Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0907.0178

The concept of particle in Quantum Field theory

Eliano Pessa

Published Jul 1, 2009• 18 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Despite its name, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has been built to describe interactions between localizable particles. For this reason the actual formalism of QFT is partly based on a suitable generalization of the one already used for systems of point particles. This circumstance gives rise to a number of conceptual problems, stemming essentially from the fact that the existence within QFT of non-equivalent representations implies the existence of field theories allowing, within the same theory, different, inequivalent, descriptions of particles. This led some authors to claim that in QFT the concept itself of particle should be abandoned. In this paper we will shortly discuss the validity of this claim, as well as the possibilities, so far existing, of building alternative versions of QFT, not designed in advance to allow some kind of particle representation. We will also spend some words about the generalizations of the concept itself of particle which could grant for a better cohabitation of particles and fields within a wider formulation of QFT. The latter is indispensable if we want to extend the range of application of QFT from particle physics or simple condensed matter physics to other domains of scientific research.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0907.0178

Related papers

Are Rindler Quanta Real? Inequivalent Particle Concepts in Quantum Field Theory

Rob Clifton, Hans Halvorson

Philosophical reflection on quantum field theory has tended to focus on how it revises our conception of what a particle is. However, there has been relatively little discussion of the threat to the ‘reality’ of particles posed by the possibility of inequivalent quantizations of a classical field theory, i.e. inequivalent representations of the algebra of observables of the field in terms of operators on a Hilbert space. The threat is that each representation embodies its own distinctive conception of what a particle is, and how a ‘particle’ will respond to a suitably operated detector. Our main goal is to clarify the subtle relationship between inequivalent representations of a field theory and their associated particle concepts. We also have a particular interest in the Minkowski versus Rindler quantizations of a free Boson field, because they respectively entail two radically different descriptions of the particle content of the field in the very same region of spacetime. We shall defend the idea that these representations provide complementary descriptions of the same state of the field against the claim that they embody completely incommensurable theories of the field.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 2001•95 citations

Are Rindler Quanta Real? Inequivalent particle concepts in quantum field theory

Rob Clifton, Hans Halvorson

Philosophical reflection on quantum field theory has tended to focus on how it revises our conception of what a particle is. However, there has been relatively little discussion of the threat to the "reality" of particles posed by the possibility of inequivalent quantizations of a classical field theory, i.e., inequivalent representations of the algebra of observables of the field in terms of operators on a Hilbert space. The threat is that each representation embodies its own distinctive conception of what a particle is, and how a "particle" will respond to a suitably operated detector. Our main goal is to clarify the subtle relationship between inequivalent representations of a field theory and their associated particle concepts. We also have a particular interest in the Minkowski versus Rindler quantizations of a free Boson field, because they respectively entail two radically different descriptions of the particle content of the field in the very same region of spacetime. We shall defend the idea that these representations provide complementary descriptions of the same state of the field against the claim that they embody completely incommensurable theories of the field.

arXiv:quant-ph/0008030•Aug 5, 2000•0 citations

Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory

Tian Yu Cao

Introduction: Conceptual issues in quantum field theory Part I. Philosophers' Interests in Quantum Field Theory: 1. Why are we philosophers interested in quantum field theory 2. Quantum field theory and the philosopher Part II. Three Approaches to the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory: 3. The usefulness of a general theory of quantized fields 4. Effective field theory in condensed matter physics 5. The triumph and limitations of quantum field theory 6. Comments Discussions Part III. Does Quantum Field Theory Need a Foundation: 7. Does quantum field theory need a foundation? Part IV. Mathematics, Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory: 8. Renormalization group theory: its basis and formulation in statistical physics 9. Where does quantum field theory fit into the big picture? 10. The unreasonable effectiveness of quantum field theory 11. Comment: the quantum field theory of physics and of mathematics Part V. Quantum Field Theory and Spacetime: Introduction 12. Quantum field theory and spacetime: formalism and reality 13. Quantum field theory of geometry 14. 'Localization' in quantum field theory: how much of QFT is compatible with what we know about spacetime 15. Comments VI. 16. What is quantum field theory and what did we think it was? 17. Comments Discussions Part VII.Renormalization Group: 18. What is fundamental physics? A renormalization group perspective 19. Renormalization group: an interesting yet puzzling idea Part VIII. Non-Abelian Gauge Theory: 20. Gauge fields, gravity and Bohm's theory 21. Is the Aharonov-Bohm effect local? Discussions Part IX. The Ontology of Particles or Fields: 22. The ineliminable classical face of quantum field theory 23. The logic of quanta 24. Do Feynman diagrams endorse a particle ontology? 25. On the ontology of QFT Part X. Panel Discussion.

•Mar 1, 2004•25 citations

The formation of the conceptual foundations of quantum field theory

Tian Yu Cao

Quantum field theory (QFT) can be analyzed in terms of its mathematical structure, its conceptual system for physical descriptions, or its basic ontology. The analysis can be done logically or historically. In this chapter, only the genesis of the conceptual foundations of QFT relevant to its basic ontology will be treated; no discussion of its mathematical structures or its epistemological underpinnings will be given. Some conceptual problems, such as those related to probability and measurement, will be discussed, but only because of their relevance to the basic ontology of QFT, rather than their intrinsic philosophical interest. Here, by basic ontology I mean the irreducible entities that QFT is invented to describe. The often mentioned candidates for the basic ontology of QFT, in fact of the physical world, are the discrete particle and the continuous field. Another possible candidate (the spacetime point) has also been suggested recently (Redhead, 1983). Since the aim of this chapter is to analyze the historical process in which the conceptual foundations of QFT were laid down, rather than the logical structure of QFT which philosophers of the present day treat, no discussion of the last possibility will be given. The content of this chapter involves the formation and interpretation, in a roughly chronological order, of the concepts of the wave function, quantization, quantization of the field, the vacuum, interactions between fields, and renormalization. The first two topics will be discussed in relation to the quantization of the field, with their role being taken as the starting point of the conceptual development of QFT.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 13, 1997•0 citations

Particles in Quantum Field Theory

Doreen Fraser

An important way in which quantum field theory (QFT) differs from non-relativistic quantum mechanics is that in QFT systems generically possess an infinite number of degrees of freedom. This chapter examines the proposals for non-fundamental roles that the particle concept plays in particle physics. The fields which feature in the QFT formalism are mathematical expressions; work needs to be done to determine the ontological properties of the entities that are represented by the mathematical field formalism. One difficulty for the quanta interpretation of QFT is that the analysis in terms of quanta offered in the preceding paragraphs is restricted to free systems. The no-go results for interacting systems inspire a different approach to regarding particles as non-fundamental entities. The fields which feature in the QFT formalism are mathematical expressions; work needs to be done to determine the ontological properties of the entities that are represented by the mathematical field formalism.

Routledge eBooks•Aug 11, 2021•26 citations

Symmetry Requirements in QFT

Lukong Cornelius Fai

This chapter introduces and applies the method of second quantization, a technique that underpins the formulation of quantum many-particle theories. Second quantization formalism treats systems of bosons or fermions with a fixed or variable number of particles in a unified way. The chapter reviews the key aspects of this formalism. The formalism of second quantization treats systems of bosons with a fixed or variable number of particles in a unified manner. In many physical processes, the particle number does change. Different quantum operators are expressed most naturally in different representations, which make basis changes an essential issue in quantum physics. Quantum field theory is a universal tool that has applications ranging from atomic, molecular, and particle physics to condensed matter and statistical physics as well as modern quantum chemistry. The fundamental difference between classical and quantum mechanics relates to the concept of indistinguishability of identical particles.

CRC Press eBooks•Jun 20, 2019•0 citations
Despite its name, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has been built to describe interactions between localizable particles. For this reason the actual formalism of QFT is partly based on a suitable generalization of the one already used for systems of point particles. This circumstance gives rise to a number of conceptual problems, stemming essentially from the fact that the existence within QFT of non-equivalent representations implies the existence of field theories allowing, within the same theory, different, inequivalent, descriptions of particles. This led some authors to claim that in QFT the concept itself of particle should be abandoned. In this paper we will shortly discuss the validity of this claim, as well as the possibilities, so far existing, of building alternative versions of QFT, not designed in advance to allow some kind of particle representation. We will also spend some words about the generalizations of the concept itself of particle which could grant for a better cohabitation of particles and fields within a wider formulation of QFT. The latter is indispensable if we want to extend the range of application of QFT from particle physics or simple condensed matter physics to other domains of scientific research.
Philosophical reflection on quantum field theory has tended to focus on how it revises our conception of what a particle is. However, there has been relatively little discussion of the threat to the ‘reality’ of particles posed by the possibility of inequivalent quantizations of a classical field theory, i.e. inequivalent representations of the algebra of observables of the field in terms of operators on a Hilbert space. The threat is that each representation embodies its own distinctive conception of what a particle is, and how a ‘particle’ will respond to a suitably operated detector. Our main goal is to clarify the subtle relationship between inequivalent representations of a field theory and their associated particle concepts. We also have a particular interest in the Minkowski versus Rindler quantizations of a free Boson field, because they respectively entail two radically different descriptions of the particle content of the field in the very same region of spacetime. We shall defend the idea that these representations provide complementary descriptions of the same state of the field against the claim that they embody completely incommensurable theories of the field.
Philosophical reflection on quantum field theory has tended to focus on how it revises our conception of what a particle is. However, there has been relatively little discussion of the threat to the "reality" of particles posed by the possibility of inequivalent quantizations of a classical field theory, i.e., inequivalent representations of the algebra of observables of the field in terms of operators on a Hilbert space. The threat is that each representation embodies its own distinctive conception of what a particle is, and how a "particle" will respond to a suitably operated detector. Our main goal is to clarify the subtle relationship between inequivalent representations of a field theory and their associated particle concepts. We also have a particular interest in the Minkowski versus Rindler quantizations of a free Boson field, because they respectively entail two radically different descriptions of the particle content of the field in the very same region of spacetime. We shall defend the idea that these representations provide complementary descriptions of the same state of the field against the claim that they embody completely incommensurable theories of the field.
Introduction: Conceptual issues in quantum field theory Part I. Philosophers' Interests in Quantum Field Theory: 1. Why are we philosophers interested in quantum field theory 2. Quantum field theory and the philosopher Part II. Three Approaches to the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory: 3. The usefulness of a general theory of quantized fields 4. Effective field theory in condensed matter physics 5. The triumph and limitations of quantum field theory 6. Comments Discussions Part III. Does Quantum Field Theory Need a Foundation: 7. Does quantum field theory need a foundation? Part IV. Mathematics, Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory: 8. Renormalization group theory: its basis and formulation in statistical physics 9. Where does quantum field theory fit into the big picture? 10. The unreasonable effectiveness of quantum field theory 11. Comment: the quantum field theory of physics and of mathematics Part V. Quantum Field Theory and Spacetime: Introduction 12. Quantum field theory and spacetime: formalism and reality 13. Quantum field theory of geometry 14. 'Localization' in quantum field theory: how much of QFT is compatible with what we know about spacetime 15. Comments VI. 16. What is quantum field theory and what did we think it was? 17. Comments Discussions Part VII.Renormalization Group: 18. What is fundamental physics? A renormalization group perspective 19. Renormalization group: an interesting yet puzzling idea Part VIII. Non-Abelian Gauge Theory: 20. Gauge fields, gravity and Bohm's theory 21. Is the Aharonov-Bohm effect local? Discussions Part IX. The Ontology of Particles or Fields: 22. The ineliminable classical face of quantum field theory 23. The logic of quanta 24. Do Feynman diagrams endorse a particle ontology? 25. On the ontology of QFT Part X. Panel Discussion.
Quantum field theory (QFT) can be analyzed in terms of its mathematical structure, its conceptual system for physical descriptions, or its basic ontology. The analysis can be done logically or historically. In this chapter, only the genesis of the conceptual foundations of QFT relevant to its basic ontology will be treated; no discussion of its mathematical structures or its epistemological underpinnings will be given. Some conceptual problems, such as those related to probability and measurement, will be discussed, but only because of their relevance to the basic ontology of QFT, rather than their intrinsic philosophical interest. Here, by basic ontology I mean the irreducible entities that QFT is invented to describe. The often mentioned candidates for the basic ontology of QFT, in fact of the physical world, are the discrete particle and the continuous field. Another possible candidate (the spacetime point) has also been suggested recently (Redhead, 1983). Since the aim of this chapter is to analyze the historical process in which the conceptual foundations of QFT were laid down, rather than the logical structure of QFT which philosophers of the present day treat, no discussion of the last possibility will be given. The content of this chapter involves the formation and interpretation, in a roughly chronological order, of the concepts of the wave function, quantization, quantization of the field, the vacuum, interactions between fields, and renormalization. The first two topics will be discussed in relation to the quantization of the field, with their role being taken as the starting point of the conceptual development of QFT.
An important way in which quantum field theory (QFT) differs from non-relativistic quantum mechanics is that in QFT systems generically possess an infinite number of degrees of freedom. This chapter examines the proposals for non-fundamental roles that the particle concept plays in particle physics. The fields which feature in the QFT formalism are mathematical expressions; work needs to be done to determine the ontological properties of the entities that are represented by the mathematical field formalism. One difficulty for the quanta interpretation of QFT is that the analysis in terms of quanta offered in the preceding paragraphs is restricted to free systems. The no-go results for interacting systems inspire a different approach to regarding particles as non-fundamental entities. The fields which feature in the QFT formalism are mathematical expressions; work needs to be done to determine the ontological properties of the entities that are represented by the mathematical field formalism.
This chapter introduces and applies the method of second quantization, a technique that underpins the formulation of quantum many-particle theories. Second quantization formalism treats systems of bosons or fermions with a fixed or variable number of particles in a unified way. The chapter reviews the key aspects of this formalism. The formalism of second quantization treats systems of bosons with a fixed or variable number of particles in a unified manner. In many physical processes, the particle number does change. Different quantum operators are expressed most naturally in different representations, which make basis changes an essential issue in quantum physics. Quantum field theory is a universal tool that has applications ranging from atomic, molecular, and particle physics to condensed matter and statistical physics as well as modern quantum chemistry. The fundamental difference between classical and quantum mechanics relates to the concept of indistinguishability of identical particles.