Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T23:37:04.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Conceptual Foundations of Field Theories in Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Andrew Wayne
Andrew Wayne*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, H3G 1M8, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This discussion provides a brief commentary on each of the papers presented in the symposium on the conceptual foundations of field theories in physics. In Section 2 I suggest an alternative to Paul Teller's (1999) reading of the gauge argument that may help to solve, or dissolve, its puzzling aspects. In Section 3 I contend that Sunny Auyang's (1999) arguments against substantivalism and for “objectivism” in the context of gauge field theories face serious worries. Finally, in Section 4 I claim that Gordon Fleming's (1999) proposal for hyperplane-dependent Newton-Wigner fields differs importantly from his previous arguments about hyperplane-dependent properties in quantum mechanics.

Type
Philosophy of Physics and Chemistry
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S516 - S522
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank Sunny Auyang, Gordon Fleming, and Paul Teller for useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Auyang, Sunny Y. (1995), How is Quantum Field Theory Possible? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auyang, Sunny Y. (1999), “Mathematics and Reality: Two Notions of Spacetime in the Analytic and Constructive Views of Gauge Fields”, Philosophy of Science, this issue.10.1086/392840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey R. and Harré, Rom (1988), Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, Robert, Feldman, D., Halvorson, H., and Redhead, Michael (1998), “Superentangled States”, Physical Review A 58:135–145.10.1103/PhysRevA.58.135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John (1989), World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute Versus Relational Theories of Space and Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1965), “Covariant Position Operators, Spin, and Locality”, Physical Review B 137:188–197.10.1103/PhysRev.137.B188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1966), “A Manifestly Covariant Description of Arbitrary Dynamical Variables in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 7:1959–1981.10.1063/1.1704880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1988), “Hyperplane Dependence in Quantum Field Theory”, in Brown and Harré 1988, 93–115.Google Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1996), “Just How Radical is Hyperplane Dependence?”, in Clifton, Robert (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 11–28.10.1007/978-94-015-8656-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1999), “Reeh-Schlider Meets Newton-Wigner”, Philosophy of Science, this issue.10.1086/392841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1983), Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Princeton: Princeton U.P.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary (1962), Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.10.1063/1.3058239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, Nick and Weingard, Robert (1994), “Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory”, Philosophy of Science 61: 370–388.10.1086/289809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1986), Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim (1994), Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael (1983), “Quantum Field Theory for Philosophers”, in Asquith, Peter D. and Nickles, Tom (eds.), PSA 1982, vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 57–99.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael. (1995), “The Vacuum in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory”, in David Hull, Mickey Forbes, and Richard M. Burian (eds.), PSA 1994, vol. 2: 77–87.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard (1970), “On the Notion of Field in Newton, Maxwell, and Beyond”, in Stuewer, R. H. (ed.), Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Science. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 5. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, 264–287.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul (1995), An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul. (1999), “The Gauge Argument”, Philosophy of Science, this issue.10.1086/392839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayne, Andrew (1997), “Critical Study of Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity by Tim Maudlin”, Noûs 31: 557–568.10.1111/0029-4624.00063CrossRefGoogle Scholar