Quantum Vacuum (or QFT) Interpretations

Alfrez
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Quantum Mechanics has so many Interpretations like Many Worlds, Bohmian, etc. How come we seldom hear about Interpretations in Quantum Field Theory? Is there something in the quantum vacuum ontology that cancel out all the Interpretations? Or is it also valid? For example, in Many Worlds, the particles actually exist in many worlds. In particle creation and annihilations in a field.. can we say each particle dynamics like particle creation/annihilations is due to million of worlds interacting with one another just like the interference of the double slit being an interference caused by different worlds in coincident positions? If not, then why is QFT immuned to Interpetations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not immune to interpretations. The issues that interpretations revolve about are present in the basic Quantum formalism and apply equally to Field Theory as to any other application of that formalism.

There are some results in QFT that might make it difficult to formulate certain interpretations, but they are quite abstract and under explored, e.g. the lack of pure states in finite spacetime volumes and possibly in general.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top