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

No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories?

Hans Halvorson, Rob Clifton

Published Mar 1, 2002• 187 citations
Publisher

Abstract

David Malament (1996) has recently argued that there can be no relativistic quantum theory of (localizable) particles. We consider and rebut several objections that have been made against the soundness of Malament's argument. We then consider some further objections that might be made against the generality of Malament's conclusion, and we supply three no-go theorems to counter these objections. Finally, we dispel potential worries about the counterintuitive nature of these results by showing that relativistic quantum field theory itself explains the appearance of “particle detections.”

DOI
10.1086/338939

Related papers

No place for particles in relativistic quantum theories?

Rob Clifton

Abstract It is a widespread belief, at least within the physics community, that there is no relativistic quantum theory of (localizable) particles; and, thus, that the only relativistic quantum theory is a theory of fields. This belief has received much support in recent years in the form of rigorous no­go theorems by Malament (1996) and Hegerfeldt (1998a,b). In particular, Hegerfeldt shows that in a generic quantum theory (relativistic or non­relativistic), if there are states with localized particles, and if there is a lower bound on the system’s energy, then superluminal spreading of the wavefunction must occur. Similarly, Malament shows the inconsistency of a few intuitive desiderata for a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) par­

•Sep 23, 2009•2 citations

No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories?

Hans Halvorson, Rob Clifton

Several recent arguments purport to show that there can be no relativistic, quantum-mechanical theory of localizable particles and, thus, that relativity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled only in the context of quantum field theory. We point out some loopholes in the existing arguments, and we provide two no-go theorems to close these loopholes. However, even with these loopholes closed, it does not yet follow that relativity plus quantum mechanics exclusively requires a field ontology, since relativistic quantum field theory itself might permit an ontology of localizable particles supervenient on the fundamental fields. Thus, we provide another no-go theorem to rule out this possibility. Finally, we allay potential worries about this conclusion by arguing that relativistic quantum field theory can nevertheless explain the possibility of "particle detections," as well as the pragmatic utility of "particle talk."

arXiv:quant-ph/0103041•WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Nov 1, 2002•37 citations

Is Quantum Field Theory ontologically interpretable? On localization, particles and fields in relativistic Quantum Theory

David Schroeren

In this paper, I provide a formal set of assumptions and give a natural criterion for a quantum field theory to admit particles. I construct a naïve approach to localization for a free bosonic quantum field theory and show how this localization scheme, as a consequence of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem, fails to satisfy this criterion. I then examine the Newton-Wigner concept of localization and show that it fails to obey strong microcausality and thus is subject to a more general version of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem. I review approaches to quantum field theoretic explanations of particle detection events and explain how particles can be regarded as emergent phenomena of a relativistic field theory. In particular, I show that effective localization of Hilbert space vectors is equivalent to an approximate locality of observable algebras.

arXiv:1007.0664•Jul 5, 2010•0 citations

Localization in Relativistic Quantum Theories

Lars O. Herrmann

Although the concept of localization in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is mathematically well-defined there is no obvious and unambiguous way to generalize it to relativistic quantum theory. After a brief review of localization in quantum mechanics the Newton-Wigner localization scheme is introduced and it is shown by the example of a massive spinless system how it leads to a position operator with seemingly unphysical properties. This motivated the development of several theorems which claim to rule out the existence of localizable particles. A particularly important one of them is presented and its validity discussed. In the last section however it is shown that if localization is considered with respect to spacelike hyperplanes, the properties of the Newton-Wigner position operators are not necessarily unphysical and localizable particles can exist.

•Jun 1, 2010•5 citations

No-Go Theorems and the Foundations of Quantum Physics

Andréa Oldofredi

In the history of quantum physics several no-go theorems have been proved, and many of them have played a central role in the development of the theory, such as Bell's or the Kochen-Specker theorem. A recent paper by F. Laudisa has raised reasonable doubts concerning the strategy followed in proving some of these results, since they rely on the standard framework of quantum mechanics, a theory that presents several ontological problems. The aim of this paper is twofold: on the one hand, I intend to reinforce Laudisa's methodological point by critically discussing Malament's theorem in the context of the philosophical foundation of Quantum Field Theory; secondly, I rehabilitate Gisin's theorem showing that Laudisa's concerns do not apply to it.

arXiv:1904.10991•Apr 24, 2019•0 citations

On the Nature of Measurement Records in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory

Jeffrey Alan Barrett

A resolution of the quantum measurement problem would require one to explain how it is that we end up with determinate records at the end of our measurements. Metaphysical commitments typically do real work in such an explanation. Indeed, one should not be satisfied with one's metaphysical commitments unless one can provide some account of determinate measurement records. I will explain some of the problems in getting determinate records in relativistic quantum field theory and pay particular attention to the relationship between the measurement problem and a generalized version of Malament's theorem.

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Nov 1, 2002•20 citations
David Malament (1996) has recently argued that there can be no relativistic quantum theory of (localizable) particles. We consider and rebut several objections that have been made against the soundness of Malament's argument. We then consider some further objections that might be made against the generality of Malament's conclusion, and we supply three no-go theorems to counter these objections. Finally, we dispel potential worries about the counterintuitive nature of these results by showing that relativistic quantum field theory itself explains the appearance of “particle detections.”
Abstract It is a widespread belief, at least within the physics community, that there is no relativistic quantum theory of (localizable) particles; and, thus, that the only relativistic quantum theory is a theory of fields. This belief has received much support in recent years in the form of rigorous no­go theorems by Malament (1996) and Hegerfeldt (1998a,b). In particular, Hegerfeldt shows that in a generic quantum theory (relativistic or non­relativistic), if there are states with localized particles, and if there is a lower bound on the system’s energy, then superluminal spreading of the wavefunction must occur. Similarly, Malament shows the inconsistency of a few intuitive desiderata for a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) par­
Several recent arguments purport to show that there can be no relativistic, quantum-mechanical theory of localizable particles and, thus, that relativity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled only in the context of quantum field theory. We point out some loopholes in the existing arguments, and we provide two no-go theorems to close these loopholes. However, even with these loopholes closed, it does not yet follow that relativity plus quantum mechanics exclusively requires a field ontology, since relativistic quantum field theory itself might permit an ontology of localizable particles supervenient on the fundamental fields. Thus, we provide another no-go theorem to rule out this possibility. Finally, we allay potential worries about this conclusion by arguing that relativistic quantum field theory can nevertheless explain the possibility of "particle detections," as well as the pragmatic utility of "particle talk."
In this paper, I provide a formal set of assumptions and give a natural criterion for a quantum field theory to admit particles. I construct a naïve approach to localization for a free bosonic quantum field theory and show how this localization scheme, as a consequence of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem, fails to satisfy this criterion. I then examine the Newton-Wigner concept of localization and show that it fails to obey strong microcausality and thus is subject to a more general version of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem. I review approaches to quantum field theoretic explanations of particle detection events and explain how particles can be regarded as emergent phenomena of a relativistic field theory. In particular, I show that effective localization of Hilbert space vectors is equivalent to an approximate locality of observable algebras.
Although the concept of localization in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is mathematically well-defined there is no obvious and unambiguous way to generalize it to relativistic quantum theory. After a brief review of localization in quantum mechanics the Newton-Wigner localization scheme is introduced and it is shown by the example of a massive spinless system how it leads to a position operator with seemingly unphysical properties. This motivated the development of several theorems which claim to rule out the existence of localizable particles. A particularly important one of them is presented and its validity discussed. In the last section however it is shown that if localization is considered with respect to spacelike hyperplanes, the properties of the Newton-Wigner position operators are not necessarily unphysical and localizable particles can exist.
In the history of quantum physics several no-go theorems have been proved, and many of them have played a central role in the development of the theory, such as Bell's or the Kochen-Specker theorem. A recent paper by F. Laudisa has raised reasonable doubts concerning the strategy followed in proving some of these results, since they rely on the standard framework of quantum mechanics, a theory that presents several ontological problems. The aim of this paper is twofold: on the one hand, I intend to reinforce Laudisa's methodological point by critically discussing Malament's theorem in the context of the philosophical foundation of Quantum Field Theory; secondly, I rehabilitate Gisin's theorem showing that Laudisa's concerns do not apply to it.
A resolution of the quantum measurement problem would require one to explain how it is that we end up with determinate records at the end of our measurements. Metaphysical commitments typically do real work in such an explanation. Indeed, one should not be satisfied with one's metaphysical commitments unless one can provide some account of determinate measurement records. I will explain some of the problems in getting determinate records in relativistic quantum field theory and pay particular attention to the relationship between the measurement problem and a generalized version of Malament's theorem.