Quantum field theory's interpretation of double slit experiment After reading Art Hobson's article titled, "There are no particles, there are only fields" published in The American Journal of Physics in 2013, I'm wondering what other experts think of his main thesis: The double slit experiment, in all her variations, can be completely explained through relativistic quantum physics (quantum field theory) and that the alleged particle/wave "weirdness" is only weird because people don't realize that our best physical models of the universe model that universe as composed of fields ("particles" are excitations of that field).
I get how it can explain everything in the double-slit experiment except the following- how can fields explain why, when you watch which slit the "particle" goes through, does the interference pattern disappear?
 A: 
how can fields explain why, when you watch which slit the "particle" goes through, does the interference pattern disappear?

a) Quantum field theory is a different mathematical tool and gives the same calculations as with simple  first quantization calculations except it is just extremely more efficient in setting up solutions for complicated boundary conditions, and with the Feynman diagrams for calculating higher orders in perturbative expansion solutions. There exist no contradictions between first and second quantization, because the second quantization uses as a ground state function the  psi   solution of the boundary condition problem of the first quantization, and the field of operators acting on these ground states give the probability of an electron/muon/photon...( excitation of the field of electron/muon/photon...)to exist at that (x,y,z,t).
b) whether in first or second quantization framework , setting up detectors to define "which way " the particle went through, changes the boundary conditions of the problem. This recent experiment may help you understand .
A: 
After reading Art Hobson's article titled, "There are no particles, there are only fields" published in The American Journal of Physics in 2013, I'm wondering what other experts think of his main thesis

I think there's some merit in it, but there's plenty wrong with it too. See his paper on the arXiv where you can read this:  the Schroedinger 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. A physical field is a probability field? I don't think so. And whilst I like each electron extends over both slits, I don't like the field for an electron is the electron. OK the electron isn't some point particle. It has a standing-wave standing-field nature, such that the electron's field is what it is. But it's still a particle. Saying it's not, and that it's an excitation of the electron field, doesn't help much I'm afraid. 

The double slit experiment, in all her variations, can be completely explained through relativistic quantum physics (quantum field theory) and that the alleged particle/wave "weirdness" is only weird because 

I don't think it's weird at all. The electron or photon goes through both slits, but when you detect it at one slit something akin to an optical Fourier transform occurs. It becomes pointlike, so it goes through that slit only. Then when you detect it at the screen something akin to an optical Fourier transform occurs. It becomes pointlike, so you see a dot on the screen. 

people don't realize that our best physical models of the universe model that universe as composed of fields ("particles" are excitations of that field).  

I like this in his conclusion: In the 2-slit experiment, for example, the quantized field for each electron or photon comes simultaneously through both slits, spreads over the entire interference pattern, and collapses non-locally, upon interacting with the screen, into a small (but still spread out) region of the detecting screen. But I don't like this: the electron-positron field fills
all space. Because I share Einstein's view that a field is a state of space. Space can't have two different states at one location. And we can convert photons into electrons and positrons and vice versa. The different fields can't be fundamental. They must be different aspects or configurations of the thing that is.     

I get how it can explain everything in the double-slit experiment except the following- how can fields explain why, when you watch which slit the "particle" goes through, does the interference pattern disappear?

Like I was saying, something akin to an optical Fourier transform occurs. See Steve Lehar's web page for the optical Fourier transform performed by a lens.  

A: Disturbtions of a field and particles 
From the appearance of a wavelike intensity distribution behind slits Young concluded of a wave behavior of the light. Today we know, that such patterns occur also behind single edges, and this even with one by one flying photons or electrons. The last fact (single DEE and single particles) seems to imply more than the other experiments that we have to do with a disturbtion of a field from materialistic and/or energetic units (electric field and electron, EM field and photon). How to call units if not particles? They are particles and the emission as well as the absorption happens in quanta.
Interaction of particles and edges
It is without doubt that the edge of an obstacle divide incoming particles into reflected or absorbed particles and going away uninfluenced particles. Is there something between. Yes, it is. In the border area between "absorbed/reflected" and "going away" there is an area there particles could get deflected to some angles. From this follows that there is an interaction between the flying particles and the obstacle. How we call such an interaction? A field.
Quantized field and particle
If one move a charged surface close to an other surface the electric field of the charged surface induces a charge separation in the other surface. In edges and than more in sharp edges the induced electric field is stronger than in plane surfaces. The same phenomenon one can describe for magnetic fields.
What if suppose that the flying electron with its electric field as well as the photon with it's varying electric and magnetic fields are responsible for the induction of fields in the edge of an obstacle? Than the intensity distribution on an observer screen is the scaled image of the quantized field between the particles and the surface electrons of the edge(s). 
The proof for such a point of view is


*

*does it contradicts any observation, phenomenon or physical law and 

*makes it the exprlanation of phenomenons easier

A: I can't comment on Hobson;  I haven't read it.  But I can comment on the ideas that you posted.
This is not an easy subject to unravel.  Without looking too hard you'll find seemingly endless discussions.  In my opinion, it boils down to what you mean by the words "particle".  If your picture of a particle is a little bit of "something" that has an independent existence and moves through space in straight lines and bounces off of things, then you have a lot of trouble explaining things.
If by "particle" you mean a metaphor for an excitation of a field, something that is beyond our abilities to understand intuitively based on everyday experience, then you are in better shape.
It's certainly true that Young's experiment is easier to understand if we imagine a space-filling field which can be excited by one quantum here, and that quantum can be destroyed there.  When destroyed, energy and momentum is transferred, as in a collision.  With this picture, statements like "the particle goes through both slits" makes a little more sense.  The field exists in both slits.  One doesn't have to carry a nonsensical picture of a tiny blob of "something" being two places at once.
