Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Particles, Cutoffs and Inequivalent Representations

Fraser and Wallace on Quantum Field Theory

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We critically review the recent debate between Doreen Fraser and David Wallace on the interpretation of quantum field theory, with the aim of identifying where the core of the disagreement lies. We show that, despite appearances, their conflict does not concern the existence of particles or the occurrence of unitarily inequivalent representations. Instead, the dispute ultimately turns on the very definition of what a quantum field theory is. We further illustrate the fundamental differences between the two approaches by comparing them both to the Bohmian program in quantum field theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Wallace and Timpson [6, p. 707] also emphasize the non-fundamental character of particles in QFT. In contrast to [3, 4], they even seem to advocate AQFT as a guide to fundamental ontology (pp. 711–712). This reinforces the claim that an AQFT-fueled refusal of particles at the fundamental level is fully compatible with a commitment to particles as non-fundamental entities.

  2. Note that, despite its name, QFT does not straightforwardly support a field ontology either [7].

  3. This does not mean, however, that no ontological lessons can be drawn from an effective theory like CQFT. We will return to this point in Sect. 5.

  4. See [8], which also privileges AQFT on ontological grounds.

  5. See [9, 10] for a recent version of scientific realism based on this idea. Section 9.3 of the latter work also contains a deeper investigation of the interplay between experimental and theoretical considerations in the interpretation of QFT.

  6. Fraser might disagree with our characterization of this kind of evidence as theoretical, as she claims that “this unification project is also empirical, broadly construed, insofar as there is indirect empirical support for special relativity and its theoretical principles and for non-relativistic quantum theory and its theoretical principles” [2, p. 131]. However, given that there is indirect empirical support for general relativity as well, Wallace’s above-mentioned arguments also count as “empirical” in this sense.

  7. The reader interested in historical aspects of the theory should refer to [12] and [13].

  8. See [3, pp. 50–52] for different ways to address the problem of Poincaré non-covariance from the perspective of CQFT.

  9. These two approaches have clearly a different scope and in some sense Bohmian QFT is less ambitious than AQFT, but far more empirically successful, since it is built to be empirically equivalent to CQFT as explained above.

  10. A possible proposal could be to cast the existing Bohmian QFTs in the framework of Wightman’s axioms as it has been suggested by Nino Zanghí (personal communication).

  11. It is interesting to consider that both in Bell’s first pilot-wave model [19] as well as in the Dirac Sea formulation of BQFT [20] bosons are not part of the ontology, fermions are sufficient in order to explain and describe observed phenomena. Bosons are instead part of the ontology in the Bell-type QFT, where they receive the same particle status as the fermions. For a detailed technical and conceptual expositions of these ideas see [21].

References

  1. Fraser, D.: Quantum field theory: underdetermination, inconsistency, and idealization. Philos. Sci. 76, 536 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fraser, D.: How to take particle physics seriously: a further defence of axiomatic quantum field theory. Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys. 42, 126 (2011)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Wallace, D.: In defence of Naiveté: the conceptual status of Lagrangian quantum field theory. Synthese 151, 33 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Wallace, D.: Taking particle physics seriously: a critique of the algebraic approach to quantum field theory. Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys. 42, 116 (2011)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Fraser, D.: The fate of ‘particles’ in quantum field theories with interactions. Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys. 39, 841 (2008)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Wallace, D., Timpson, C.G.: Quantum mechanics on spacetime I: spacetime state realism. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 61, 697 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Baker, D.J.: Against field interpretations of quantum field theory. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 60, 585 (2009)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Kuhlmann, M.: Why conceptual rigour matters to philosophy: on the ontological significance of algebraic quantum field theory. Found. Phys. 40, 1625 (2010)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Egg, M.: Causal warrant for realism about particle physics. J. Gen. Philos. Sci. 43, 259 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Egg, M.: Scientific realism in particle physics: a causal approach. De Gruyter, Boston (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. MacKinnon, E.: The standard model as a philosophical challenge. Philos. Sci. 75, 447 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Schweber, S.: QED and the Men Who Made It. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cao, T.: Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field Theories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Struyve, W.: Pilot-wave approaches to quantum field theory. J. Phys. 306, 012047 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lam, V.: Primitive ontology and quantum field theory. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 5, 387 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Allori, V.: Primitive ontology in a nutshell. Int. J. Quantum Found. 1, 107 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Barrett, J.A.: Entanglement and disentanglement in relativistic quantum mechanics. Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys. 48, 168 (2014)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Zanghì, N.: Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Bell, J.S.: Beables for quantum field theory. Phys. Rep. 137, 49 (1986)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Colin, S., Struyve, W.: A Dirac sea pilot-wave model for quantum field theory. J. Phys. A 40(26), 7309 (2007)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., Zanghì, N.: Bell-type quantum field theories. J. Phys. A 38(4), R1 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Struyve, W., Zanghi, N.: Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? Proc. R. Soc. A 470 (2013)

  23. Seevinck, M.P.: Can quantum theory and special relativity peacefully coexist? (2010). Preprint, submitted Oct 18, 2010. arXiv:1010.3714v1 [quant-ph]

  24. Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Tausk, D.V., Zanghì, N.: Bell’s theorem. Scholarpedia 6(10), 8378 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Maudlin, T.: Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Daumer, M., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Zanghì, N.: Naive realism about operators. Erkenntnis 45, 379 (1997)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

VL is grateful to the Swiss National Science Foundation for financial support (Project No. 169313).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Philosophy, University of Bern, Laenggassstrasse 49a, Postfach, 3000, Bern 9, Switzerland

    Matthias Egg

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Geneva, Rue de Candolle 2, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland

    Vincent Lam

  3. School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Vincent Lam

  4. Department of Philosophy, University of Lausanne, Dorigny, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andrea Oldofredi

Authors
  1. Matthias Egg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Oldofredi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Oldofredi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Egg, M., Lam, V. & Oldofredi, A. Particles, Cutoffs and Inequivalent Representations. Found Phys 47, 453–466 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-017-0069-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-017-0069-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation