Authors
Michael E. Miller
University of Toronto, St. George Campus
Abstract
Haag's theorem has been interpreted as establishing that quantum field theory cannot consistently represent interacting fields. Earman and Fraser have clarified how it is possible to give mathematically consistent calculations in scattering theory despite the theorem. However, their analysis does not fully address the worry raised by the result. In particular, I argue that their approach fails to be a complete explanation of why Haag's theorem does not undermine claims about the empirical adequacy of particular quantum field theories. I then show that such empirical adequacy claims are protected from Haag's result by the techniques that are required to obtain theoretical predictions for realistic experimental observables. I conclude by showing how Haag's theorem is illustrative of a general tension between the foundational significance of results that can be obtained in perturbation theory and non-perturbative characterizations of the content of quantum field theory.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2015, 2016
DOI 10.1093/bjps/axw029
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: 64,132
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory.Nick Huggett & Robert Weingard - 1994 - Philosophy of Science 61 (3):370-388.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Real Problem with Perturbative Quantum Field Theory.James D. Fraser - 2020 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (2):391-413.
Mathematical Structure and Empirical Content.Michael E. Miller - unknown - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Algebraic Quantum Field Theory.Hans Halvorson & Michael Mueger - 2006 - In J. Butterfield & J. Earman (eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of physics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Modal Quantum Theory.Benjamin Schumacher & Michael D. Westmoreland - 2012 - Foundations of Physics 42 (7):918-925.
Towards a Geometrical Understanding of the Cpt Theorem.Hilary Greaves - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (1):27-50.
Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory.Mark A. Rubin - 2002 - Foundations of Physics 32 (10):1495-1523.
A Categorial Approach to Relativistic Locality.Miklós Rédei - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 48 (S1):137-146.
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.
Why Quantize Gravity (or Any Other Field for That Matter)?Nick Huggett & Craig Callender - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S382-.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-09-13

Total views
83 ( #131,094 of 2,454,704 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #303,745 of 2,454,704 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes