Abstract
I review arguments demonstrating how the concept of “particle” numbers arises in the form of equidistant energy eigenvalues of coupled harmonic oscillators representing free fields. Their quantum numbers (numbers of nodes of the wave functions) can be interpreted as occupation numbers for objects with a formal mass (defined by the field equation) and spatial wave number (“momentum”) characterizing classical field modes. A superposition of different oscillator eigenstates, all consisting of n modes having one node, while all others have none, defines a non-degenerate “n-particle wave function”. Other discrete properties and phenomena (such as particle positions and “events”) can be understood by means of the fast but continuous process of decoherence: the irreversible dislocalization of superpositions. Any wave-particle dualism thus becomes obsolete. The observation of individual outcomes of this decoherence process in measurements requires either a subsequent collapse of the wave function or a “branching observer” in accordance with the Schrödinger equation—both possibilities applying clearly after the decoherence process. Any probability interpretation of the wave function in terms of local elements of reality, such as particles or other classical concepts, would open a Pandora’s box of paradoxes, as is illustrated by various misnomers that have become popular in quantum theory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Mittelstaedt, P.: The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)
Zeh, H.D.: On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found. Phys. 1, 69 (1970)
Zurek, W.H.: Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into which mixture does the wave packet collapse? Phys. Rev. D 24, 1516 (1981)
Joos, E., Zeh, H.D.: The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment. Z. Phys. B 59, 223 (1985)
Schlosshauer, M.: Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Springer, Berlin (2007)
Joos, E., Zeh, H.D., Kiefer, C., Giulini, D., Kupsch, J., Stamatescu, I.-O.: Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory. Springer, Berlin (2003)
Zeh, H.D.: Time in quantum theory. In: Greenberger, D., Hentschel, K., Weinert, F. (eds.) Compendium of Quantum Physics. Springer, Berlin (2009). http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4638
Deléglise, S., Dotsenko, I., Sayrin, C., Bernu, J., Brune, M., Raimond, J.-M., Haroche, S.: Reconstruction of non-classical cavity fields with snapshots of their decoherence. Nature 455, 510 (2008)
Leinaas, J.M., Myrheim, J.: On the theory of identical particles. Nuovo Cimento B 37, 1 (1977)
Kübler, O., Zeh, H.D.: Dynamics of quantum correlations. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 76, 405 (1973)
Zeh, H.D.: There is no ‘first’ quantization. Phys. Lett. A 309, 329 (2003). http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210098
Ulfbeck, O., Bohr, A.: Genuine fortuitousness: where did that click come from? Found. Phys. 31, 757 (2001)
Schlosshauer, M., Camilleri, C.: The quantum-to-classical transition: Bohr’s doctrine of classical concepts, emergent classicality, and decoherence. http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1609
Zeh, H.D.: There are no quantum jumps, nor are there particles. Phys. Lett. A 172, 189 (1993)
Giulini, D., Kiefer, C., Zeh, H.D.: Symmetries, superselection rules, and decoherence. Phys. Lett. A 199, 291 (1995)
Zeh, H.D.: The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin (2007), see www.time-direction.de
Tegmark, M.: Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys. Rev. E 61, 4194 (2000). http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009
Mott, N.F.: The wave mechanics of α-particle tracks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 126, 79 (1929)
Blood, C.: No evidence for particles. http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3930v1
Wilkinson, S.R., Barucha, C.F., Fischer, M.C., Madison, K.W., Morrow, P.R., Niu, Q., Sundaram, B., Raizen, M.G.: Experimental evidence for non-exponential decay in quantum tunnelling. Nature 387, 575 (1997)
Sauter, Th., Neuhauser, W., Blatt, R., Toschek, P.E.: Observation of quantum jumps. Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1696 (1986)
Garisto, R.: What is the speed of quantum information? http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078
Salart, D., Baas, A., Branciard, C., Gisin, N., Zbinden, H.: Testing spooky action at a distance. Nature 454, 861 (2008). http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316
Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195 (1964)
Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Crépau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Wootters, W.K.: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)
Timpson, C.: The grammar of ‘teleportation’. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 57, 587 (2006) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509048
Scully, M.O., Drühl, K.: Quantum eraser: a proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and ‘delayed choice’. Phys. Rev. A 25, 2208 (1982)
Bennett, C.H.: Demons, engines, and the second law. Sci. Amer. 257(5), 88 (1987)
Jaynes, E.T.: In: Barut, A. (ed.) Foundation of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electronics. Plenum, New York (1980)
Herbut, F.: On EPR-type entanglement in the experiments of Scully et al. I. The micromaser case and delayed choice quantum erasure, http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3176v1
Scully, M.O., Zubairy, M.S.: Quantum Optics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997). See Sect. 20.3
Kiefer, C.: Quantum Gravity, 2nd edn. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford (2007), p. 310 ff
Kiefer, C., Lohmar, I., Polarski, D., Starobinski, A.A.: Pointer states for the primordial fluctuations in inflationary cosmology. Class. Quantum Gravity 24, 1699 (2007)
Birrell, N.D., Davies, P.C.W.: Quantum Fields in Curved Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zeh, H.D. Quantum Discreteness is an Illusion. Found Phys 40, 1476–1493 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9