The general study of the ontology of quantum field theories (QFTs) concerns whether particles or fields are more fundamental. Both views are well-motivated, although each is subject to some serious criticism. Given that the current versions of the particle interpretation and the field interpretation are not satisfying, I propose a mixed ontology of particles and fields in the framework of QFT. I argue that the ontological question should focus on how to view particles and fields consistently in QFT, provided that (...) they are the natural candidates for the ontology of QFT. In particular, based on this reading, I adopt a functionalist reading of ontology and defend a mixed ontology of QFT. I address a paradigmatic case of the mixed ontology approach: a particle/field duality defined in terms of functional equivalence between particles and fields. Functionalism about ontology provides new insight into resolving the problem of unitarily inequivalent representations, which is one of the major interpretational issues of QFT. (shrink)

There are significant problems involved in determining the ontology of quantum field theory. An ontology involving particles seems to be ruled out due to the problem of defining localized position operators, issues involving interactions in QFT, and, perhaps, the appearance of unitarily inequivalent representations. While this might imply that fields are the most natural ontology for QFT, the wavefunctional interpretation of QFT has significant drawbacks. A modified field ontology is examined where determinables are assigned to open bounded regions of spacetime (...) instead of spacetime points. (shrink)

According to a regnant criterion of physical equivalence for quantum theories, a quantum field theory (QFT) typically admits continuously many physically inequivalent realizations. This, the second of a two-part introduction to topics in the philosophy of QFT, continues the investigation of this alarming circumstance. It begins with a brief catalog of quantum field theoretic examples of this non-uniqueness, then presents the basics of the algebraic approach to quantum theories, which discloses a structure common even to ‘physically inequivalent’ realizations of a (...) QFT. Finally, it introduces and evaluates a handful of strategies for interpreting quantum theories in the face of the non-uniqueness of their Hilbert space representations. (shrink)

I examine some problems standing in the way of a successful `field interpretation' of quantum field theory. The most popular extant proposal depends on the Hilbert space of `wavefunctionals.' But since wavefunctional space is unitarily equivalent to many-particle Fock space, two of the most powerful arguments against particle interpretations also undermine this form of field interpretation. IntroductionField Interpretations and Field OperatorsThe Wavefunctional InterpretationFields and Inequivalent Representations 4.1. The Rindler representation 4.2. Spontaneous symmetry breaking 4.3. Coherent representations The Fate of Fields (...) in Interacting QFTConclusions. (shrink)

Meinard Kuhlmann has recently provided an interpretation of quantum field theory that seems to offer an alternative to the particle and field interpretations. The main idea is to adopt a trope ontology and, then, consider particles and fields as derivative entities. The aim of this paper is to discuss Kuhlmann's proposal. In the first part of the paper I will offer a reconstruction of his position. I will then show that this interpretation faces some problems about the distinction between essential (...) and non-essential tropes and their link to the formalism of algebraic quantum field theory, which is the formulation of the theory that Kuhlmann adopts in his interpretation. Finally, I will show how Kuhlmann's proposal might share some problems with the particle and field interpretations, namely the localization problem and the Unruh effect. (shrink)

According to a Received View, relativistic quantum field theories (RQFTs) do not admit particle interpretations. This view requires that particles be localizable and countable, and that these characteristics be given mathematical expression in the forms of local and unique total number operators. Various results (the Reeh-Schlieder theorem, the Unruh Effect, Haag's theorem) then indicate that formulations of RQFTs do not support such operators. These results, however, do not hold for nonrelativistic QFTs. I argue that this is due to the absolute (...) structure of the classical spacetimes associated with such theories. This suggests that the intuitions that underlie the Received View are non-relativistic. Thus, to the extent that such intuitions are inappropriate in the relativistic context, they should be abandoned when it comes to interpreting RQFTs. (shrink)

If we divide our physical theories into theories of matter and theories of spacetime, quantum field theory is our most fundamental empirically successful theory of matter. As such, it has attracted increasing attention from philosophers over the past two decades, beginning to eclipse its predecessor theory of quantum mechanics in the philosophical literature. Here I survey some central philosophical puzzles about the theory's foundations.

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. (shrink)

The consensus view among philosophers of physics is that relativistic quantum field theory does not describe particles. That is, according to QFT, particles are not fundamental entities. How is this negative conclusion compatible with the positive role that the particle notion plays in particle physics? The first part of this chapter lays out multiple lines of negative argument that all conclude that QFT cannot be given a particle interpretation. These arguments probe the properties of the `particles' in standard formulations of (...) QFT and the limited applicability of `particle' representations. The second part of the chapter surveys proposals for non-fundamental roles that the particle concept plays in particle physics. The conclusion suggests directions for future philosophical research. (shrink)

Some physicists and philosophers argue that unitarily inequivalent representations in quantum field theory are mathematical surplus structure. Support for that view, sometimes called ‘algebraic imperialism’, relies on Fell’s theorem and its deployment in the algebraic approach to QFT. The algebraic imperialist uses Fell’s theorem to argue that UIRs are ‘physically equivalent’ to each other. The mathematical, conceptual, and dynamical aspects of Fell’s theorem will be examined. Its use as a criterion for physical equivalence is examined in detail and it is (...) proven that Fell’s theorem does not apply to the vast number of representations used in the algebraic approach. UIRs are not another case of theoretical underdetermination, because they make different predictions about ‘classical’ operators. These results are applied to the Unruh effect where there is a continuum of UIRs to which Fell’s theorem does not apply. _1_ Introduction _2_ Weak Equivalence and Physical Equivalence _3_ Mathematical Overview of Algebraic Quantum Field Theory _4_ Fell’s Theorem and Philosophical Responses to Weak Equivalence _5_ Weak Equivalence in C*-Algebras and W*-Algebras _6_ Classical Equivalence and Weak Equivalence _7_ Interlude: Is Weak Equivalence Really Physical Equivalence? _8_ The Unruh Effect _9_ Time Evolution and Symmetries _10_ Conclusions Appendix. (shrink)

Most philosophical discussion of the particle concept that is afforded by quantum field theory has focused on free systems. This paper is devoted to a systematic investigation of whether the particle concept for free systems can be extended to interacting systems. The possible methods of accomplishing this are considered and all are found unsatisfactory. Therefore, an interacting system cannot be interpreted in terms of particles. As a consequence, quantum field theory does not support the inclusion of particles in our ontology. (...) In contrast to much of the recent discussion on the particle concept derived from quantum field theory, this argument does not rely on the assumption that a particulate entity be localizable. (shrink)

The nature of antimatter is examined in the context of algebraic quantum field theory. It is shown that the notion of antimatter is more general than that of antiparticles. Properly speaking, then, antimatter is not matter made up of antiparticles—rather, antiparticles are particles made up of antimatter. We go on to discuss whether the notion of antimatter is itself completely general in quantum field theory. Does the matter–antimatter distinction apply to all field theoretic systems? The answer depends on which of (...) several possible criteria we should impose on the space of physical states. (shrink)

The phenomenon of broken spacetime symmetry in the quantum theory of infinite systems forces us to adopt an unorthodox ontology. We must abandon the standard conception of the physical meaning of these symmetries, or else deny the attractive “liberal” notion of which physical quantities are significant. A third option, more attractive but less well understood, is to abandon the existing (Halvorson-Clifton) notion of intertranslatability for quantum theories.

A number of arguments purport to show that quantum field theory cannot be given an interpretation in terms of localizable particles. We show, in light of such arguments, that the classical ħ→0\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbar \rightarrow 0$$\end{document} limit can aid our understanding of the particle content of quantum field theories. In particular, we demonstrate that for the massive Klein–Gordon field, the classical limits of number operators can be understood to encode local information about particles (...) in the corresponding classical field theory. (shrink)

The crossing property is perhaps the most subtle aspect of the particle-field relation. Although it is not difficult to state its content in terms of certain analytic properties relating different matrixelements of the S-matrix or formfactors, its relation to the localization- and positive energy spectral principles requires a level of insight into the inner workings of QFT which goes beyond anything which can be found in typical textbooks on QFT. This paper presents a recent account based on new ideas derived (...) from “modular localization” including a mathematic appendix on this subject. Its main achievement is the proof of the crossing property from a two-algebra generalization of the KMS condition.The main content is an in-depth criticism of the dual model and its string theoretic extension. The conceptual flaws of these models are closely related to misunderstandings of crossing. The correct interpretation of string theory is that of a dynamic infinite component one particle space where “dynamic” means that, unlike a mere collection of independent free fields, the formalism contains also operators which communicate between the different irreducible Poincaré representations and set the mass/spin spectrum. Whereas in pre-string times there were unsuccessful attempts to achieve this in analogy to the O(4,2) hydrogen spectrum by the use of higher noncompact groups, the superstring in d=9+1, which uses instead (bosonic/fermionic) oscillators obtained from multicomponent chiral currents, is the only known solution of the dynamical infinite component pointlike field (or pointlike generated wave function) project. (shrink)

It is shown that there are significant conceptual differences between QM and QFT which make it difficult to view the latter as just a relativistic extension of the principles of QM. At the root of this is a fundamental distiction between Born-localization in QM (which in the relativistic context changes its name to Newton–Wigner localization) and modular localization which is the localization underlying QFT, after one separates it from its standard presentation in terms of field coordinates. The first comes with (...) a probability notion and projection operators, whereas the latter describes causal propagation in QFT and leads to thermal aspects of locally reduced finite energy states. The Born–Newton–Wigner localization in QFT is only applicable asymptotically and the covariant correlation between asymptotic in and out localization projectors is the basis of the existence of an invariant scattering matrix. -/- In this first part of a two part essay the modular localization (the intrinsic content of field localization) and its philosophical consequences take the center stage. Important physical consequences of vacuum polarization will be the main topic of part II. The present division into two semi-autonomous essays is the result of a partition and extension of an originally one-part manuscript. (shrink)

The conserved quantities theory of causation (CQTC) attempts to use physics as the basis for an account of causation. However, a closer examination of the physics involved in CQTC reveals several critical failures. Some of the conserved quantities in physics cannot be used to distinguish causal interactions. Other conserved quantities cannot always be the properties of fields or particles. Finally, CQCT does not account for causal interactions that are static.