Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T17:00:06.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What are Quanta, and Why Does it Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Nick Huggett
Nick Huggett*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is an emerging story about many particle quantum mechanics (MPQM) and quantum field theory (QFT) based partly on views inherited from physics, and partly on new work, especially that of Paul Teller and Michael Redhead. Three important steps in the tale go like this—(a) The transition from classical mechanics (CM) to quantum mechanics (QM) involves a significant change in particle metaphysics, (b) QFT cannot be viewed as particulate even in a MPQM sense, although (c) an ontologically enlightening understanding of QFT can be obtained from the occupation representation. Though there is some truth to all of these claims, I wish to argue that, as usually understood, they are in fact false.

The ever present danger in metaphysical debates such as these is that participants will be running around on the same pitch but playing different games; some waving cricket bats at the ball, some aiming for a netball hoop and others trying for a touch-down.

Type
Part III. Fields, Particles and Quantum Theories
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 69 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.)

Footnotes

1

I have talked over the ideas in this paper with many people at Rutgers, Princeton, Cambridge and Columbia, and I'd like to thank everyone. I am especially grateful to Paul Teller for his comments on the draft of this paper that I read at the PSA in New Orleans. I did not receive them in time to do them the justice they deserve, but I hope that some of my revisions go some way to address his concerns.

References

Dieks, D. (1990), “Quantum Statistics, Identical Particles and Correlations”, Synthese 82: 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, N.I. and Raboy, S. (1982), “One and Two Body Operators on Systems of Identical Particles”, American Journal of Physics 50: 148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, N. (1995), The Philosophy of Fields and Particles in Classical and Quantum Mechanics, including the Problem of Renormalisation, PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Huggett, N. and Weingard, R. (1994), “Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory”, Philosophy of Science 61: 370–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, S. (1991), “Is Quantum Mechanics an Atomistic Theory?”, Synthese 89: 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. and Teller, P. (1991), “Particles, Particle Labels and Quanta: The Toll of Unacknowledged Metaphysics”, Foundations of Physics 21: 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. and Teller, P. (1992), “Particle Labels and the Theory of Indistinguishable Particles in Quantum Mechanics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43: 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956), The Direction of Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweber, S.S. (1941), An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Smith, G.J. and Weingard, R. (1987), “A Relativistic Formulation of the EPR Paradox”, Foundations of Physics 17: 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1990), “Prolegomenon to a Proper Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory”, Philosophy of Science 57: 594–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Haar, D. (1964), Elements of Statistical Mechanics. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar