Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:08:46.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Hans Halvorson  and
Rob Clifton
Hans Halvorson
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Princeton University; Department of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh
Rob Clifton
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Princeton University; Department of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

David Malament (1996) has recently argued that there can be no relativistic quantum theory of (localizable) particles. We consider and rebut several objections that have been made against the soundness of Malament's argument. We then consider some further objections that might be made against the generality of Malament's conclusion, and we supply three no-go theorems to counter these objections. Finally, we dispel potential worries about the counterintuitive nature of these results by showing that relativistic quantum field theory itself explains the appearance of “particle detections.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the first author, Department of Philosophy, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 [email protected].

‡

Thanks to Jeff Barrett and David Malament for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Barrett, Jeffrey A. (2001), “On the nature of measurement records in relativistic quantum field theory”, e-Print: philsci-archive.pitt.edu 00000197.Google Scholar
Borchers, H.-J. (1967), “A remark on a theorem of B. Misra”, A remark on a theorem of B. Misra 4:315–323.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Detlev (2000), “Algebraic quantum field theory: A status report”, e-Print: arXiv.org math-ph/0011044.Google Scholar
Busch, Paul (1999), “Unsharp localization and causality in relativistic quantum theory”, Unsharp localization and causality in relativistic quantum theory 32:6535–6546.Google Scholar
Chaiken, Jan M. (1968), “Number operators for representations of the canonical commutation relations”, Number operators for representations of the canonical commutation relations 8:164–184.Google Scholar
Cushing, James T. (1996), “What measurement problem?”, in Clifton, Rob (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, W. Michael (1998), Quantum Chance and Nonlocality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John (1986), A Primer on Determinism. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon, and Butterfield, Jeremy (1999), “Strange positions”, in Butterfield, J. and Pagonis, C. (eds.), From Physics to Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 108–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haag, Rudolf (1992), Local Quantum Physics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, Hans (2001), “Reeh-Schlieder defeats Newton-Wigner: On alternative localization schemes in relativistic quantum field theory”, Reeh-Schlieder defeats Newton-Wigner: On alternative localization schemes in relativistic quantum field theory 68:111–133.Google Scholar
Hegerfeldt, Gerhard C. (1998a), “Causality, particle localization and positivity of the energy”, in Böhm, A., et al. (eds.), Irreversibility and Causality. New York: Springer, 238–245.Google Scholar
Hegerfeldt, Gerhard C. (1998b), “Instantaneous spreading and Einstein causality in quantum theory”, Instantaneous spreading and Einstein causality in quantum theory 7:716–725.Google Scholar
Holland, Peter R. (1993), The Quantum Theory of Motion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malament, David (1996), “In defense of dogma: Why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) particles”, in Clifton, Rob (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–10.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim (1994), Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael (1995), “The vacuum in relativistic quantum field theory”, in Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Burian, Richard M. (eds.), PSA 1994 Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 77–87.Google Scholar
Requardt, Manfred (1982), “Spectrum condition, analyticity, Reeh-Schlieder and cluster properties in non-relativistic Galilei-invariant quantum theory”, Spectrum condition, analyticity, Reeh-Schlieder and cluster properties in non-relativistic Galilei-invariant quantum theory 15:3715–3723.Google Scholar
Schlieder, S. (1971), “Zum kausalen Verhalten eines relativistischen quantenmechanischen System”, in Dürr, S.P. (ed.), Quanten und Felder. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Irving E. (1964), “Quantum fields and analysis in the solution manifolds of differential equations”, in Martin, William T. and Segal, Irving E., (eds.), Proceedings of a Conference on the Theory and Applications of Analysis in Function Space. Cambridge: MIT Press, 129–153.Google Scholar
Streater, Raymond F., and Wightman, Arthur S. (2000), PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. 3rd Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thaller, Bernd (1992), The Dirac Equation. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ticiatti, Robin (1999), Quantum Field Theory for Mathematicians. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar