Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (Hardcover)

by Tian Yu Cao (Editor) "This two-tier conference signals a new phase of philosophers' interest in quantum field theory, which has been growing noticeably in the last few years..." (more)
Key Phrases: phase cell localization, underlying diffeomorphism invariance, quantum configuration space, New York, Ken Wilson, Physical Review (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description
Quantum Field Theory is a powerful language for the description of the subatomic constituents of the physical world and the laws and principles that govern them. This book contains up-to-date, in-depth analyses of our present understanding of its conceptual foundations, of the reasons why this understanding has to be revised so that the theory can go further, and of possible directions in which revisions may be promising and productive. These analyses are by eminent physicists and philosophers of science and will be of interest to graduate students and research workers in physics who want to know about the foundational problems of their subject. The book will also be of interest to professional philosophers, historians and sociologists of science, because it contains much material for metaphysical and methodological reflections, for historical and cultural analyses, and for sociological analyses of the way in which various factors contribute to the way the foundations are revised.

Book Description
Quantum field theory is a powerful language for the description of the laws and principles that govern the behaviour of the subatomic entities. This book contains up-to-date, in-depth analyses, by a group of eminent physicists and philosophers of science, of our present understanding of its conceptual foundations and their possible revisions.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 419 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press (March 13, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521631521
• ISBN-13: 978-0521631525
• Product Dimensions: 10 x 7.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,596,470 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Despair of Getting a Straight Answer, April 17, 2000

By	William Kirk (Rochester, MN USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

The organizer of this conference Tian Y. Cao, cannot be blamed for the truculence and peevishness of his confrerees. Make no mistake: there are some very good review articles here, but it seems whenever anyone (usually one of the philosophers in attendance) gets close to upsetting some particular theoretical applecarts - mostly the ad hoc parts of currently successful theories like renormalization 'group' and effective field theory in general - some member of the congregation gets miffed and wants to shut the discussion down. Almost like the way the cultural critics portray it! For example Fisher very boorishly cutting off Rovelli, over what?. the definition of 'ontic'?. Gee, maybe you shouldn't have signed up to be a lecturer if you don't know the terms. By the way, not only does the RG not have an inverse, since it seems to be sensitive to people making 'apt' renormalization transforms - maybe it isn't even CLOSED. There are some conceptual difficulties, but they were not addressed by the theorists: Since there are spacelike correlations between 'geminal' wavefunctions in quantum mechanics, to what extent is the cluster decomposition theorem, so beloved by field theorists like Weinberg and Wightman, inadmissible in any QUANTUM field theory?, what is the connection between a linear metric space (x+ict, in which the momentum and total energy subsist), and an affine vector space (y and z in which the e-m field subsists), and shouldn't there be transform between them?, and doesn't this have something to do with the fact that there is no natural units for length, especially volume, if one uses only 'h', 'c', 'e', and the square of the vector potential, but only if one includes 'G' - the gravitational constant? That is, Quantum Electrodynamics always uses nonrelativistically invariant 'box' normalizations for the e-m field. The philosophically inclined reader may like to check out H. Bacry's "Localizability and Space in Quantum Physics", for a second opinion on some of these issues.