Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:57:40.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Nick Huggett and
Robert Weingard
Nick Huggett
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University
Robert Weingard*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University
*
‡Send reprint requests to Robert Weingard, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we critically review the various attempts that have been made to understand quantum field theory. We focus on Teller's (1990) harmonic oscillator interpretation, and Bohm et al.'s (1987) causal interpretation. The former unabashedly aims to be a purely heuristic account, but we show that it is only interestingly applicable to the free bosonic field. Along the way we suggest alternative models. Bohm's interpretation provides an ontology for the theory—a classical field, with a quantum equation of motion. This too has problems; it is not Lorentz invariant.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 1994, pp. 370 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1994

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

We thank three anonymous reviewers for invaluable comments.

References

Bell, J. S. (1987), “Beables for Quantum Field Theory”, in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–180.Google Scholar
Bohm, D.; Hiley, B. J.; and Kaloyerou, P. N. (1987), “A Causal Interpretation of Quantum Fields”, Physics Reports 144: 349–375.Google Scholar
Brown, L. M. (1958), “Two-Component Fermion Theory”, Physical Review 111: 957–964.10.1103/PhysRev.111.957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cufaro Petroni, N.; Gueret, P.; and Vigier, J. P. (1984), “A Causal Stochastic Theory of Spin-1/2 Fields”, Il Nuovo Cimento 81: 243–259.10.1007/BF02721613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, J. F. and Holstein, B. R. (1984), “Temperature Measured by a Uniformly Accelerated Observer”, American Journal of Physics 52: 730–734.10.1119/1.13576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, R. J. and Villasante, M. (1986), “Grassmann Oscillator”, Physical Review D 33: 1666–1673.10.1103/PhysRevD.33.1666CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, P. R. (1988), “Causal Interpretation of Fermi Fields”, Physics Letters A 128: 9–18.10.1016/0375-9601(88)91033-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, N. and Weingard, R. (1994), “The Renormalisation Group and Effective Field Theories”, Synthese: In Press.10.1007/BF01063904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, S. K. (1976), Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Rajaraman, R. (1982), Solitons and Instantons: An Introduction to Solitons and Instantons in Quantum Field Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ryder, L. H. (1985), Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sakurai, J. J. (1967), Advanced Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Teller, P. (1990), “Prolegomenon to a Proper Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory”, Philosophy of Science 57: 594–618.10.1086/289581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallintini, A. (1992), “On the Pilot Wave Theory of Classical, Quantum, and Sub-Quantum Physics”. Ph.D. Thesis, International School for Advanced Studies, Trieste.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. G. and Kogut, J. (1974), “The Renormalization Group and the e Expansion”, Physics Reports 12: 75–200.10.1016/0370-1573(74)90023-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar