Recent content by danieltanfh95

Photodetectors are fermionic. Detection happens via electrons transitioning in silicon or being freed from a photocathode. A many-body bound state also has a well-defined aggregate fermion-number current giving collective 4-velocity.

"Branches always present" only requires unitary evolution plus that the Dirac matter field is physical. That's shared by MWI, Bohmian mechanics, and consistent histories, not MWI-specific. I do note that it is incompatible with literal-collapse Copenhagen and objective collapse (GRW / Penrose).

This framing only assumes decoherence (which every interpretation accepts) plus that the observer's own matter current is physical. Sure, it's compatible with MWI, but it does not require MWI's ontological commitment that all other branches are equally "real".

The wavefunction doesn't "collapse", instead the observer's Dirac current (the physical matter current) becomes entangled with the measurement apparatus and environment, and the reading is confined to one branch of the entanglement, so from inside that branch you see only one outcome.

1. observer = anything that can provide a frame of reference sitting in spacetime (more precisely, anything with a well-defined 4-velocity from its own Dirac current) 2. Branches are always present in the full state. Decoherence makes the environmental factor states orthogonal, which suppresses...

The Schrödinger picture in QFT is Lorentz-covariant. Tomonaga (1946) and Schwinger (1948) generalized the functional Schrödinger equation to arbitrary spacelike Cauchy surfaces. The Markovian character of fundamental dynamics doesn't hinge on picking that formulation. Markovian at the field...

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I wasn't claiming that mathematical objects are reality. I was noting that since waves and particles are real (or emergent from some underlying reality) and mathematical operators are abstract, mathematical operators can't be what waves and particles...

Theories of physics study physical invariants in reality. There has to be some mapping between the mathematical objects a theory uses and physical reality, otherwise the theory gets falsified by the experiments we run on that reality. I can't specify the full mapping here (nor do I have one)...

Operators are mathematical objects, no? Are you describing more of an instrumentalist reading of QFT?

Sure, my point is that the canonical wave-particle duality picture is challenged on this reading of Barandes' work. QFT already treats fields as fundamental and particles as derived, so this reading points toward wave-realism even if the full derivation isn't in yet.

One way to read this argument is that particles are emergent instead of fundamental. Barandes shows that if we take particles to be fundamental, we pay costs (non-Markovian indivisible dynamics, the three structural gaps David Albert names in his 2025 PhilSci notes at item 26777, the whole...

The derivation assumes the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy-area formula S=A/(4Gℏ)S=A/(4Gℏ), which is itself a semi-classical result. It comes from Hawking 1975 (QFT on curved spacetime plus Einstein equations to fix κκ) combined with the first law of BH mechanics (using the κ/8πGκ/8πG coefficient...

Standard QFT refers to Dirac fields as "matter fields", which is also what I am referring to, but using matter-wave field wrt to "matter-wave realism". Maudlin's Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory (2019) is a good modern entry point.

Hello, I work in the matter-wave-realism tradition (de Broglie, Bohm, Schrödinger's original reading), and my focus is the relationship between spacetime and the matter-wave field without introducing additional quantisation of either.