Against Field Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory

Baker, David J.

doi:10.1093/bjps/axp027

Cited by 66 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, according to the formal variant, it is not possible for the interacting system to be in the same state as a system governed by any other dynamics. In addition, Baker (2009) argues that the considerations which rule out a quanta interpretation of the formal variant also rule out a natural field interpretation of the formal variant. Thus, the disagreement between the variants is not limited to the existence of quanta.…”

Section: Set Up: Three Variants Of Qft Empirical Indistinguishabilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantum Field Theory: Underdetermination, Inconsistency, and Idealization

Fraser

2009

Philos. of Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantum field theory (QFT) presents a genuine example of the underdetermination of theory by empirical evidence. There are variants of QFT which are empirically indistinguishable yet support different interpretations. This case is of particular interest to philosophers of physics because, before the philosophical work of interpreting QFT can proceed, the question of which variant should be subject to interpretation must be settled. At one end of the spectrum of variants of QFT is the version which is found in introductory textbooks and employed by most working physicists; this is the variant of QFT which introduces renormalization procedures to facilitate the calculation of scattering matrix elements. At the other end of the spectrum are axiomatic presentations of QFT, which are rigorous but remote from practical applications. New arguments are offered for basing the interpretation of QFT on a rigorous axiomatic variant of the theory. The pivotal considerations are the roles that consistency and idealization play in this case.

show abstract

Section: Set Up: Three Variants Of Qft Empirical Indistinguishabilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantum Field Theory: Underdetermination, Inconsistency, and Idealization

Fraser

2009

Philos. of Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 It explores which kinds of things and modes of being there are in a very general sense. Reflections about the material world which go beyond the directly observable are as old as philosophy itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Conceptual Rigour Matters to Philosophy: on the Ontological Significance of Algebraic Quantum Field Theory

Kuhlmann

2010

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue that algebraic quantum field theory (AQFT) permits an undisturbed view of the right ontology for fundamental physics, whereas standard (or Lagrangian) QFT offers different mutually incompatible ontologies. My claim does not depend on the mathematical inconsistency of standard QFT but on the fact that AQFT has the same concerns as ontology, namely categorical parsimony and a clearly structured hierarchy of entities.

show abstract

“…7 This is fairly common in philosophy of physics and ubiquitous in the analytic metaphysics literature, but even within the small subfield of the philosophy of quantum field theory it is on display in (among other places) [Healey, 2007], [Fraser, 2008], [Baker, 2009], , [Baker & Halvorson, 2010], [Arntzenius, 2014], and the discussion in [Butterfield & Bouatta, 2014, section 5.2] 8 Thus the emphasis on identifying fundamental structure is also closely tied up with Standard Interpreters' demand that a physical theory have a rigorous mathematical description at all length scales. My thanks to an anonymous referee for pressing this point.…”

Section: The Standard Account Of Theory Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Realism Made Effective

Williams

2019

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue that a common philosophical approach to the interpretation of physical theories -particularly quantum field theories -has led philosophers astray. It has driven many to declare the quantum field theories employed by practicing physicists, so-called "effective field theories," to be unfit for philosophical interpretation. In particular, such theories have been deemed unable to support a realist interpretation. I argue that these claims are mistaken: attending to the manner in which these theories are employed in physical practice, I show that interpreting effective field theories yields a robust foundation for a more refined approach to scientific realism in the context of quantum field theory. The paper concludes by briefly sketching some general morals for interpretive practice in the philosophy of physics.

show abstract

Against Field Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory

Cited by 66 publications

References 21 publications

Quantum Field Theory: Underdetermination, Inconsistency, and Idealization

Quantum Field Theory: Underdetermination, Inconsistency, and Idealization

Why Conceptual Rigour Matters to Philosophy: on the Ontological Significance of Algebraic Quantum Field Theory

Scientific Realism Made Effective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About