Online research in philosophy

This paper discusses the significance of non-causal dependence for truthmaker theory. After introducing truthmaker theory (section 1), I discuss a challenge to it levelled by Benjamin Schnieder. I argue that Schnieder’s challenge can be met once we acknowledge the existence of non-causal dependence and of explanations which rely on it (sections 2 to 5). I then mount my own argument against truthmaker theory, based on the notion of non-causal dependence (sections 6 and 7).

A field-theoretic version of Wigner’s friend (1961) illustrates how the quantum measurement problem arises for field theory. Similarly, considering spacelike separate measurements of entangled fields by observers akin to Wigner’s friend shows the sense in which relativistic constraints make the measurement problem particularly difficult to resolve in the context of a relativistic field theory. We will consider proposals by Wigner (1961), Bloch (1967), Helwig and Kraus (1970), and Bell (1984) for resolving the measurement problem for quantum field theory. We will conclude by considering the possibility of giving up rich dynamical explanation in the context of a many-maps formulation of relativistic quantum field theory.

The question raised by Shimony and Stein is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of my proof that any theory that conforms to certain general ideas of orthodox relativistic quantum field theory must permit transfers of information over spacelike intervals. lt is also explained why this result is not a problem for relativistic quantum theory, but, on the contrary, opens the door to a satisfactory realistic relativistic quantum theory based on the ideas of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and von Neumann.

David Malament (1996) has recently argued that there can be no relativistic quantum theory of (localizable) particles. We consider and rebut several objections that have been made against the soundness of Malament’s argument. We then consider some further objections that might be made against the generality of Malament’s conclusion, and we supply three no‐go theorems to counter these objections. Finally, we dispel potential worries about the counterintuitive nature of these results by showing that relativistic quantum field theory itself explains the appearance of “particle detections.”.

Based partly on proving that algebraic relativistic quantum field theory (ARQFT) is a stochastic Einstein local (SEL) theory in the sense of SEL which was introduced by Hellman (1982b) and which is adapted in this paper to ARQFT, the recently proved maximal and typical violation of Bell's inequalities in ARQFT (Summers and Werner 1987a-c) is interpreted in this paper as showing that Bell's inequalities are, in a sense, irrelevant for the problem of Einstein local stochastic hidden variables, especially if this problem is raised in connection with ARQFT. This leads to the question of how to formulate the problem of local hidden variables in ARQFT. By giving a precise definition of hidden-variable theory within the operator algebraic framework of quantum mechanics, it will be argued that the aim of hidden-variable investigations is to determine those classes of quantum theories whose elements represent a statistical content that cannot be reduced in a given way. In some particular way to be stated, a proposition will be stated which distinguishes quantum field theories whose statistical content cannot be reduced without violating some relativistic locality principle.

The general context of this paper is the locality problem in quantum theory. In a recent issue of this journal, Redei (1991) offered a proof of the proposition that algebraic Lorentz-covariant quantum field theory is past stochastic Einstein local. We show that Redei's proof is either spurious or circular, and that it contains two deductive fallacies. Furthermore, we prove that the mentioned theory meets the stronger condition of stochastic Haag locality.

It is frequently argued that there is a tension between quantum theory and the special theory of relativity, but there are no conclusive arguments for their incompatibility. In this paper I consider two recent arguments for the impossibility of certain types of relativistic quantum theory on the grounds of causal paradoxes, due to Frank Arntzenius and Tim Maudlin. The structure of both arguments is (in effect) similar: if these alleged relativistic theories were true, closed causal loops could easily be constructed, but such loops would exclude the very possibility of these theories. I argue that Arntzenius’s and Maudlin’s lines of reasoning fail because they are based on untenable assumptions about probabilities in causal loops. I also argue that the consistency of the quantum theories under consideration depends on the interpretation of the probabilities they prescribe, and the question of their empirical adequacy requires a metaphysical and empirical investigation into the nature of chances and frequencies in causal loops.

Earman and Ruetsche ([2005]) have cast their gaze upon existing no-go theorems for relativistic modal interpretations, and have found them inconclusive. They suggest that it would be more fruitful to investigate modal interpretations proposed for "really relativistic theories," that is, algebraic relativistic quantum field theories. They investigate the proposal of Clifton ([2000]), and extend Clifton's result that, for a host of states, his proposal yields no definite observables other than multiples of the identity. This leads Earman and Ruetsche to a suspicion that troubles for modal interpretations of such relativistic theories "are due less to the Poincaré invariance of relativistic QFT vs. the Galilean invariance of ordinary nonrelativistic QM than to the infinite number of degrees of freedom of former vs. the finite number of degrees of freedom of the latter" (577-78). I am skeptical of this suggestion. Though there are troubles for modal interpretations of a relativistic quantum field theory that are due to its being a field theory—that is, due to infinitude of the degrees of freedom—they are not the only troubles faced by modal interpretations of quantum theories set in relativistic spacetime; there are also troubles traceable to relativistic causal structure.

Entanglement has long been the subject of discussion by philosophers of quantum theory, and has recently come to play an essential role for physicists in their development of quantum information theory. In this paper we show how the formalism of algebraic quantum field theory (AQFT) provides a rigorous framework within which to analyse entanglement in the context of a fully relativistic formulation of quantum theory. What emerges from the analysis are new practical and theoretical limitations on an experimenter's ability to perform operations on a field in one spacetime region that can disentangle its state from the state of the field in other spacelike-separated regions. These limitations show just how deeply entrenched entanglement is in relativistic quantum field theory, and yield a fresh perspective on the ways in which the theory differs conceptually from both standard non-relativistic quantum theory and classical relativistic field theory.

In a preceding paper, I studied the significance of Jarrett's and Shimony's analyses of 'factorisability' into 'parameter independence' and 'outcome independence' for clarifying the nature of non-locality in quantum phenomena. I focused on four types of non-locality; superluminal signalling, action-at-a-distance, non-separability and holism. In this paper, I consider a fifth type of non-locality: superluminal causation according to 'logically weak' concepts of causation, where causal dependence requires neither action nor signalling. I conclude by considering the compatibility of non-factorisable theories with relativity theory. In this connection, I pay special attention to the difficulties that superluminal causation raises in relativistic spacetime. My main findings in this paper are: first, parameter-dependent and outcome-dependent theories both involve superluminal causal connections between outcomes and between settings and outcomes. Second, while relativistic deterministic parameter-dependent theories seem impossible on pain of causal paradoxes, relativistic indeterministic parameter-dependent theories are not subjected to the same challenge. Third, current relativistic non-factorisable theories seem to have some rather unattractive characteristics.