Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh (2001)
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||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Are Rindler Quanta Real? Inequivalent Particle Concepts in Quantum Field Theory.Rob Clifton & Hans Halvorson - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):417-470.
The Fate of 'Particles' in Quantum Field Theories with Interactions.Doreen Fraser - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 39 (4):841-859.
Entanglement and Open Systems in Algebraic Quantum Field Theory.Rob Clifton & Hans Halvorson - 2001 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (1):1-31.
Ontological Issues In Quantum Theory.Decio Krause & Otavio Bueno - 2010 - Manuscrito 33 (1):269-283.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Stanley Klein Wrote: > Hi Henry, > Do You Know What 'T Hooft is Up to in the Following Article? > Why is It That Different From > Bohm's Deterministic Theory. [REVIEW]Henry Stapp - unknown
Against Particle/Field Duality: Asymptotic Particle States and Interpolating Fields in Interacting Qft (Or: Who's Afraid of Haag's Theorem?). [REVIEW]Jonathan Bain - 2000 - Erkenntnis 53 (3):375-406.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads111 ( #44,106 of 2,163,726 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #84,209 of 2,163,726 )
How can I increase my downloads?