# Particles, Cutoffs and Inequivalent Representations. Fraser andWallace on Quantum Field Theory

## TL;DR

This paper critically examines the debate between Fraser and Wallace on quantum field theory, revealing that their disagreement centers on the fundamental definition of what constitutes a quantum field theory rather than on particles or representations.

## Contribution

It clarifies the core issues in Fraser and Wallace's debate, highlighting that their disagreement is about the conceptual foundations rather than specific technical details.

## Key findings

- Dispute is about the definition of quantum field theory
- Particles and inequivalent representations are not the core issues
- Comparison with Bohmian quantum field theory illustrates fundamental differences

## Abstract

We critically review the recent debate between Doreen Fraser and David Wallace on the interpretation of quantum field theory, with the aim of identifying where the core of the disagreement lies. We show that, despite appearances, their conflict does not concern the existence of particles or the occurrence of unitarily inequivalent representations. Instead, the dispute ultimately turns on the very definition of what a quantum field theory is. We further illustrate the fundamental differences between the two approaches by comparing them both to the Bohmian program in quantum field theory.