Quantum Field Theory (QFT) video posted courtesy of d2-e2 in luckbox vs media and science vs religion:



There are certain ideas here I think I can show are false and it prompted me to do a bit of study. The YouTube video has 363 000 views and a deluge of sycophantic comments. Yet Arvin manifestly contradicts himself which has been missed by the viewers. What he does is cleverly explain abstract concepts in an understandable way, allowing laymen, like me, to “access” “advanced physics” without having to go through years of tortuous study. Sounds attractive but is this anything more than gatekeeping? There are ways to teach advanced concepts at a basic level without bastardizing them or teaching things that are verifiably wrong, right? Interested to hear what people have to say about QFT and this guy’s presentation of it. Capitals, bold and italics are my emphasis as are the comments in square brackets.

A main concept being discussed in the video is this:

"these things we call particles are really waves in the field…"

This recurs throughout the presentation – interchanging the definitions of the terms “particle” and “wave”. As a pebble on a beach is not the same as the water wave that washes over it, so a particle is not the same thing as a wave. For “particle” there is no disagreement. The definition is clear, unambiguous:

https://www.reference.com/science/pa...3ab53b6063555f

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/particle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete

For waves there is a contradiction. There are two types of wave being discussed. One is a real, physical wave such as a water wave. He refers to the continuous distribution of a water wave, a perturbation caused by a pebble being dropped that then affects a shoreline due to the propagation of the water wave. I believe this is done to encourage an “ah-ha” moment for the viewer but what it does is feed a misconception about what is meant by “waves” in the context of subatomic physics. Definition of a physical wave:

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/cla...What-is-a-Wave

A ‘shunting’ effect of adjacent particles. The particles themselves are not the same as the effect created by multiple particles acting on each other – real waves and particles have different properties.

Definition of a "wave function"

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition...unction-605790

It is mathematical, descriptive not physical.
We have three entities: discrete physical particles; continuous physical waves; continuous wave functions.

Arvin goes on - the Standard Model:

“the idea of particles composing the standard model are not what the universe is actually made of.. the particles are fiction.. the fundamental nature of the universe are not particles but fields”

But this contradicts, in his words ‘the best theory of physics we have’, Standard Model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

https://www.britannica.com/science/S...uclear%20force.

https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model

He illustrates an example of a field with a vacuum of space, such as a box with all matter removed, and a computer simulation of the remaining 'field fluctuations' in empty space. "Note that space time itself is thought to be a field"… "particles are excitations of fields", the 17 particles of the standard model "the best theory of physics we have" are really excitations of their own fields.."

And the kicker: "all the so called particles are really waves"

Particles are really waves, he claims. There are two contradictions. Firstly a particle has distinct properties different from the distinct properties of waves. Particles are discrete, waves are continuous:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discre...ated%20circuit.

Secondly the phrase “really waves” does not pay due regard for the mathematical nature of the wave function which is presented as analogous to a real wave, such as a water wave. Yet a water wave, or sound wave, or other physical “shunting” mechanism is real. A particle is real. So we see how this does not make sense at all to state "particles are really waves" because real physical things cannot be probability distributions, or potentials.

Arvin asks, “why is this theory better than the idea of particles?”

The “best” theory, as he states, is the standard model of particle physics. To best this with "particles are really waves" he needs to present experimental verification. In fact, quantum field theory would not qualify as a theory at all based on this presentation, which offers no experimental validation. He claims this "eliminates the idea of action at a distance" exemplified by how the sun keeps earth in orbit you have a continuous field in between – but he admits the Standard Model (and QFT) does NOT include gravitation. And from wiki:

And yet,

(wiki)

Yet here we have an example for the supremacy of QFT… gravity caused by the warping of continuous space-time. But QFT does not include the general relativity description of gravity. So why on earth is this in the presentation? It could be a useful visualisation for understanding what is meant by a continuous field. But QFT according to the presenter is a model of how if a field is excited to a specific, quantized energy state then it will "release" a particle. Yet there is no graviton in the Standard Model or in Quantum Field Theory, he says. So this is rather a major problem.

Arvin argues, "even Newton thought action at a distance was absurd" - and it was Einstein who 'snapped the wand in two' (George Musser) - "He showed MATHEMATICALLY [not experimentally] that gravity is due to a bending of this field of space-time". Mathematically is not the same as experimentally. And science "is distinguished from other forms of enquiry due to its requirement of systematic experimentation" (Rochester physics labs). So this is a mathematical model of gravitation, not a scientific theory. And this model is not included in the QFT in any case. So gravitation is all a moot point here, I'm not sure why this was even included.

"but there appears to be a dilemma here because you have learned that Quantum Mechanics (QM) is all about discrete things.. but fields are continuous, not discrete" he then goes on to try to reconcile the discrete nature of QM with the continuous nature of fields – Quantum Field Theory. "all the excitations of fields happen in chunks of energy. The energy of the wave is determined by the mass of the particle. The mass of a particle is the energy needed to vibrate its field." "the field will simply not accept energies below a certain threshold. Once you tap the field hard enough, a particle is created… All the electrons [particles, discrete] are waves [continuous]… particles [discrete] are ripples [continuous waves] in the field [continuous]…. One continuous field…”

I think the contradiction is explicit here. He does seem to acknowledge this is a problem with the statement "all the so called particles are really waves" in an apparent acceptance that they cannot be both particles and waves.

Next:
“how are waves in the field related to the probability waves of QM and the Schrodinger equation? When we say that an electron is a particle with position and velocity – this is wrong, not because we can't measure it but because there’s no such thing. All there is is a wave function… only tells us what the position and velocity will be if we measure it.
Shape function of Electromagnetic field = wave function of photons.
Shape of electron field = wave function of electrons"

So, Arvin argues, the 'waves in the field' are precisely the 'probability waves'. But, this is a wave function, not a real wave. But he asserts

“The wave function is what really exists”

This is a contradiction in terms. Functions are mathematical, the point of them is that they don’t physically exist. They cannot really exist and yet be a function – “a field of potentialities, rather than a field of actualities” (Hiley and Callaghan) “possibilities described by the wave function and not part of our physical reality” ('Quantum physics lady')
Why were water waves used earlier to illustrate waves? I suggest that he presented a real wave which morphed into a probability wave while asserting the probability wave is what actually exists and particles are in fact this all along – a fallacy of misplaced concreteness, reification of a mathematical descriptor.

"and when you observe the electron you don’t see the wave function because it has collapsed into a discrete value… every particle [discrete] is a tiny ripple [continuous wave] in the underlying field
[continuous] moulded into a particle [discrete] by the machinery of quantum mechanics" [the vampire rising from the floor in salem's lot to illustrate perhaps…]

"is light a particle or wave, they are waves. A particle is just what manifests when you measure the wave"
"are fields real or just mathematical constructs? Even though a field is made of no substance that physicists know of, fields are considered [why ‘considered’?] real physical stuff because they exist in space and have energy." So it isn’t made of anything but it is the real physical stuff because it 'exists' and 'has energy'?

To make sense of this I draw on Young’s 19th Century double slit experiment and the delayed choice quantum eraser modifications circa 1999 onwards. Light is made of photons – ie particles. But the original double slit appeared to show light interacting as a wave constructively and destructively – an interference pattern typical of water waves colliding for instance. The ‘which path’ information – which slit the photons went through – was scrambled by the experimental set up – being 2 slits it is not possible to determine the path information for the photons. Hence we see an interference pattern – due to the absence of the which-path information, a manifestation of the wave function of the photons. When detectors are placed on the slits, the interference pattern breaks down and we now have a particle distribution. This may have been interpreted as the detectors physically interfering with the photons and breaking the wave properties. But the effect is the same even when just one detector is placed over one slit. This shows that if it is known that a photon went through one slit then we have that information, but also it is known when particles that did NOT go through that one slit, they must have gone through the other one that does not have a detector! Clever stuff. But there was still some uncertainty over what was happening. Then with new technology allowing for particles to be split into entangled pairs, thereby both partners each carrying the which path information, applied to the delayed choice quantum eraser set up, it became possible to put the detectors behind the double slit thereby showing for certain that the act of observation itself is not physically interfering with the photons.

When the path information is known, we get a particle distribution.
When it is scrambled, we get interference.

Just one validated hypothesis is possible – It is the knowledge of the which-path information that causes the wave function to collapse. ("It should be noted that some interpretations of quantum mechanics do not hold that the wave function actually collapses. The Many Worlds Interpretation and the de Broglie-Bohm Interpretations are the most well-known of these." http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/gl...20a%20particle.)

(for the best explanation, in my view, of the delayed choice see quantum eraser YT channel)

Explanation from contributor at Physics Forums:

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...nction.619791/

The experiment works for “PARTICLES” and even entire heavy molecules have been proven to work, “matter wave interference all the way from neutrons via atoms to macromolecules such as fullerenes.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger).

So, what is real, and what is mathematical? Is the probability distribution, the wave function that determines the potentiality for the existence of a particle that only appears when the path information is not known, “real”? Or is it the particles that exist when we know the path information? In the double slit where interference is produced this is the result of individual quanta, particles, building up to create the interference pattern “Each individual electron hits the screen and leaves a dot” (Sean Carroll - http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...uantum-eraser/)

From Hiley and Callaghan – Delayed Choice Experiments and the Bohm Approach

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/DelayedChoice.pdf

http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/gl...20a%20particle.

It is clear, to me at least, that the wave function is purely mathematical, it is not a real and tangible thing. It only describes the potentiality for the existence of matter. Anton Zeilinger, grand cheese of quantum physics:

http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html

Some speculation on why QFT has traction. While Arvin states this does not help understand the “big bang”, the idea of “quantum fluctuations” are necessary for the big bang. In a sea of potentiality before the beginning of time, it can be argued that there exists a ‘possibility’ of those fluctuations, energy fields, popping out some matter should the required energy level to create ‘discrete quantum matter’ be reached. And since this is always within the limits, or the un-limits, of probability, this allows for the possibility of a big bang to create the universe without intelligent agency. Since energy is always existing in the quantum fluctuations this gets round the first law of thermodynamics violation necessitated by the big bang. So this is quite important from a philosophical standpoint to maintain QFT.

That was a lot of words you used there.

Hush and take your meds. You will feel better in the morning.

That vid is a good summary, for laymen, of our current understanding. You can youtube this topic and find a very great many other vids that will explain things similarly. Whether or not QFT describes the most fundamental explanation of reality may be still in doubt but it's the best we have for now.

One of my regrets is that the math is hopelessly beyond me bec w/o knowing the math, and what it says, I am left with these vids and the books that I read, which are not sufficient for a true understanding.

Quoted For Truth

I think it's much about that we don't have proper words for the quantum world. The sense of our surroundings and our language developed without knowledge of it. And it doesn't neatly fit in.

I agree. It's metaphors all the way down. We get some sense of understanding with metaphors like particle and wave which we can relate to our everyday experience. But it's really a weak relationship with misleading correlations and a mistake to reify. We can get a deeper sense of understanding by learning the mathematics to a high degree of familiarity. But even then the language of mathematics is just another metaphoric layer by which we relate the phenomena to our experience and familiarity with the language and workings of mathematics.


PairTheBoard

If this is a decent representation of the 'theory' that at least saves me some time fishing around for other explanations.

How is it the best we have for now? It directly contradicts the Standard Model of particle physics which Arvin also claims is the best theory of physics we have.
Further he states "all the so called particles are really waves". This is wrong. I was going to cite the photoelectric effect as evidence that light is not a wave but apparently this can be explained by a wave model in some references. But there is other more stone cold evidence we can draw on:

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-compto...hysics-2699350

This experimentally verified hypothesis is rejected by Arvin - the statement "all the so called particles are really waves" is directly refuted by the experimental results of Compton scattering. He wants a new wave it seems, a wave that can have all the benefits of both particles and waves yet not require an experiment to prove it. Which also contradicts the results of the delayed choice!
I don't think QFT does anything particularly useful at any level beyond what is already out there. If we want a pet 'theory' that will never be proven experimentally then string theory is more interesting imo.
Yes let's get better at maths but it should not be a barrier to discussing the physics.

'Particle' and 'wave' (classical) I agree they are metaphors which have properties that relate to tangible things we experience 'classically' - water wave, sound wave, projectile etc where the waves are in fact series of particles acting on each other. Experimental results show that whatever the 'particles' are at a fundamental level they display properties that relate to things we can perceive and illustrate - eg. a photon, or electron, interacts with the back screen in the double slit experiment and leaves a mark such as that we would expect if we launched a tennis ball at it.
But the 'wave function' is a different beast. It dictates the range of potential properties of the particle which only becomes reality when it is 'measured' ie interacts with the environment. Where we see interference, we also see that photons arrived as quantized energy chunks, but their distribution is dictated by the wave function in the absence of the which-path information. The inventor of the delayed choice John Wheeler states:

The wave function is not a real wave at all. It is not a metaphor for a possibly more fundamental deeper property, it is a precise mathematical descriptor for the "quantum state of an isolated quantum system." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

I suggest viewing vids on this topic by different presenters. They are going to say pretty much the same thing as this presenter does.

Not a physicist but that doesn't sound right, if I'm following you correctly. As I understand it, particles that can't occupy the same space at the same time are matter particles and particles that can are non-matter particles. That's all. In other words, matter is a descriptor of behavior, not an ontic claim about a quantity, tangible or otherwise.

Try this one:

From what people have posted here in the past I had the impression that there was pretty much a consensus for QFT these days in physics. But from the video just above it looks like physics is not all sold on it yet. I've always felt like the standard model was ad hoc and amounted to a fancy mathematical filing cabinet for ordering, describing, and predicting the results of quantum phenomenon. The phenomenon came first and the math was kind of glommed onto it afterwards with no real explanatory value other than, "things are weird". It appears to me that quantum phenomena emerge naturally from QFT which makes it more appealing at some level. Although it's still weird with the nonlocal collapse of the quantum waves.

I doubt if you talked to a QFT expert she would have any problem with the double slit erasure type experiments. I believe if you look closely at those experiments they amount to ways of picking out subsets of the data where they can show one subset shows interference and one doesn't. I suspect the results are actually less problematic for QFT than they are for the Standard Model.

QFT may be hot right now because it's a relatively new look at quantum theory so more open to new papers ripe for the picking by new physics Phd's. The Standard Model may be pretty well worked out by now. Sometimes looking at a problem from a different perspective like QFT can lead you down new paths of inquiry which may lead you to think of new experiments you might not have thought of before. Both models might still predict the same results but nobody would have thought to look in the direction before the new perspective. Of course if the Standard Model can't predict the results it can always ad hoc attach new math to the model to incorporate them.

As far as what's real. The mathematics of the Standard Model might seem mechanical and lacking explanatory value but if you become familiar enough with the mathematics it itself serves as a metaphor for what's going on. On the other hand, while the mathematics of QFT might seem more organic and relatable it's still a metaphor which only gives us a sense of understanding.


PairTheBoard

Many physicists on the theoretical side are hoping for an observation or some other happening that will force them to throw out the entirety of our current understanding and have to start from scratch. I watched a vid of one such who is at CERN. Sean Carroll complains that most working physicists have the attitude of 'shut up and calculate' bec they have something that works and don't want to look into foundational aspects.

My view is that we should not be so certain of ourselves and rather should leave open the possibility that reality is more outrageous than anyone can dream.

Whatever you wish to believe or know or think you know about QFT, your beer will taste the same.

And knowing that a glass of beer and a glass of piss can be made from the exact same type and number of subatomic particles doesn't make the piss any more palatable.

There are people drinking piss like this



and are glad of it. Let's see the theorists explain that phenomenon, there's a Nobel in there somewhere.

You mean truly natural?

The Standard Model of particle physics is a quantum field theory. Although it is based on particles, those particles are represented as field quanta. The distinction you make above does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standa...etical_aspects

The problem with QFT is that we know it's not a final theory. We don't even know what a field is. Well technically a field is just a mathematical structure we use to model some aspect of reality, but we have no idea what we are actually modeling here. This is why the video in the OP starts by describing the temperature at every point in the room as a field. We can wrap our heads around that, somewhat. Going beyond this, we have the concept of emergent spacetime:

https://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nige...iles/gupta.pdf

By effective description, he is referring to this concept:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27044

A theory involving particles is an effective theory that emerges from QFT. This seems to be what OP is having trouble with. Compton scattering emerges from the mathematics in QFT, even though the particles are modeled as waves in a field.

This first lecture in a series of four gets increasingly mathematical, but starts with a good introduction and motivation for QFT. It's worth bearing with the overhead projector slides, although I wish it were redone in powerpoint.

I'm not certain what you mean by 'truly natural' but take a look at what this fellow has to say about reality:



The amazing part (something he mentions himself) is that he doesn't get laughed off of the stage which he attributes to the fact that he has a theory and a mathematics to back it up but, come on, it's as New Age as it comes. This is what I mean by outrageous and, who knows?, maybe he's on to something.

Maybe I was thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Didn't they call that the Standard Model back in the day? At any rate, in the Copenhagen Interpretation I believe there were people who considered Schrodinger's equation to just be a mathematical construct from which probabilities could be calculated and not any kind of physical wave. Whereas, from what I gather, in QFT Schrodinger's equation models the actual quantum wave in the quantum field.

I think OP is more interested in the interpretation of quantum phenomenon according to pre and post QFT. The mathematics for quantum mechanics which I was calling "Standard Model" would be what they were using before QFT came along. I guess the same math still holds but maybe now has a different interpretation? I'm more interested in your explanation than my confusion.


PairTheBoard

I watched to 1:20. Sounds natural. Why wouldn't it be like that?

Of course evolution has cherry picked something that works, leaving out possible (and I'd say probable) "distracting factors". We are interested in those "distracting factors". Our reality is part of real reality though. Remains to see if it is 50%, 10% or 1% of it. It could be 50% and the other half being a holograph. Just my guess. One day the holograph may sound natural too, on the other hand . If you weigh in dark matter and dark energy, and some other undiscovered entity, you could argue we know 1%. But dark matter and energy are already kind of known.

I suggest watching the whole thing. I've read his book so don't feel the need to watch it all but I will anyway (in snippets) in case I've missed something. He's proposing something so ludicrously preposterous - ultimate reality consists of a network of conscious agents and that we might be able to construct a scientific theology - that he ought to be laughed off of the stage but he gets lots of youtube attention from smart people who aren't laughing.

Very nice presentation. Might get his book.

Some observations...

Dr Brooks says that he is not savvy with the deep maths yet we can discuss the physics in depth, “the concepts are what’s important”. From the introduction to his book – “Mathematics is only a tool and one should learn to hold the physical ideas in one’s mind without reference to the mathematical form. – P. Dirac” https://www.quantum-field-theory.net/look-inside/

Good stuff.

On Feynman, quoting F. Wilczek a close associate of Feynman – “here’s the kicker to this… Feynman it seems kind of converted – but he gave up, as he worked out the mathematics he found that the fields introduced for convenience were taking on a life of their own… he lost confidence in his program of emptying space”. He suggests Feynman was succumbing to particle dogma in dropping QFT which is interesting.

“roots of QFT – It did not evolve from QM… Schwinger started with measurement algebra… Stern and Gerlach experiment tells us… that physical quantities can be discrete, not continuous, in this case angular momentum… Schwinger went over to describe fields which can be actually continuous, as a limit of discrete quantities so hilbert space is used as the relevant algebra… fields are described by vectors in Hilbert space which means there can be superpositions and so on…”

okay...

“there’s nothing that compels us to use fields, but let’s assume the ultimate basis of reality is fields, and it works.”

Let’s emphasise this last point – “there is nothing that compels us to use fields.” This is, I believe, the central theme of this presentation. Experiment does not imply fields – the Stern-Gerlach experiment is fascinating but I do not see how this necessitates QFT – and Dr Brooks confirms this with his statement “Let’s assume the ultimate basis of reality is fields”, and this is the crux of this discussion. It is primarily a philosophical discussion, I think.

Slide showing fields in QFT:



“Any questions…?” It would have been good to hear, “just one Professor – why is there an elephant in the room taking a massive dump all over the presentation...?”

“yes, in true QFT, gravity is a force field, it is not curvature in space time, it’s a field”

This is a controversial statement which is in direct contradiction to the scientific establishment. Everywhere it is believed that gravity is “the curvature of space and time… in general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses…” (universe today). From wiki, general relativity “is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data.” But there is not claimed experimental verification for the concept of a gravitational force field, it is simply asserted there is such a field with particular properties and it creates a “quantum” (not a particle...) called the graviton. “Any questions?”… *tumbleweed*

Visual from the presentation showing a gravitational field alongside an electron field:



An absurd juxtaposition. Recall that in QFT, it is the field that exists, the “quantum” (Brooks) or “particle” (Arvin) is what manifests when the field is excited to a discrete energy state. Earth is the “quantum” and is really just a result of its gravitational field being excited to a particular energy state?

Slide about ‘the matter field’:



“Experimentalists choose to call this disturbance in the field a particle” is an interesting statement.

“there are no particles, there are only fields, and it works, and it solves a lot of problems”. This is essentially a more sophisticated way of saying the same thing as Arvin who states “particles are really fields”. Dr Brooks is too smart to contradict himself in this way. He simply argues that there are no particles. But there are these things called “quanta”.

On special relativity

Faster than c – “if everything is made of fields and if equations that govern propagation of the field contain a constant c then the fields cannot go faster than the speed of light. Mass means resistance to acceleration therefore mass increases with speed”



The above slide is critical I believe in understanding QFT, the whole bit, and the antagonism between the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and QFT. Note – “there is no role of the observer”.

Copenhagen interpretation, from wiki:

physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probability distribution of a given measurement's possible results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse.

And John Wheeler again:

No phenomenon is a real phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon

Could this be in any more direct contradiction with

“There is no role of the observer, field collapse occurs regardless of whether anyone is looking”?

Only one can be true. And I posit that the truth has to be with whichever has the backing of experimental verification – the delayed choice shows, without ambiguity, that the wave function collapses only when knowledge of the which path information is known. Does it matter if anybody is looking? You can leave the experiment running on its own – “in principle knowledge of” the which path information.

Dr Brooks states “who can possibly believe as Einstein said that the moon exists only when we look at it, come on get real yet that’s what physicists are saying, when you measure something it changes, nonsense. Field collapse does occur, we don’t have a theory for it, it’s one of the gaps”.

An argument from incredulity? If there is no theory within QFT for field collapse this is rather a problem.



Can this be explained by the Higgs field/wave function probability distribution which collapses on interaction with environment – measurement – observation the same way other wave functions do? I think so. Is there a difference between the quantum field and the wave function? I think not.

(I was after some verification, or further information about the higgs boson/higgs field and found an interesting visual of wave function collapse here https://vinaire.me/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/ and the term “supraluminal speed” where this is defined as transfer of abstract information, not breaking the speed limit as not a transfer of matter/energy. Can information be transferred faster than light? What is information...? for another day…)

Dr Brooks states that regarding quarks and gluons – the principle of confinement proves QFT. Note – based on a computer calculation, was this verified experimentally? I don’t know…

“field collapse bothers a lot of people, QFT does not describe how or when field collapse occurs but can predict probabilities”

Is the use of the term “field” instead of wave function a reification, a need to concretise a continuous reality that exists out there independent of an observer, independent of knowledge, of consciousness?

Interesting Q+A section

Student asks “No curvature in wave theory, how does QFT explain gravity affecting path of a photon?”

Brooks: “comes out of equations”. “photon is a quantum of the EM field, the photon can be created and spread out and travel through space and be all over space”
Interesting again use of the term ‘quantum’.

V good 2nd question – the student asks about “collapse of the wave function when you measure it”

Dr Brooks - “you know how I feel about measurements, I don’t like them!” (This is what I like about Dr Brooks, he is a student as much as a teacher and is clearly humble)

Student – “Feynman would say everything is a particle, consider all possible paths – interference. Field picture everything gets hidden, when I’m doing measurement of photon its collapsing to a point, non-local collapsing to a point… hard to get the particle nature out of the field”

Brooks: “QFT explains almost everything that we observe”
“it’s your choice… QFT – everything is fields without requiring an observer”

3rd question, great question – “particles vs waves… what is the point?”

Brooks: “some people too busy calculating for philosophical questions… what is reality? Fields make sense so that’s what reality is… Hawking (and others) don’t care about reality, just calcs... Sean Carroll – not particles, excitations of a field”

It’s a philosophical debate –

1) QFT eliminates the requirement for intelligent agency to create the universe.
2) QM requires intelligent agency to create the universe.

That's irreconcilable, a true dichotomy.

(thought co)

(wiki)

Dr Brooks – Arvin Ash – “ Mathematically: no argument there. Even if I understood the maths you can have it – recall that Dirac states, “Mathematics is only a tool and one should learn to hold the physical ideas in one’s mind without reference to the mathematical form”. Conceptually, these are mutually exclusive ideas:

1) Light behaves as if it consists of particles
2) There are no particles

So what do you have? An objectively real, physical field that behaves like a particle when it interacts/is measured/is observed? Or do we have a wave function that determines the probabilities for the nature of the matter once it is observed/measured/interacted with?
If the former then how does QFT explain the interference pattern when the which path information is scrambled - why do particles manifest when the which path information is known?

It's the accurate interpretation of the experimental results, in my opinion.

These quotes already above but worth stating them again

Re matter, hmm yes a descriptor of behaviour perhaps. I would say matter, energy and some other properties are real. Sure we can say everything is metaphorical, an approximation, language, senses and signals interpreted by the brain and so on, but if we assume anything can be thought of as real, beyond 'cogito ergo sum', it is surely matter?