Locality, localization, and the particle concept: Topics in the foundations of quantum field theory
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh (2001)
| Abstract | This dissertation reconsiders some traditional issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics in the context of relativistic quantum field theory (RQFT); and it considers some novel foundational issues that arise first in the context of RQFT. The first part of the dissertation considers quantum nonlocality in RQFT. Here I show that the generic state of RQFT displays Bell correlations relative to measurements performed in any pair of spacelike separated regions, no matter how distant. I also show that local systems in RQFT are "open" to influence from their environment, in the sense that it is generally impossible to perform local operations that would remove the entanglement between a local system and any other spacelike separated system. The second part of the dissertation argues that RQFT does not support a particle ontology -- at least if particles are understood to be localizable objects. In particular, while RQFT permits us to describe situations in which a determinate number of particles are present, it does not permit us to speak of the location of any individual particle, nor of the number of particles in any particular region of space. Nonetheless, the absence of localizable particles in RQFT does not threaten the integrity of our commonsense concept of a localized object. Indeed, RQFT itself predicts that descriptions in terms of localized objects can be quite accurate on the macroscopic level. The third part of the dissertation examines the so-called observer-dependence of the particle concept in RQFT -- that is, whether there are any particles present must be relativized to an observer's state of motion. Now, it is not uncommon for modern physical theories to subsume observer-dependent descriptions under a more general observer-independent description of some underlying state of affairs. However, I show that the conflicting accounts concerning the particle content of the field cannot be reconciled in this way. In fact, I argue that these conflicting accounts should be thought of as "complementary" in the same sense that position and momentum descriptions are complementary in elementary quantum mechanics. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRob Clifton & Hans Halvorson (2001). Are Rindler Quanta Real? Inequivalent Particle Concepts in Quantum Field Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):417-470.
Debs T. A. & Redhead M. L. G. (2003). The 'Jericho Effect' and Hegerfeldt Non-Locality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (1):61-85.
Jonathan Bain (2000). Against Particle/Field Duality: Asymptotic Particle States and Interpolating Fields in Interacting Qft (Or: Who's Afraid of Haag's Theorem?). Erkenntnis 53 (3):375-406.
Rob Clifton & Hans Halvorson (2001). Entanglement and Open Systems in Algebraic Quantum Field Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (1):1-31.
Doreen Fraser (2008). The Fate of 'Particles' in Quantum Field Theories with Interactions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 39 (4):841-859.
Tobias Fox (2008). Haunted by the Spectre of Virtual Particles: A Philosophical Reconsideration. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (1):35 - 51.
Rob Clifton & Hans Halvorson (2001). Are Rindler Quanta Real? Inequivalent Particle Concepts in Quantum Field Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):417-470.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads23 ( #53,853 of 549,087 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
