Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T17:02:45.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Vacuum in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Michael Redhead
Michael Redhead*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Intuitively the vacuum state of the Universe is the state that would obtain if the spacetime arena were emptied of its contents. The idea is that if we removed all the material particles, such as quarks and electrons, together with all the force-carrying particles such as photons and gluons, so there was no matter or force in the Universe, then we would be left with a featureless space-time, the bare arena of physics, and this would be the vacuum.

There are many reasons why such an idea is problematic. On a strict relationist conception of space-time, the procedure envisaged would leave us, not with empty spacetime, but literally with nothing. Having removed the relata, the spatio-temporal relations would also disappear. This problem does not arise for space-time substantivalists, but general relativity now raises difficulties.

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. 77 - 87
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 am grateful to David Malament for prompting me to think about these issues in the first place.

References

Einstein, A., Podolksy, B. and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 47: 777-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredenhagen, K. (1985), “A Remark on the Cluster Theorem”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 97: 461–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G.C. and Grassi, R. (1994), “Outcome Predictions and Property Attribution: The EPR Argument Reconsidered”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (1982), “Stochastic Einstein-Locality and the Bell Theorems”, Synthese 53: 461–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henley, E.M. and Thirring, W. (1962), Elementary Quantum Field Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horuzhy, S.S. (1990), Introduction to Algebraic Quantum Field Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Landau, L.J. (1987), “On the Non-classical Structure of the Vacuum”, Physics Letters A123: 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Riviére, P. and Redhead, M.L.G. (forthcoming), “The Relativistic EPR Argument: A Critique of Ghirardi and Grassi” in Cushing, J., Fine, A. and Goldstein, S. (eds), Bohmian Mechanics: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1983), “Relativity, Causality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox: Nonlocality and Peaceful Coexistence”, in Swinburne, R. (ed.), Space, Time and Causality. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1991), “Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics”, The Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume LXV, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1995), “More Ado about Nothing”, Foundations of Physics 25: 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeh, H. and Schlieder, S. (1961), “Bemerkungen zur Unitäräquivalenz von Lorentzinvarianten Feldern”, Nuovo Cimento 22: 1051–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapp, H. (1971), “S-Matrix Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, Physical Review D3: 1303–1320.Google Scholar
Summers, S.J. and Werner, R. (1985), “The Vacuum Violates Bell's Inequalities”, Physics Letters A110: 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unruh, W.G. (1976), “Notes on Black-Hole Evaporation”, Physical Review D14: 870–892.Google Scholar
Wessels, L. (1981), “The “EPR” Argument: A Post-Mortem”, Philosophical Studies 40: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wightman, A.S. and Schweber, S.S. (1955), “Configuration Space Methods in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. I”, Physical Review 98: 812–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar