In Defence of Naiveté: The Conceptual Status of Lagrangian Quantum Field Theory

Synthese 151 (1):33-80 (2006)
Abstract
I analyse the conceptual and mathematical foundations of Lagrangian quantum field theory (QFT) (that is, the ‘naive’ (QFT) used in mainstream physics, as opposed to algebraic quantum field theory). The objective is to see whether Lagrangian (QFT) has a sufficiently firm conceptual and mathematical basis to be a legitimate object of foundational study, or whether it is too ill-defined. The analysis covers renormalisation and infinities, inequivalent representations, and the concept of localised states; the conclusion is that Lagrangian QFT (at least as described here) is a perfectly respectable physical theory, albeit somewhat different in certain respects from most of those studied in foundational work.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Logic   Metaphysics   Philosophy of Language
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-004-6248-9
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,827
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Real Patterns.Daniel C. Dennett - 1991 - Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):27-51.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Against Field Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory.David Baker - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):585-609.
Taking Particle Physics Seriously: A Critique of the Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory.David Wallace - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42 (2):116-125.
Antimatter.David Baker & Hans Halvorson - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (1):93-121.
On Emergence in Gauge Theories at the ’T Hooft Limit‘.Nazim Bouatta & Jeremy Butterfield - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (1):55-87.

View all 22 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
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.
The History and Philosophy of Quantum Field Theory.Don Robinson - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:61 - 68.
Why is Mathcal{CPT} Fundamental?O. W. Greenberg - 2006 - Foundations of Physics 36 (10):1535-1553.
Ontological Commitment in Quantum Field Theory.Andrew Zachary Wayne - 1994 - Dissertation, University of California, San Diego
Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell.A. Zee - 2010 - Princeton University Press.
What is a Wavefunction?Wayne C. Myrvold - 2015 - Synthese 192 (10):3247-3274.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
143 ( #36,219 of 2,210,000 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #380,829 of 2,210,000 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature