Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:21:08.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identity, Superselection Theory, and the Statistical Properties of Quantum Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

David John Baker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The permutation symmetry of quantum mechanics is widely thought to imply a sort of metaphysical underdetermination about the identity of particles. Despite claims to the contrary, this implication does not hold in the more fundamental quantum field theory, where an ontology of particles is not generally available. Although permutations are often defined as acting on particles, a more general account of permutation symmetry can be formulated using superselection theory. As a result, permutation symmetry applies even in field theories with no particle interpretation. The quantum mechanical account of permutations acting on particles is recovered as a special case.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 262 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Hans Halvorson deserves considerable thanks for helping me develop these ideas. Many thanks to Gordon Belot, Dan Peterson, and Chip Sebens for illuminating comments on a previous draft. Discussion of these and related issues with Noel Swanson was also crucial to the development of this article. This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant SES-1127260.

References

Baker, David John, and Halvorson, Hans. 2010. “Antimatter.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61:93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birrell, N. D., and Davies, P. C. W. 1984. Quantum Fields in Curved Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy. 1993. “Interpretation and Identity in Quantum Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24:443–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Shamik. 2009. “Individuals: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics.” Philosophical Studies 145:35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doplicher, Sergio. 2010. “Spin and Statistics and First Principles.” Foundations of Physics 40:719–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doplicher, Sergio, Haag, Rudolf, and Roberts, John E. 1969. “Fields, Observables and Gauge Transformations.” Pt. 1. Communications in Mathematical Physics 13:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dürr, Deltef, Goldstein, Sheldon, Tumulka, Roderich, and Zanghi, Nino. 2005. “Bell-Type Quantum Field Theories.” Journal of Physics A 38:R1–R43.Google Scholar
Fraser, Doreen. 2006. “Haag’s Theorem and the Interpretation of Quantum Field Theories with Interactions.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Fraser, Doreen 2008. “The Fate of ‘Particles’ in Quantum Field Theories with Interactions.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39:841–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven, and Krause, Decio. 2006. Identity in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guido, Daniele, Longo, Roberto, Roberts, John E., and Verch, Rainer. 2001. “Charged Sectors, Spin and Statistics in Quantum Field Theory on Curved Spacetime.” Reviews in Mathematical Physics 13:125–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, Hans, and Mueger, Michael. 2007. “Algebraic Quantum Field Theory.” In Philosophy of Physics, ed. Butterfield, Jeremy and Earman, John. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Huggett, Nick. 1995. “What Are Quanta, and Why Does It Matter?” In PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. David L. Hull and Micky Forbes, 69–76. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, and Ross, Don. 2007. Every Thing Must Go. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura. 2011. Interpreting Quantum Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, Stephen J. 1982. “Normal Product States for Fermions and Twisted Duality for CCR- and CAR-Type Algebras with Application to the Yukawa2 Quantum Field Model.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 86:111–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, Paul. 1995. An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. 1991. Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Robert M. 1994. Quantum Field Theory on Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, David. 2011. “Taking Particle Physics Seriously: A Critique of the Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42:116–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, David, and Timpson, Christopher Gordon. 2010. “Quantum Mechanics on Spacetime.” Pt. 1, “Spacetime State Realism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61:697–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar