Haag’s theorem has been interpreted as establishing that quantum field theory cannot consistently represent interacting fields. Earman and Fraser have clarified how it is possible to give mathematically consistent calculations in scattering theory despite the theorem. However, their analysis does not fully address the worry raised by the result. In particular, I argue that their approach fails to be a complete explanation of why Haag’s theorem does not undermine claims about the empirical adequacy of particular quantum field theories. I then show that such empirical adequacy claims are protected from Haag’s result by the techniques that are required to obtain theoretical predictions for realistic experimental observables. I conclude by showing how Haag’s theorem is illustrative of a general tension between the foundational significance of results that can be obtained in perturbation theory and non-perturbative characterizations of the content of quantum field theory. 1 Introduction2 Haag’s Theorem and the Interaction Picture3 Earman and Fraser on the Success of Scattering Theory4 Haag’s Theorem and Empirical Adequacy5 Conclusion
Haag’s theorem has been interpreted as establishing that quantum field theory cannot consistently represent interacting fields. Earman and Fraser have clarified how it is possible to give mathematically consistent calculations in scattering theory despite the theorem. However, their analysis does not fully address the worry raised by the result. In particular, I argue that their approach fails to be a complete explanation of why Haag’s theorem does not undermine claims about the empirical adequacy of particular quantum field theories. I then show that such empirical adequacy claims are protected from Haag’s result by the techniques that are required to obtain theoretical predictions for realistic experimental observables. I conclude by showing how Haag’s theorem is illustrative of a general tension between the foundational significance of results that can be obtained in perturbation theory and non-perturbative characterizations of the content of quantum field theory. 1 Introduction2 Haag’s Theorem and the Interaction Picture3 Earman and Fraser on the Success of Scattering Theory4 Haag’s Theorem and Empirical Adequacy5 Conclusion
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
This dissertation gives a general account of the properties of unitarily inequivalent representations (UIRs) in both canonical quantum field theory and algebraic quantum field theory. A simple model is constructed and then used to show how to build a broad spectrum of UIRs including a version of Haag’s theorem. Haag and Kastler,P, two of the founding fathers of algebraic quantum field theory, argue that the problems posed by UIRs are solved by adopting a notion of equivalence that is weaker than unitary equivalence, which they refer to as physical equivalence. In the dissertation, it is shown that their notion does not provide a suitable classificatory schema. Some of the most important physical representations fail to satisfy the mathematical conditions of their notion. However, Haag and Kastler's notion has an unexpected connection with classical observables. A theorem is proven in which two representations make the same predictions with respect to all classical observables if and only if they satisfy their notion of physical equivalence. Following Haag and Kastler's lead, it was claimed by most proponents of algebraic quantum field theory that all physical content resides in a specific class of observables. It is shown in the dissertation that such claims are exaggerated and misleading. UIRs are used to elucidate the nature of quantum field theory by showing that UIRs have different expectation values for some classical observables of the system, such as temperature and chemical potential, which are not in Haag and Kastler’s specific class. It is shown how UIRs may be used to construct classical observables. To capture the physical content of quantum field theory it is shown that a much larger algebra than that of Haag and Kastler is necessary. Finally, the arguments that UIRs are incommensurable theories are shown to be flawed. The lesson of UIRs is that the mathematical structures in both canonical quantum field theory and Haag and Kastler’s version of algebraic quantum field theory are not sufficient to capture all of the physical content that UIRs represent. A suitable algebraic structure for quantum field theory is provided in the dissertation.