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:2305.05824

Haag as a How-To Theorem

D. Freeborn, Marian J. R. Gilton, Chris Mitsch

Published May 10, 2023• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Haag's theorem is a classic no-go theorem. It rigorously demonstrates there is a logical problem with the interaction picture (IP), one of the most widely used modeling tools in quantum field theory (QFT). The significance of the theorem for the use of the IP in QFT has been the subject of long-running debate, focused around how ``worried'' we should be. In this paper, we argue for an alternative and opposite perspective on Haag's theorem, rejecting the `worry' framing in favor of emphasizing the no-go theorem's implications for model development.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2305.05824

Related papers

Haag's Theorem and Observer Equivariance: Representation, Locality, and Structural Objectivity in Quantum Field Theory

Gustaf Ullman

This paper interprets Haag’s theorem as more than a technical obstruction to the interaction picture in relativistic quantum field theory. It argues that the theorem reveals a deeper structural limitation of global representation-based ontology: an interacting QFT cannot, under the assumptions of the theorem, be understood as a simple unitary deformation of a free theory within one fixed Fock representation. The paper connects this lesson to algebraic quantum field theory, superselection sectors, locally covariant QFT, Wilsonian renormalization, and effective field theory. It proposes that these developments all point toward a common principle: physical objectivity is not grounded in a privileged representation, but in structural content preserved under admissible transformations between perspectives, representations, sectors, scales, or regions. The paper does not claim to solve Haag’s theorem or construct interacting QFTs. Its aim is interpretive: to show how Haag’s theorem is naturally intelligible within the observer-equivariant framework, where objectivity is understood as invariant or equivariant structure rather than as a view from one absolute representation.

•May 5, 2026•0 citations

How Haag-tied is QFT, really?

Chris Mitsch, Marian J. R. Gilton, D. Freeborn

Haag's theorem cries out for explanation and critical assessment: it sounds the alarm that something is (perhaps) not right in one of the standard way of constructing interacting fields to be used in generating predictions for scattering experiments. Viewpoints as to the precise nature of the problem, the appropriate solution, and subsequently-called-for developments in areas of physics, mathematics, and philosophy differ widely. In this paper, we develop and deploy a conceptual framework for critically assessing these disparate responses to Haag's theorem. Doing so reveals the driving force of more general questions as to the nature and purpose of foundational work in physics.

arXiv:2212.06977•Dec 14, 2022•0 citations

Haag's Theorem and the Interpretation of Quantum Field Theories with Interactions

Doreen Fraser

Quantum field theory (QFT) is the physical framework that integrates quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity; it is the basis of many of our best physical theories. QFT's for interacting systems have yielded extraordinarily accurate predictions. Yet, in spite of unquestionable empirical success, the treatment of interactions in QFT raises serious issues for the foundations and interpretation of the theory. This dissertation takes Haag's theorem as a starting point for investigatingthese issues. It begins with a detailed exposition and analysis of different versions ofHaag's theorem. The theorem is cast as a reductio ad absurdum of canonical QFT prior to renormalization. It is possible to adopt different strategies in response to this reductio: (1) renormalizing the canonical framework; (2) introducing a volume i.e., long-distance) cutoff into the canonical framework; or (3) abandoning another assumption common to the canonical framework and Haag's theorem, which is the approach adopted by axiomatic and constructive field theorists. Haag's theorem doesnot entail that it is impossible to formulate a mathematically well-defined Hilbert space model for an interacting system on infinite, continuous space. Furthermore, Haag's theorem does not undermine the predictions of renormalized canonical QFT; canonical QFT with cutoffs and existing mathematically rigorous models for interactions are empirically equivalent to renormalized canonical QFT. The final two chapters explore the consequences of Haag's theorem for the interpretation of QFT with interactions. I argue that no mathematically rigorous model of QFT on infinite, continuous space admits an interpretation in terms of quanta (i.e., quantumparticles). Furthermore, I contend that extant mathematically rigorous models for physically unrealistic interactions serve as a better guide to the ontology of QFT than either of the other two formulations of QFT. Consequently, according to QFT, quanta do not belong in our ontology of fundamental entities.

•Sep 28, 2006•14 citations

How Haag-Tied is QFT, Really?

Chris Mitsch, Marian J. R. Gilton, D. Freeborn

Haag’s theorem cries out for explanation and critical assessment: It sounds the alarm that something is (perhaps) not right in one of the standard ways of constructing interacting fields to be used in generating predictions for scattering experiments. Viewpoints as to the precise nature of the problem, the appropriate solution, and subsequently-called-for developments in areas of physics, mathematics, and philosophy differ widely. In this paper, we develop and deploy a conceptual framework for critically assessing these disparate responses to Haag’s theorem. Doing so reveals the driving force of more general questions as to the nature and purpose of foundational work in physics.

Philosophy of Physics•Jan 1, 2024•1 citation

Reconsidering No-Go Theorems from a Practical Perspective

Michael E. Cuffaro

I argue that our judgements regarding the locally causal models which are compatible with a given quantum no-go theorem implicitly depend, in part, on the context of inquiry. It follows from this that certain no-go theorems, which are particularly striking in the traditional foundational context, have no force when the context switches to a discussion of the physical systems we are capable of building with the aim of classically reproducing quantum statistics. I close with a general discussion of the possible implications of this for our understanding of the limits of classical description, and for our understanding of the fundamental aim of physical investigation. 1

•Jan 1, 2015•8 citations

Haag’s Theorem and its Implications for the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory

John Earman, Doreen Fraser

Erkenntnis•Jun 22, 2006•84 citations
Haag's theorem is a classic no-go theorem. It rigorously demonstrates there is a logical problem with the interaction picture (IP), one of the most widely used modeling tools in quantum field theory (QFT). The significance of the theorem for the use of the IP in QFT has been the subject of long-running debate, focused around how ``worried'' we should be. In this paper, we argue for an alternative and opposite perspective on Haag's theorem, rejecting the `worry' framing in favor of emphasizing the no-go theorem's implications for model development.
This paper interprets Haag’s theorem as more than a technical obstruction to the interaction picture in relativistic quantum field theory. It argues that the theorem reveals a deeper structural limitation of global representation-based ontology: an interacting QFT cannot, under the assumptions of the theorem, be understood as a simple unitary deformation of a free theory within one fixed Fock representation. The paper connects this lesson to algebraic quantum field theory, superselection sectors, locally covariant QFT, Wilsonian renormalization, and effective field theory. It proposes that these developments all point toward a common principle: physical objectivity is not grounded in a privileged representation, but in structural content preserved under admissible transformations between perspectives, representations, sectors, scales, or regions. The paper does not claim to solve Haag’s theorem or construct interacting QFTs. Its aim is interpretive: to show how Haag’s theorem is naturally intelligible within the observer-equivariant framework, where objectivity is understood as invariant or equivariant structure rather than as a view from one absolute representation.
Haag's theorem cries out for explanation and critical assessment: it sounds the alarm that something is (perhaps) not right in one of the standard way of constructing interacting fields to be used in generating predictions for scattering experiments. Viewpoints as to the precise nature of the problem, the appropriate solution, and subsequently-called-for developments in areas of physics, mathematics, and philosophy differ widely. In this paper, we develop and deploy a conceptual framework for critically assessing these disparate responses to Haag's theorem. Doing so reveals the driving force of more general questions as to the nature and purpose of foundational work in physics.
Quantum field theory (QFT) is the physical framework that integrates quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity; it is the basis of many of our best physical theories. QFT's for interacting systems have yielded extraordinarily accurate predictions. Yet, in spite of unquestionable empirical success, the treatment of interactions in QFT raises serious issues for the foundations and interpretation of the theory. This dissertation takes Haag's theorem as a starting point for investigatingthese issues. It begins with a detailed exposition and analysis of different versions ofHaag's theorem. The theorem is cast as a reductio ad absurdum of canonical QFT prior to renormalization. It is possible to adopt different strategies in response to this reductio: (1) renormalizing the canonical framework; (2) introducing a volume i.e., long-distance) cutoff into the canonical framework; or (3) abandoning another assumption common to the canonical framework and Haag's theorem, which is the approach adopted by axiomatic and constructive field theorists. Haag's theorem doesnot entail that it is impossible to formulate a mathematically well-defined Hilbert space model for an interacting system on infinite, continuous space. Furthermore, Haag's theorem does not undermine the predictions of renormalized canonical QFT; canonical QFT with cutoffs and existing mathematically rigorous models for interactions are empirically equivalent to renormalized canonical QFT. The final two chapters explore the consequences of Haag's theorem for the interpretation of QFT with interactions. I argue that no mathematically rigorous model of QFT on infinite, continuous space admits an interpretation in terms of quanta (i.e., quantumparticles). Furthermore, I contend that extant mathematically rigorous models for physically unrealistic interactions serve as a better guide to the ontology of QFT than either of the other two formulations of QFT. Consequently, according to QFT, quanta do not belong in our ontology of fundamental entities.
Haag’s theorem cries out for explanation and critical assessment: It sounds the alarm that something is (perhaps) not right in one of the standard ways of constructing interacting fields to be used in generating predictions for scattering experiments. Viewpoints as to the precise nature of the problem, the appropriate solution, and subsequently-called-for developments in areas of physics, mathematics, and philosophy differ widely. In this paper, we develop and deploy a conceptual framework for critically assessing these disparate responses to Haag’s theorem. Doing so reveals the driving force of more general questions as to the nature and purpose of foundational work in physics.
I argue that our judgements regarding the locally causal models which are compatible with a given quantum no-go theorem implicitly depend, in part, on the context of inquiry. It follows from this that certain no-go theorems, which are particularly striking in the traditional foundational context, have no force when the context switches to a discussion of the physical systems we are capable of building with the aim of classically reproducing quantum statistics. I close with a general discussion of the possible implications of this for our understanding of the limits of classical description, and for our understanding of the fundamental aim of physical investigation. 1