Authors
Adam Koberinski
University of Waterloo
Abstract
The debate between Fraser and Wallace over the foundations of quantum field theory has spawned increased focus on both the axiomatic and conventional formalisms. The debate has set the tone for future foundational analysis, and has forced philosophers to “pick a side”. The two are seen as competing research programs, and the major divide between the two manifests in how each handles renormalization. In this paper I argue that the terms set by the Fraser-Wallace debate are misleading. AQFT and CQFT should be viewed as complementary formalisms that start from the same physical basis. Further, the focus on cutoffs as demarcating the two approaches is also highly misleading. Though their methods differ, both axiomatic and conventional QFT seek to use the same physical principles to explain the same domain of phenomena.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,360
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Taking Particle Physics Seriously: A Critique of the Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory.David Wallace - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42 (2):116-125.
The Higgs Mechanism and Superconductivity: A Case Study of Formal Analogies.Doreen Fraser & Adam Koberinski - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 55:72-91.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Taking Particle Physics Seriously: A Critique of the Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory.David Wallace - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42 (2):116-125.
How to Take Particle Physics Seriously: A Further Defence of Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory.Doreen Fraser - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42 (2):126-135.
Quantum Gravity: A Dogma of Unification?Kian Salimkhani - 2018 - In Alexander Christian, David Hommen, Nina Retzlaff & Gerhard Schurz (eds.), Philosophy of Science. European Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol 9. Cham: Springer. pp. 23-41.
Why is $$\mathcal{CPT}$$ Fundamental?O. W. Greenberg - 2006 - Foundations of Physics 36 (10):1535-1553.
The Fate of 'Particles' in Quantum Field Theories with Interactions.Doreen Fraser - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39 (4):841-859.
Density Formalism for Quantum Theory.Roderick I. Sutherland - 1998 - Foundations of Physics 28 (7):1157-1190.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-07-18

Total views
20 ( #536,768 of 63,339 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #300,727 of 63,339 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes