobson, explaining that quantum "fields" are no more fields than quantum "particles" are particles, so that the replacement of a particle ontology by an all-field ontology cannot solve the typical interpretational problems of quantum mechanics.
DOI
10.1119/1.4811240

Related papers

Quantum fields are not fields; comment on “There are no particles, there are only fields,” by Art Hobson

Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi

•Jan 1, 2013•0 citations

Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory

Meinard Kuhlmann, Holger Lyre, Andrew Wayne

Approaches to Ontology: Candidate General Ontologies for Situating Quantum Field (P Simons) 'Quanta', Tropes, or Processes: Ontologies for QFT Beyond the Myth of Substance (J Seibt) Analytical Ontologists in Action: A Comment on Seibt and Simons (M Kuhlmann) How Do Field Theories Refer to Entities in a Field? (S Y Auyang) Field Ontologies for QFT: A Naive View of the Quantum Field (A Wayne) Comments on Paul Teller's Book, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (G Fleming) So What Is the Quantum Field? (P Teller) Relativity, Measurement and Renormalization: On the Nature of Measurement Records in Relativistic Quantum Field (J A Barrett) No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories? (H Halvorson & R Clifton) Events and Covariance in the Interpretation of Quantum Field (D Dieks) Measurement and Ontology: What Kind of Evidence Can We Have for Quantum Fields? (B Falkenburg) Renormalization and the Disunity of Science (N Huggett) Gauge Symmetries and the Vacuum: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Redhead) Comment on Redhead: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Drieschner et al.) Is the Zero-Point Energy Real? (S Saunders) Two Comments on the Vacuum in Algebraic Quantum Field (M Redei).

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Nov 1, 2002•112 citations

Not Particles, Not Quite Fields: An Ontology for Quantum Field Theory

Tracy Lupher

There are significant problems involved in determining the ontology of quantum field theory (QFT). An ontology involving particles seems to be ruled out due to the problem of defining localized position operators, issues involving interactions in QFT, and, perhaps, the appearance of unitarily inequivalent representations. While this might imply that fields are the most natural ontology for QFT, the wavefunctional interpretation of QFT has significant drawbacks. A modified field ontology is examined where determinables are assigned to open bounded regions of spacetime instead of spacetime points.

Humana.mente•Jan 1, 2010•4 citations

No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories?

Hans Halvorson, Rob Clifton

Several recent arguments purport to show that there can be no relativistic, quantum-mechanical theory of localizable particles and, thus, that relativity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled only in the context of quantum field theory. We point out some loopholes in the existing arguments, and we provide two no-go theorems to close these loopholes. However, even with these loopholes closed, it does not yet follow that relativity plus quantum mechanics exclusively requires a field ontology, since relativistic quantum field theory itself might permit an ontology of localizable particles supervenient on the fundamental fields. Thus, we provide another no-go theorem to rule out this possibility. Finally, we allay potential worries about this conclusion by arguing that relativistic quantum field theory can nevertheless explain the possibility of "particle detections," as well as the pragmatic utility of "particle talk."

arXiv:quant-ph/0103041•WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Nov 1, 2002•37 citations

Against the field ontology of quantum mechanics

Shan Gao

It has been widely thought that the ontology of quantum mechanics is real, physical fields. In this paper, I will present a new argument against the field ontology of quantum mechanics by analyzing one-body systems such as an electron. First, I argue that if the physical entity described by the wave function of an electron is a field, then this field is massive and charged. Next, I argue that if a field is massive and charged, then any two parts of the field in space will have gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, while the existence of such self-interactions for an electron contradicts quantum mechanics and experimental observations. This poses a serious difficulty for the field ontology of quantum mechanics. Third, I argue that a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function may avoid the difficulty by providing a plausible explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions. According to this explanation, the wave function of an electron is a description of the state of the random motion of the electron as a particle, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the electron appears in every possible position in space. Finally, I answer a major objection to the explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions in terms of particle ontology.

•Dec 19, 2018•4 citations

Comment on “There are no particles, there are only fields,” by Art Hobson [Am. J. Phys. 81, 211–223 (2013)]

Michael Nauenberg

American Journal of Physics•Aug 19, 2013•2 citations
Approaches to Ontology: Candidate General Ontologies for Situating Quantum Field (P Simons) 'Quanta', Tropes, or Processes: Ontologies for QFT Beyond the Myth of Substance (J Seibt) Analytical Ontologists in Action: A Comment on Seibt and Simons (M Kuhlmann) How Do Field Theories Refer to Entities in a Field? (S Y Auyang) Field Ontologies for QFT: A Naive View of the Quantum Field (A Wayne) Comments on Paul Teller's Book, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (G Fleming) So What Is the Quantum Field? (P Teller) Relativity, Measurement and Renormalization: On the Nature of Measurement Records in Relativistic Quantum Field (J A Barrett) No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories? (H Halvorson & R Clifton) Events and Covariance in the Interpretation of Quantum Field (D Dieks) Measurement and Ontology: What Kind of Evidence Can We Have for Quantum Fields? (B Falkenburg) Renormalization and the Disunity of Science (N Huggett) Gauge Symmetries and the Vacuum: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Redhead) Comment on Redhead: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Drieschner et al.) Is the Zero-Point Energy Real? (S Saunders) Two Comments on the Vacuum in Algebraic Quantum Field (M Redei).
There are significant problems involved in determining the ontology of quantum field theory (QFT). An ontology involving particles seems to be ruled out due to the problem of defining localized position operators, issues involving interactions in QFT, and, perhaps, the appearance of unitarily inequivalent representations. While this might imply that fields are the most natural ontology for QFT, the wavefunctional interpretation of QFT has significant drawbacks. A modified field ontology is examined where determinables are assigned to open bounded regions of spacetime instead of spacetime points.
Several recent arguments purport to show that there can be no relativistic, quantum-mechanical theory of localizable particles and, thus, that relativity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled only in the context of quantum field theory. We point out some loopholes in the existing arguments, and we provide two no-go theorems to close these loopholes. However, even with these loopholes closed, it does not yet follow that relativity plus quantum mechanics exclusively requires a field ontology, since relativistic quantum field theory itself might permit an ontology of localizable particles supervenient on the fundamental fields. Thus, we provide another no-go theorem to rule out this possibility. Finally, we allay potential worries about this conclusion by arguing that relativistic quantum field theory can nevertheless explain the possibility of "particle detections," as well as the pragmatic utility of "particle talk."
It has been widely thought that the ontology of quantum mechanics is real, physical fields. In this paper, I will present a new argument against the field ontology of quantum mechanics by analyzing one-body systems such as an electron. First, I argue that if the physical entity described by the wave function of an electron is a field, then this field is massive and charged. Next, I argue that if a field is massive and charged, then any two parts of the field in space will have gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, while the existence of such self-interactions for an electron contradicts quantum mechanics and experimental observations. This poses a serious difficulty for the field ontology of quantum mechanics. Third, I argue that a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function may avoid the difficulty by providing a plausible explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions. According to this explanation, the wave function of an electron is a description of the state of the random motion of the electron as a particle, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the electron appears in every possible position in space. Finally, I answer a major objection to the explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions in terms of particle ontology.