- 13,239

- 5,200

Where is QFT not included in the work on foundations? Of course, if you discuss non-relativistic approximation nothing prevents "spooky action at a distance" since nothing prevents faster-than-light causal interactions. In non-relativistic physics it's even the usual case since interactions are described by instaneously acting forces (like Newton's gravitational force) rather than retareded interactions as in relativistic (quantum) field theories.What you are passing on might indeed be the current consensus, but I do not think that is an adequate response to the obvious point that, since non-relativistic QM is just an approximation to QFT, quantum foundation discussions that are solely based on non-relativistic QM--which is basically all of them--are incomplete. Those many top writers have surely heard of QFT, yes, but that doesn't mean their failure to include QFT in their foundations work can simply be ignored.

The most real physics work about these foundational questions is made with photons, and there's no non-relativistic theory for photons. Indeed quantum-opticians use relativistic QFT to describe photons. Of course the theory of local interactions of photons with all kinds of equipment often is described with non-relativistic physics (like the theory of photo detection or the linear optics devices like lenses, mirrors, beam splitters etc.), but this is well-justified and doesn't lead to any contradictions with relativistic causality, because in such cases the retardation effects are indeed negligible since it concerns only local interactions between photons and the matter making up these devices. I also don't think that there's a principle problem to also treat these parts fully relativistically. The relativistic QFT is also worked out well for many-body systems (at least in thermal equilibrium, and that's usually what's needed for this purpose).