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

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Are field quanta real objects? Some remarks on the ontology of quantum field theory

Tomasz Bigaj

Published Sep 1, 2017• 16 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsb.2017.08.001

Related papers

Objects or Events?: Towards an Ontology for Quantum Field Theory

Andreas Bartels

The recent work of Paul Teller and Sunny Auyang in the philosophy of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has stimulated the search for the fundamental entities in this theory. In QFT, the classical notion of a particle collapses. The theory does not only exclude classical, i.e., spatiotemporally identifiable particles, but it makes particles of the same type conceptually indistinguishable. Teller and Auyang have proposed competing ersatz-ontologies to account for the ‘loss of particles’: field quanta vs. field events. Both ontologies, however, suffer from serious defects. While quanta lack numerical identity, spatiotemporal localizability, and independence of basis-representations, events—if understood as concrete measurement events—are related to the theory only statistically. I propose an alternative solution: The entities of QFT are events of the type ‘Quantum system, S, is in quantum state, Ψ‘. These are not point events, but Davidsonian events, i.e., they can be identified by their location within thecausalnet of the world.

Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 1999•23 citations

Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jan 1, 2002•9 citations

Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory

Meinard Kuhlmann, Holger Lyre, Andrew Wayne

Approaches to Ontology: Candidate General Ontologies for Situating Quantum Field (P Simons) 'Quanta', Tropes, or Processes: Ontologies for QFT Beyond the Myth of Substance (J Seibt) Analytical Ontologists in Action: A Comment on Seibt and Simons (M Kuhlmann) How Do Field Theories Refer to Entities in a Field? (S Y Auyang) Field Ontologies for QFT: A Naive View of the Quantum Field (A Wayne) Comments on Paul Teller's Book, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (G Fleming) So What Is the Quantum Field? (P Teller) Relativity, Measurement and Renormalization: On the Nature of Measurement Records in Relativistic Quantum Field (J A Barrett) No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories? (H Halvorson & R Clifton) Events and Covariance in the Interpretation of Quantum Field (D Dieks) Measurement and Ontology: What Kind of Evidence Can We Have for Quantum Fields? (B Falkenburg) Renormalization and the Disunity of Science (N Huggett) Gauge Symmetries and the Vacuum: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Redhead) Comment on Redhead: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Drieschner et al.) Is the Zero-Point Energy Real? (S Saunders) Two Comments on the Vacuum in Algebraic Quantum Field (M Redei).

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Nov 1, 2002•112 citations

Ontology and the foundations of quantum theory

Gregg S. Jaeger

The European Physical Journal Special Topics•Sep 1, 2023•1 citation

Ontological Commitment in Quantum Field Theory.

Andrew Wayne

•Jan 1, 1994•0 citations

Quantum Field Theory: A Case for Event Ontologies?

Andreas Bartels

The recent work of P. Teller and S. Auyang in the philosophy of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has stimulated the search for the fundamental entities of that theory. In QFT, the classical notion of a particle collapses. The theory does not only forbid classical, i.e. spatiotemporally identifiable particles, but it makes particles of the same type conceptually indistinguishable. Teller and Auyang have suggested competing ersatz-ontologies which could account for the ‘loss of the particles’: Field quanta vs. Field events. However, both ontologies suffer from serious defects. While quanta lack numerical identity, spatiotemporal localizability, and independence from basis-representations, events – if understood as concrete measurement events – are related to the theory only statistically. I propose an alternative solution: The entities of QFT are events of the type ‘Quantum system S is in quantum state Ψ’. The latter are not point events, but Davidsonian events, i.e. they can be identified by their location inside the causal net of the world.

BRILL eBooks•Jan 1, 2000•0 citations
The recent work of Paul Teller and Sunny Auyang in the philosophy of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has stimulated the search for the fundamental entities in this theory. In QFT, the classical notion of a particle collapses. The theory does not only exclude classical, i.e., spatiotemporally identifiable particles, but it makes particles of the same type conceptually indistinguishable. Teller and Auyang have proposed competing ersatz-ontologies to account for the ‘loss of particles’: field quanta vs. field events. Both ontologies, however, suffer from serious defects. While quanta lack numerical identity, spatiotemporal localizability, and independence of basis-representations, events—if understood as concrete measurement events—are related to the theory only statistically. I propose an alternative solution: The entities of QFT are events of the type ‘Quantum system, S, is in quantum state, Ψ‘. These are not point events, but Davidsonian events, i.e., they can be identified by their location within thecausalnet of the world.
Approaches to Ontology: Candidate General Ontologies for Situating Quantum Field (P Simons) 'Quanta', Tropes, or Processes: Ontologies for QFT Beyond the Myth of Substance (J Seibt) Analytical Ontologists in Action: A Comment on Seibt and Simons (M Kuhlmann) How Do Field Theories Refer to Entities in a Field? (S Y Auyang) Field Ontologies for QFT: A Naive View of the Quantum Field (A Wayne) Comments on Paul Teller's Book, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (G Fleming) So What Is the Quantum Field? (P Teller) Relativity, Measurement and Renormalization: On the Nature of Measurement Records in Relativistic Quantum Field (J A Barrett) No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories? (H Halvorson & R Clifton) Events and Covariance in the Interpretation of Quantum Field (D Dieks) Measurement and Ontology: What Kind of Evidence Can We Have for Quantum Fields? (B Falkenburg) Renormalization and the Disunity of Science (N Huggett) Gauge Symmetries and the Vacuum: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Redhead) Comment on Redhead: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Drieschner et al.) Is the Zero-Point Energy Real? (S Saunders) Two Comments on the Vacuum in Algebraic Quantum Field (M Redei).
The recent work of P. Teller and S. Auyang in the philosophy of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has stimulated the search for the fundamental entities of that theory. In QFT, the classical notion of a particle collapses. The theory does not only forbid classical, i.e. spatiotemporally identifiable particles, but it makes particles of the same type conceptually indistinguishable. Teller and Auyang have suggested competing ersatz-ontologies which could account for the ‘loss of the particles’: Field quanta vs. Field events. However, both ontologies suffer from serious defects. While quanta lack numerical identity, spatiotemporal localizability, and independence from basis-representations, events – if understood as concrete measurement events – are related to the theory only statistically. I propose an alternative solution: The entities of QFT are events of the type ‘Quantum system S is in quantum state Ψ’. The latter are not point events, but Davidsonian events, i.e. they can be identified by their location inside the causal net of the world.