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

Philosophy of Science

Interpreting Quantum Field Theory

Laura Ruetsche

Published Jun 1, 2002• 70 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The availability of unitarily inequivalent representations of the canonical commutation relations constituting a quantization of a classical field theory raises questions about how to formulate and pursue quantum field theory. In a minimally technical way, I explain how these questions arise and how advocates of the Hilbert space and of the algebraic approaches to quantum theory might answer them. Where these answers differ, I sketch considerations for and against each approach, as well as considerations which might temper their apparent rivalry.

DOI
10.1086/341047

Related papers

Against Field Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory

David John Baker

I examine some problems standing in the way of a successful `field interpretation' of quantum field theory. The most popular extant proposal depends on the Hilbert space of `wavefunctionals.' But since wavefunctional space is unitarily equivalent to many-particle Fock space, two of the most powerful arguments against particle interpretations also undermine this form of field interpretation. 1. Introduction 2. Field Interpretations and Field Operators 3. The Wavefunctional Interpretation 4. Fields and Inequivalent Representations 4.1. The Rindler representation 4.2. Spontaneous symmetry breaking 4.3. Coherent representations 5. The Fate of Fields in Interacting QFT 6. Conclusions

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Jul 17, 2009•90 citations

Philosophical Aspects of Quantum Field Theory: I

Laura Ruetsche

Abstract This is the first of a two‐part introduction to some interpretive questions that arise in connection with quantum field theories (QFTs). Some of these questions are continuous with those familiar from the discussion of ordinary non‐relativistic quantum mechanics (QM). For example, questions about locality can be rigorously posed and fruitfully pursued within the framework of QFT. A stark disanalogy between QFTs and ordinary QM – the former, but not the latter, typically admit infinitely many putatively physically inequivalent realizations – prompts relatively novel questions, questions about how to understand and adjudicate different strategies for equipping quantum theories with content. Part I sketches the fate of locality and related notions in QFT, then documents the non‐uniqueness unprecedented in ordinary QM but rampant in QFT. Part II presents foundations issues raised by non‐uniqueness.

Philosophy Compass•Aug 1, 2012•5 citations

The Basic Formalism of Field Theory

A.N. Vasiliev

The classical system is usually quantized using the canonical formalism, i.e., in the language of coordinates and momenta. In addition to this “purely algebraic” ambiguity, there is also an ambiguity in the choice of realization of the operators p^ and q^: the commutation relations do not determine it uniquely, but up to a unitary equivalence (the well known uniqueness theorem of von Neumann pertains only to the Weyl form of the commutation relations). The realization must be chosen on the basis of additional considerations regarding the nature of the canonical variables p and q. In this book the term “theory” is used in various ways: in a broad sense (quantum field theory, relativistic theory) and in a narrow sense, to refer to a particular system or class of systems with certain dynamics. In quantum theory there are also systems whose operators corresponding to canonical variables satisfy not commutation relations, but anticommutation relations.

Routledge eBooks•Jan 22, 2019•0 citations

The Philosophy of Quantum Field Theory

David John Baker

This is an opinionated survey of some interpretive puzzles in quantum field theory. The problem of inequivalent representations is sketched, including its connections with competing accounts of physical equivalence. The controversy between variant formulations of the theory, algebraic versus Lagrangian, is given a conciliatory resolution. Arguments against particles are addressed, demarcating clearly between different forms of particle interpretation. Field interpretations are then considered, including wavefunctional, spacetime state realist and Heisenberg operator realist interpretations. Ruetsche’s coalesced structure interpretation is presented and juxtaposed with an alternative, more traditional view of the theory’s laws and state space. Finally, the CPT theorem is discussed, together with its implications about the nature of spacetime.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Jun 2, 2016•16 citations

Inequivalent representations in the functional integral framework

Massimo Blasone A, Petr Jizba B, L. A. Smaldone

An important feature of Quantum Field Theory is the existence of unitarily inequivalent representations of canonical commutation relations. When one works with the functional integral formalism, it is not clear, however, how this feature emerges. By following the seminal work of M. Swanson on canonical transformations in phase-space path integral, we generalize his approach to coherent-state functional integrals which in turn will lead to a simplified formalism which makes the appearance of the inequivalent representations more transparent.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Jan 1, 2017•3 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
The availability of unitarily inequivalent representations of the canonical commutation relations constituting a quantization of a classical field theory raises questions about how to formulate and pursue quantum field theory. In a minimally technical way, I explain how these questions arise and how advocates of the Hilbert space and of the algebraic approaches to quantum theory might answer them. Where these answers differ, I sketch considerations for and against each approach, as well as considerations which might temper their apparent rivalry.
I examine some problems standing in the way of a successful `field interpretation' of quantum field theory. The most popular extant proposal depends on the Hilbert space of `wavefunctionals.' But since wavefunctional space is unitarily equivalent to many-particle Fock space, two of the most powerful arguments against particle interpretations also undermine this form of field interpretation. 1. Introduction 2. Field Interpretations and Field Operators 3. The Wavefunctional Interpretation 4. Fields and Inequivalent Representations 4.1. The Rindler representation 4.2. Spontaneous symmetry breaking 4.3. Coherent representations 5. The Fate of Fields in Interacting QFT 6. Conclusions
Abstract This is the first of a two‐part introduction to some interpretive questions that arise in connection with quantum field theories (QFTs). Some of these questions are continuous with those familiar from the discussion of ordinary non‐relativistic quantum mechanics (QM). For example, questions about locality can be rigorously posed and fruitfully pursued within the framework of QFT. A stark disanalogy between QFTs and ordinary QM – the former, but not the latter, typically admit infinitely many putatively physically inequivalent realizations – prompts relatively novel questions, questions about how to understand and adjudicate different strategies for equipping quantum theories with content. Part I sketches the fate of locality and related notions in QFT, then documents the non‐uniqueness unprecedented in ordinary QM but rampant in QFT. Part II presents foundations issues raised by non‐uniqueness.
The classical system is usually quantized using the canonical formalism, i.e., in the language of coordinates and momenta. In addition to this “purely algebraic” ambiguity, there is also an ambiguity in the choice of realization of the operators p^ and q^: the commutation relations do not determine it uniquely, but up to a unitary equivalence (the well known uniqueness theorem of von Neumann pertains only to the Weyl form of the commutation relations). The realization must be chosen on the basis of additional considerations regarding the nature of the canonical variables p and q. In this book the term “theory” is used in various ways: in a broad sense (quantum field theory, relativistic theory) and in a narrow sense, to refer to a particular system or class of systems with certain dynamics. In quantum theory there are also systems whose operators corresponding to canonical variables satisfy not commutation relations, but anticommutation relations.
This is an opinionated survey of some interpretive puzzles in quantum field theory. The problem of inequivalent representations is sketched, including its connections with competing accounts of physical equivalence. The controversy between variant formulations of the theory, algebraic versus Lagrangian, is given a conciliatory resolution. Arguments against particles are addressed, demarcating clearly between different forms of particle interpretation. Field interpretations are then considered, including wavefunctional, spacetime state realist and Heisenberg operator realist interpretations. Ruetsche’s coalesced structure interpretation is presented and juxtaposed with an alternative, more traditional view of the theory’s laws and state space. Finally, the CPT theorem is discussed, together with its implications about the nature of spacetime.
An important feature of Quantum Field Theory is the existence of unitarily inequivalent representations of canonical commutation relations. When one works with the functional integral formalism, it is not clear, however, how this feature emerges. By following the seminal work of M. Swanson on canonical transformations in phase-space path integral, we generalize his approach to coherent-state functional integrals which in turn will lead to a simplified formalism which makes the appearance of the inequivalent representations more transparent.
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.