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

Quantum Field Theory: Underdetermination, Inconsistency, and Idealization

Doreen Fraser

Published Oct 1, 2009• 98 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Quantum field theory (QFT) presents a genuine example of the underdetermination of theory by empirical evidence. There are variants of QFT—for example, the standard textbook formulation and the rigorous axiomatic formulation—that are empirically indistinguishable yet support different interpretations. This case is of particular interest to philosophers of physics because, before the philosophical work of interpreting QFT can proceed, the question of which variant should be subject to interpretation must be settled. New arguments are offered for basing the interpretation of QFT on a rigorous axiomatic variant of the theory. The pivotal considerations are the roles that consistency and idealization play in this case.

DOI
10.1086/649999

Related papers

Quantum Field Theory Between Rigor and Pragmatism

Johannes Branahl

Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the foundational framework of particle physics, has long existed in a state of tension between empirical success and mathematical rigor. Conventional QFT (CQFT), which underpins the Standard Model, offers unparalleled predictive accuracy but relies on inconsistent and ad hoc methods. In contrast, axiomatic QFT (AxQFT) aspires to a consistent, mathematically rigorous foundation, yet lacks empirical applicability. This paper introduces the heuristic vehicle of a realism quotient to model and navigate this tension, framing it as a dynamic balance between realism and instrumentalism in the mathematical structures of physical theories. By reconstructing the historical development of QFT and extrapolating its trajectory, the paper offers both a descriptive account of theoretical progress and a normative proposal: that CQFT and AxQFT must converge to address selected challenges of physics beyond the Standard Model. The model also contributes to broader debates in scientific realism, offering a structured framework for understanding the interplay between empirical adequacy and conceptual robustness and mathematical rigour in foundational physics.

arXiv:2505.15577•May 21, 2025•0 citations

Metaphysical Underdetermination in Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory

Matthias Egg

The existence of ontologically different but empirically indistinguishable versions of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is one of the most serious and widely discussed cases of metaphysical underdetermination. I argue that this problem is unlikely to disappear when we turn to the next more fundamental theory, namely relativistic quantum field theory. The problem is merely overshadowed by yet another interpretational controversy, but it persists regardless of the outcome of this latter debate. I further argue that one should not be too optimistic about transferring ontological lessons learned in the context of one physical theory to the context of a more fundamental theory.

•Apr 21, 2017•0 citations

How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible?

Sunny Y. Auyang

Abstract Quantum field theory (QFT) is the union of quantum mechanics and Einstein’ s special theory of relativity. QFT is the most fundamental physical theory and provides the answers to questions about the basic structure of the physical world. However, the way QFT describes the world is so different from the way our senses present it to us that it requires an overhaul of philosophic categories and arguments. How can we know the microscopic world without a satisfactory measurement theory? What are the general conditions of the world that make possible such knowledge? What are the presuppositions of physical theories? Dr.Auyang argues that the current relational substantial debate on space-time is inadequate and the observer-observed distinction in quantum interpretations illusory because they are hampered by philosophical constructs too narrow to accommodate the complicated structures of modern philosophical theories. Modern physical theories have incorporated many presuppositions of empirical knowledge, and consequently the theories inform us about the general nature of the world and out relation to it, in addition to information about elementary particles. The conceptual structure of QFT is extracted and articulated in commonsense terms, and used to answer many longstanding philosophical questions.

•Jul 27, 1995•258 citations

Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory

Nick Huggett

Abstract Much attention has been directed to the philosophical implications of quantum field theory (QFT) in recent years; this paper attempts a survey in low-technical terms. First the relations of QFT to other kinds of theory, classical and quantum, particle and field, are discussed. Then various formulations of QFT are introduced, along with related interpretations. Finally a review is made of some of the most interesting foundational problems. For our discussion of the foundations of quantum field theory (QFT) it will be useful to have a map showing where QFT stands in relation to other physical theories. Figure 1 locates theories as points of a three-dimensional lattice: describing particles or fields, formulated in different spacetimes and either classical or quantum. Consider the classical plane of Figure

•May 1, 2003•2 citations

MOVING BEYOND “THEORY T”: THE CASE OF QUANTUM FIELD THEORY

Bihui Li

A standard approach towards interpreting physical theories proceeds by first identifying the theory with a set of mathematical objects, where such objects are defined according to mathematicians’ standards of rigor. In making this identification, philosophers rule out the relevance of many inferential methods that physicists use, as these often do not meet mathematicians’ standards of rigor. Philosophers thus sanitize physical theories of all math- ematically messy or ambiguous parts before interpreting them. My dissertation argues against this sanitized approach towards interpreting theories using the example of quantum field theory (QFT). When we look at the details of QFT, we find that the mathematical objects it requires differ according to the specific systems the theory is being applied to in ways that advocates of the sanitized approach do not anticipate. Furthermore, the mathematical objects required for successful application are still being developed in some applicational contexts, so it would be unwise to determine in advance which objects constitute the theory. During this ongoing developmental process, physicists interpret the mathematics using strategies that violate the standards of pure mathematics. In contrast to the sanitized approach, these strategies are more sensitive to the ways in which the mathematics required for the relevant contexts is still under development. I argue that these strategies are not merely instrumental. They suggest alternative approaches to interpretation that philosophers should take into account.

•Jun 22, 2015•0 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
Quantum field theory (QFT) presents a genuine example of the underdetermination of theory by empirical evidence. There are variants of QFT—for example, the standard textbook formulation and the rigorous axiomatic formulation—that are empirically indistinguishable yet support different interpretations. This case is of particular interest to philosophers of physics because, before the philosophical work of interpreting QFT can proceed, the question of which variant should be subject to interpretation must be settled. New arguments are offered for basing the interpretation of QFT on a rigorous axiomatic variant of the theory. The pivotal considerations are the roles that consistency and idealization play in this case.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the foundational framework of particle physics, has long existed in a state of tension between empirical success and mathematical rigor. Conventional QFT (CQFT), which underpins the Standard Model, offers unparalleled predictive accuracy but relies on inconsistent and ad hoc methods. In contrast, axiomatic QFT (AxQFT) aspires to a consistent, mathematically rigorous foundation, yet lacks empirical applicability. This paper introduces the heuristic vehicle of a realism quotient to model and navigate this tension, framing it as a dynamic balance between realism and instrumentalism in the mathematical structures of physical theories. By reconstructing the historical development of QFT and extrapolating its trajectory, the paper offers both a descriptive account of theoretical progress and a normative proposal: that CQFT and AxQFT must converge to address selected challenges of physics beyond the Standard Model. The model also contributes to broader debates in scientific realism, offering a structured framework for understanding the interplay between empirical adequacy and conceptual robustness and mathematical rigour in foundational physics.
The existence of ontologically different but empirically indistinguishable versions of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is one of the most serious and widely discussed cases of metaphysical underdetermination. I argue that this problem is unlikely to disappear when we turn to the next more fundamental theory, namely relativistic quantum field theory. The problem is merely overshadowed by yet another interpretational controversy, but it persists regardless of the outcome of this latter debate. I further argue that one should not be too optimistic about transferring ontological lessons learned in the context of one physical theory to the context of a more fundamental theory.
Abstract Quantum field theory (QFT) is the union of quantum mechanics and Einstein’ s special theory of relativity. QFT is the most fundamental physical theory and provides the answers to questions about the basic structure of the physical world. However, the way QFT describes the world is so different from the way our senses present it to us that it requires an overhaul of philosophic categories and arguments. How can we know the microscopic world without a satisfactory measurement theory? What are the general conditions of the world that make possible such knowledge? What are the presuppositions of physical theories? Dr.Auyang argues that the current relational substantial debate on space-time is inadequate and the observer-observed distinction in quantum interpretations illusory because they are hampered by philosophical constructs too narrow to accommodate the complicated structures of modern philosophical theories. Modern physical theories have incorporated many presuppositions of empirical knowledge, and consequently the theories inform us about the general nature of the world and out relation to it, in addition to information about elementary particles. The conceptual structure of QFT is extracted and articulated in commonsense terms, and used to answer many longstanding philosophical questions.
Abstract Much attention has been directed to the philosophical implications of quantum field theory (QFT) in recent years; this paper attempts a survey in low-technical terms. First the relations of QFT to other kinds of theory, classical and quantum, particle and field, are discussed. Then various formulations of QFT are introduced, along with related interpretations. Finally a review is made of some of the most interesting foundational problems. For our discussion of the foundations of quantum field theory (QFT) it will be useful to have a map showing where QFT stands in relation to other physical theories. Figure 1 locates theories as points of a three-dimensional lattice: describing particles or fields, formulated in different spacetimes and either classical or quantum. Consider the classical plane of Figure
A standard approach towards interpreting physical theories proceeds by first identifying the theory with a set of mathematical objects, where such objects are defined according to mathematicians’ standards of rigor. In making this identification, philosophers rule out the relevance of many inferential methods that physicists use, as these often do not meet mathematicians’ standards of rigor. Philosophers thus sanitize physical theories of all math- ematically messy or ambiguous parts before interpreting them. My dissertation argues against this sanitized approach towards interpreting theories using the example of quantum field theory (QFT). When we look at the details of QFT, we find that the mathematical objects it requires differ according to the specific systems the theory is being applied to in ways that advocates of the sanitized approach do not anticipate. Furthermore, the mathematical objects required for successful application are still being developed in some applicational contexts, so it would be unwise to determine in advance which objects constitute the theory. During this ongoing developmental process, physicists interpret the mathematics using strategies that violate the standards of pure mathematics. In contrast to the sanitized approach, these strategies are more sensitive to the ways in which the mathematics required for the relevant contexts is still under development. I argue that these strategies are not merely instrumental. They suggest alternative approaches to interpretation that philosophers should take into account.
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.