Erkenntnis

, Volume 78, Issue 4, pp 797–821 | Cite as

CPT Invariance, the Spin-Statistics Connection, and the Ontology of Relativistic Quantum Field Theories

Original Paper

Abstract

CPT invariance and the spin-statistics connection are typically taken to be essential properties in relativistic quantum field theories (RQFTs), insofar as the CPT and Spin-Statistics theorems entail that any state of a physical system characterized by an RQFT must possess these properties. Moreover, in the physics literature, they are typically taken to be properties of particles. But there is a Received View among philosophers that RQFTs cannot fundamentally be about particles. This essay considers what proofs of the CPT and Spin-Statistics theorems suggest about the ontology of RQFTs, and the extent to which this is compatible with the Received View. I will argue that such proofs suggest the Received View’s approach to ontology is flawed.

References

  1. Arageorgis, A., Earman, J., & Ruetsche, L. (2003). Fulling non-uniqueness and the Unruh effect: A primer on some aspects of quantum field theory. Philosophy of Science, 70, 164–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araki, H. (1999). Mathematical theory of quantum fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bain, J. (2000). Against particle/field duality: Asymptotic particle states and interpolating fields in interacting QFT (or: Who’s Afraid of Haag’s Theorem?). Erkenntnis, 53, 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bain, J. (2011). Quantum field theories in classical spacetimes and particles. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, D. (2009). Against field interpretations of quantum field theory. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 60, 585–609.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, D., & Halvorson, H. (2010). Antimatter. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 61, 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, J. (1955). Time reversal in field theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 231, 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bisognano, J., & Wichmann, E. (1976). On the duality condition for quantum fields. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 17, 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borchers, H.-J. (2000). Modular groups in quantum field theory. In P. Breitenlohner & D. Maison (Eds.), Quantum field theory (Lecture notes in physics) (pp. 26–46). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunetti, R., Guido, D., & Longo, R. (1993). Modular structure and duality in conformal quantum field theory. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 156, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgoyne, N. (1958). On the connection of spin and statistics. Nuovo Cimento, 8, 607–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clifton, R., & Halvorson, H. (2001). Are Rindler quanta real? Inequivalent particle concepts in quantum field theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52, 417–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doplicher, S., Haag, R., & Roberts, J. (1971). Local observables and particle statistics I. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 23, 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doplicher, S., Haag, R., & Roberts, J. (1974). Local observables and particle statistics II. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 35, 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duck, I., & Sudarshan, E. (1997). Pauli and the spin-statistics theorem. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  16. Earman, J. (2011). ‘The Unruh effect for philosophers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Earman, J., & Fraser, D. (2006). Haag’s theorem and its implications for the foundations of quantum field theory. Erkenntnis, 64, 305–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fierz, M. (1939). Über die relativistische Theorie kräftefeier Teilchen mit beliebigem Spin. Helvetica Physica Acta, 12, 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser, D. (2008). The fate of “Particles” in quantum field theories with interactions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39, 841–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser, D. (2011). How to take particle physics seriously: A further defence of axiomatic quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42, 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Georgi, H. (1993). Effective field theory. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 43, 209–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greaves, H. (2010). Towards a geometrical understanding of the CPT theorem. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 61, 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenberg, O. (1998). Spin-statistics, spin-locality, and TCP: Three distinct theorems. Physics Letters B, 416, 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenberg, O. (2002). CPT violation implies violation of Lorentz invariance. Physical Review Letters, 89, 231602/1–231602/4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenberg, O. (2006). Covariance of time-ordered products implies local commutativity of fields. Physical Review D, 73, 087701/1–087701/3.Google Scholar
  26. Guido, D., & Longo, R. (1992). Relativistic invariance and charge conjugation in quantum field theory. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 148, 521–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guido, D., & Longo, R. (1995). An algebraic spin and statistics theorem. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 172, 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haag, R. (1996). Local quantum physics (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halvorson, H., & Clifton, R. (2002). No place for particles in relativistic quantum theories? Philosophy of Science, 69, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halvorson, H., & Müger, M. (2006). Algebraic quantum field theory. In J. Butterfield & J. Earman (Eds.), Philosophy of physics (pp. 731–922). Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jost, R. (1957). Eine Bemerkung zum CTP theorem. Helvetica Physica Acta, 30, 409–416.Google Scholar
  32. Jost, R. (1965). The general theory of quantized fields. Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  33. Kaku, M. (1993). Quantum field theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lüders, G., & Zumino, B. (1958). Connection between spin and statistics. Physical Review, 110, 1450–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Massimi, M., & Redhead, M. (2003). Weinberg’s proof of the spin-statistics theorem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34, 621–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morgan, J. (2004). Spin and statistics in classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 72, 1408–1417.Google Scholar
  37. Oksak, A. I., & Todorov, I. T. (1968). Invalidity of TCP-theorem for infinite-component fields. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 11, 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pauli, W. (1940). The connection between spin and statistics. Physical Review, 58, 716–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peskin, M., & Schroeder, D. (1995). An Introduction to quantum field theory. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. Ruetsche, L. (2011). Interpreting quantum theories: The art of the possible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sterman, G. (1993). An introduction to quantum field theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Streater, R. (1967). Local fields with the wrong connection between spin and statistics. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 5, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Streater, R., & Wightman, A. (2000). PCT, spin and statistics, and all that. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wallace, D. (2006). In defense of naiveté: The conceptual status of lagrangian quantum field theory. Synthese, 151, 33–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wallace, D. (2009). QFT, antimatter, and symmetry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallace, D. (2011). Taking particle physics seriously: A critique of the algebraic approach to quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42, 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinberg, S. (1964). Feynman rules for any spin. Physical Review, 133, B1318–B1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weinberg, S. (1995). The quantum theory of fields (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wightman, A. (1999). Review of I. Duck and E. C. G. Sudarshan Pauli and the spin-statistics theorem. American Journal of Physics, 67, 742–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology, Culture and SocietyPolytechnic Institute of New York UniversityBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations