Although the resolution to the wave-particle paradox has been known for 80 years,1,2 it is seldom presented. Briefly, the resolution is that material particles and photons are the quanta of extended spatially continuous but energetically quantized fields. But because the resolution resides in quantum field theory and is not usually spelled out in ordinary language, it is neither generally understood nor generally taught, especially not in the context of nonrelativistic quantum physics. The purpose of this paper is to provide that resolution and to suggest that we teach introductory quantum physics from this viewpoint.
Although the resolution to the wave-particle paradox has been known for 80 years,1,2 it is seldom presented. Briefly, the resolution is that material particles and photons are the quanta of extended spatially continuous but energetically quantized fields. But because the resolution resides in quantum field theory and is not usually spelled out in ordinary language, it is neither generally understood nor generally taught, especially not in the context of nonrelativistic quantum physics. The purpose of this paper is to provide that resolution and to suggest that we teach introductory quantum physics from this viewpoint.
I propose a conceptual change in the way we teach nonrelativistic quantum physics in introductory survey courses and general modern physics courses. Traditional instruction treats radiation as a quantized electromagnetic wave that, because it is quantized, is observable only as discrete field quanta, while treating matter as particles that are accompanied by a wave function. In other words, traditional instruction views radiation as fundamentally a field phenomenon, and matter as fundamentally a particle phenomenon. But quantum field theory has a more unified view, according to which both radiation and matter are continuous fields while both photons and material particles are quanta of these fields. The quantum field theory view of radiation and matter clarifies particle identity issues, dispels students’ Newtonian misconceptions about matter, arguably resolves the wave-particle paradox, is the accepted view of contemporary physics, and might be the simplest and most effective teaching approach for all students. I propose that we make this field-theory viewpoint the conceptual basis for teaching non-relativistic quantum physics.
An earlier paper2 introduces quantum physics by means of four experiments: Youngs double-slit interference experiment using (1) a light beam, (2) a low-intensity light beam with time-lapse photography, (3) an electron beam, and (4) a low-intensity electron beam with time-lapse photography. It's ironic that, although these experiments demonstrate most of the quantum fundamentals, conventional pedagogy stresses their difficult and paradoxical nature. These paradoxes (i.e., logical contradictions) vanish, and understanding becomes simpler, if one takes seriously the fact that quantum mechanics is the nonrelativistic limit of our most accurate physical theory, namely quantum field theory, and treats the Schroedinger wave function, as well as the electromagnetic field, as quantized fields.2 Both the Schroedinger field, or “matter field,” and the EM field are made of “quanta”—spatially extended but energetically discrete chunks or bundles of energy. Each quantum comes nonlocally from the entire space-filling field and interacts with macroscopic systems such as the viewing screen by collapsing into an atom instantaneously and randomly in accordance with the probability amplitude specified by the field. Thus, uncertainty and nonlocality are inherent in quantum physics. This paper is about quantum uncertainty. A planned later paper will take up quantum nonlocality.
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 Schrödinger 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.
Beginning in 1900 with 1-iax Planck's hypothesis of quanta, physics has been embarked on a course which has raised serious questions about the true nature of physical reality, about the foundational assumptions and structures of science, and about the relationships between physical reality and physical theory. In particular, attempts to give a physical interpretation to quantum theory seem to result in "pictures" of nature which are paradoxical. A subatomic entity is described by the theory as exhibiting the properties and behavior of both particle-like phenomena and wavelike phenomena. Since it seems unreasonable that a single entity could be both a point-like mass and a wave spread out through a region of space, quantum theory would seem to be less than satisfactory or less than complete at the interpretational level. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the underlying causes of this paradox. The dissertation proceeds by reviewing the development of quantum theory and the emergence of the paradox. Next, the problem of physical interpretation is examined and several of the more significant existing interpretations are discussed and analyzed. Finally, the foundations of science and the general structure of scientific theory are examined in a search for the origins of the paradox. As a result of these investigations and analyses, it is concluded that the paradoxical nature of the physical interpretation of quantum theory is the consequence of certain paradigms and preconceptualizations about physical reality which have been incorporated into the theory at the foundational level. These fundamental assU14ptions produce, within quantum theory, a forced marriage of the plenum and atomic views of physical reality. They also produce an ambiguity with respect to the nature of causality which is charaeteristic of the theory. These problems are reflected in the mathematical formalisms and physical concepts of the theory as well as in its metaphysical foundations. Lastly, methods of resoling the paradox are discussed. It is argued that a successful solution is possible, but that it would involve the creation of a new metaphor-an extension of the present language--which would lead science to a deeper, subquantum level in terms of which the present paradox would vanish.
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
In spite of the recent extraordinary progresses of experimental techniques it does not seem that, after more than seventy years from the birth of quantum mechanics, a unanimous consensus has been reached in the physicist's community on how to understand the "strange" properties of quantons, the wavelike/particlelike objects of the quantum world. In the first paragraph I will briefly recall some results on the problem of decoherence in large quantum systems, which at the same time may be viewed as an attempt of providing a "realistic" physical interpretation of the standard mathematical formulation of the theory. In the following ones I will present a derivation from first principles of the Wigner representation of quantum mechanics in phase space which eliminates altogether from the theory the Schrödinger waves and their questionable properties. This approach leads to the conclusion that the wave/particle duality has nothing to do with "probability waves", but is simply the manifestation of two complementary aspects (continuity vs. discontinuity) of an intrinsically nonlocal physical entity (the quantum field) which objectively exists in ordinary three dimensional space.