Suppressing spacetime emergence

One of the primary tasks in building a quantum theory of gravity is discovering how to save spatiotemporal phenomena using a theory which, putatively, does not include spacetime. Some have taken this task a step further and argue for the actual emergence of spacetime from a non-spatiotemporal ontology in the low-energy regime. In this paper, it is argued that the account of spacetime emergence presented in Huggett and Wüthrich (2013) and then assumed in Baron (2019), Crowther (2016), Wüthrich (2017), and Wüthrich and Lam (2018) fails to accomplish the task to which it is set. There is a prima facie contradiction between the scale-independent ontology of spacetime in GR and the scale-dependent account of emergence proposed by this literature. One can avoid this contradiction but only at the cost of changing the target of emergence and by endorsing a perspectival theory of ontology – a view I call “ontic-perspectivism”. Though this paper explicitly addresses spacetime emergence, many of the following arguments are applicable to other accounts where objects of ontology, or their properties, are claimed to emerge in the low-energy regime.     

Formal and physical equivalence in two cases in contemporary quantum physics

The application of analytic continuation in quantum field theory (QFT) is juxtaposed to T-duality and mirror symmetry in string theory. Analytic continuation—a mathematical transformation that takes the time variable t to negative imaginary time—it—was initially used as a mathematical technique for solving perturbative Feynman diagrams, and was subsequently the basis for the Euclidean approaches within mainstream QFT (e.g., Wilsonian renormalization group methods, lattice gauge theories) and the Euclidean field theory program for rigorously constructing non-perturbative models of interacting QFTs. A crucial difference between theories related by duality transformations and those related by analytic continuation is that the former are judged to be physically equivalent while the latter are regarded as physically inequivalent. There are other similarities between the two cases that make comparing and contrasting them a useful exercise for clarifying the type of argument that is needed to support the conclusion that dual theories are physically equivalent. In particular, T-duality and analytic continuation in QFT share the criterion for predictive equivalence that two theories agree on the complete set of expectation values and the mass spectra and the criterion for formal equivalence that there is a “translation manual” between the physically significant algebras of observables and sets of states in the two theories. The analytic continuation case study illustrates how predictive and formal equivalence are compatible with physical inequivalence, but not in the manner of standard underdetermination cases. Arguments for the physical equivalence of dual theories must cite considerations beyond predictive and formal equivalence. The analytic continuation case study is an instance of the strategy of developing a physical theory by extending the formal or mathematical equivalence with another physical theory as far as possible. That this strategy has resulted in developments in pure mathematics as well as theoretical physics is another feature that this case study has in common with dualities in string theory.     

Explanation,analyticity and constitutive principles in spacetime theories

Much discussion was inspired by the publication of Harvey Brown's book Physical Relativity and the so-called dynamical approach to Special Relativity there advocated. At the center of the debate there is the question about the nature of the relation between spacetime and laws or, more specifically, between spacetime symmetries and the symmetries of laws. Originally, the relation was mainly assumed to be explanatory and the dispute expressed in terms of the arrow of explanation – whether it goes from spacetime (symmetries) to (symmetries of) laws or vice-versa. Not everybody agreed with a setting that involves leaving ontology out. In a recent turn, the relation has been claimed to be analytical or definitional. In this paper I intend to examine critically this claim and propose a way to generally understand the relation between spacetime symmetries and symmetries of laws as deriving from constitutive principles.     

Dualities of fields and strings

Duality, the equivalence between seemingly distinct quantum systems, is a curious property that has been known for at least three quarters of a century. In the past two decades it has played a central role in mapping out the structure of theoretical physics. I discuss the unexpected connections that have been revealed among quantum field theories and string theories. Written for a special issue of Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.     

String dualities and empirical equivalence

String dualities establish empirical equivalence between theories that often look entirely different with respect to their basic ontology and physical structure. Therefore, they represent a particularly interesting example of empirical equivalence in physics. However, the status of duality relations in string physics differs substantially from the traditional understanding of the role played by empirical equivalence. The paper specifies three important differences and argues that they are related to a substantially altered view on the underdetermination of theory building.     

Comparing dualities and gauge symmetries

We discuss some aspects of the relation between dualities and gauge symmetries. Both of these ideas are of course multi-faceted, and we confine ourselves to making two points. Both points are about dualities in string theory, and both have the ‘flavour’ that two dual theories are ‘closer in content’ than you might think. For both points, we adopt a simple conception of a duality as an ‘isomorphism’ between theories: more precisely, as appropriate bijections between the two theories’ sets of states and sets of quantities.The first point (Section 3) is that this conception of duality meshes with two dual theories being ‘gauge related’ in the general philosophical sense of being physically equivalent. For a string duality, such as T-duality and gauge/gravity duality, this means taking such features as the radius of a compact dimension, and the dimensionality of spacetime, to be ‘gauge’.The second point (4 Gauge/gravity duality, 5 Some complications for gauge invariance, 6 Galileo׳s ship, (Local)) is much more specific. We give a result about gauge/gravity duality that shows its relation to gauge symmetries (in the physical sense of symmetry transformations that are spacetime-dependent) to be subtler than you might expect. For gauge theories, you might expect that the duality bijections relate only gauge-invariant quantities and states, in the sense that gauge symmetries in one theory will be unrelated to any symmetries in the other theory. This may be so in general; and indeed, it is suggested by discussions of Polchinski and Horowitz. But we show that in gauge/gravity duality, each of a certain class of gauge symmetries in the gravity/bulk theory, viz. diffeomorphisms, is related by the duality to a position-dependent symmetry of the gauge/boundary theory.     

Constraints and divergent assessments of fertility in non-empirical physics in the history of the string theory controversy

This paper examines historic appraisals of string theory to develop a less abstract understanding of the string theory controversy and assessment in non-empirical physics. This historical approach reveals several points of conflict in the controversy, each centring on a constraint. By proceeding stepwise through these constraints, I reveal the role that constraints played in determining divergent assessments of string theory. Rather than disagreement between two competing methods, a level of agreement is found amongst those critical and supportive of string theory as to the commitment to the relevant constraints, but disagreement as to the sufficiency of consistency, the path to background independence and a non-perturbative formulation, and how to interpret the significance of applications. Furthermore, the string theory community itself is shown to be divided in its commitment to the necessity of uniqueness and the legitimacy of anthropic reasoning. These varied assessments, guided by considerations of constraints, have informed divergent claims as to the past and future fertility of string theory. These are claims as to the value of string theory in guiding research in quantum gravity: claims as to whether string theory has and will be valuable as a means rather than an end.     

String theory and general methodology: A mutual evaluation

String theory has been the dominating research field in theoretical physics during the last decades. Despite the considerable time elapse, no new testable predictions have been derived by string theorists and it is understandable that doubts have been voiced. Some people have argued that it is time to give up since testability is wanting. But the majority has not been convinced and they continue to believe that string theory is the right way to go. This situation is interesting for philosophy of science since it highlights several of our central issues. In this paper we will discuss string theory from a number of different perspectives in general methodology. We will also relate the realism/antirealism debate to the current status of string theory. Our goal is two-fold; both to take a look at string theory from philosophical perspectives and to use string theory as a test case for some philosophical issues.     

A Helmholtzian approach to space and time

A slight modification of Helmholtz’s metrical approach to the foundations of geometry leads to the locally Euclidian character of space without restriction of the curvature. A bolder generalization involving time measurement leads to the locally Minkowskian character of spacetime. Some philosophical consequences of these results are drawn.     

The role of heuristic appraisal in conflicting assessments of string theory

Over the last three decades, string theory has emerged as one of the leading hopes for a consistent theory of quantum gravity that unifies particle physics with general relativity. Despite the fact that string theory has been a thriving research program for the better part of three decades, it has been subjected to extensive criticism from a number of prominent physicists. The aim of this paper is to obtain a clearer picture of where the conflict lies in competing assessments of string theory, through a close reading of the argumentative strategies employed by protagonists on both sides. Although it has become commonplace to construe this debate as stemming from different attitudes to the absence of testable predictions, we argue that this presents an overly simplified view of the controversy, which ignores the critical role of heuristic appraisal. While string theorists and their defenders see the theoretical achievements of the string theory program as providing strong indication that it is ‘on the right track’, critics have challenged such claims, by calling into question the status of certain ‘solved problems’ and its purported ‘explanatory coherence’. The debates over string theory are therefore particularly instructive from a philosophical point of view, not only because they offer important insights into the nature of heuristic appraisal and theoretical progress, but also because they raise deep questions about what constitutes a solved problem and an explanation in fundamental physics.     

Complementarity,wave-particle duality,and domains of applicability

Complementarity has frequently, but mistakenly, been conflated with wave-particle duality, and this conflation has led to pervasive misunderstandings of Bohr's views and several misguided claims of an experimental “disproof” of complementarity. In this paper, I explain what Bohr meant by complementarity, and how this is related to, but distinct from, wave-particle duality. I list a variety of possible meanings of wave-particle duality, and canvass the ways in which they are (or are not) supported by quantum physics and Bohr's interpretation. I also examine the extent to which wave-particle duality should be viewed as an example of the sort of dualities one finds in, e.g., string theory. I argue that the most fruitful way of reading of Bohr's account complementarity is by comparing it to current accounts of effective theories with limited domains of applicability.     

Target space ≠ space

This paper investigates the significance of T-duality in string theory: the indistinguishability with respect to all observables, of models attributing radically different radii to space—larger than the observable universe, or far smaller than the Planck length, say. Two interpretational branch points are identified and discussed. First, whether duals are physically equivalent or not: by considering a duality of the familiar simple harmonic oscillator, I argue that they are. Unlike the oscillator, there are no measurements ‘outside’ string theory that could distinguish the duals. Second, whether duals agree or disagree on the radius of ‘target space’, the space in which strings evolve according to string theory. I argue for the latter position, because the alternative leaves it unknown what the radius is. Since duals are physically equivalent yet disagree on the radius of target space, it follows that the radius is indeterminate between them. Using an analysis of Brandenberger and Vafa (1989), I explain why—even so—space is observed to have a determinate, large radius. The conclusion is that observed, ‘phenomenal’ space is not target space, since a space cannot have both a determinate and indeterminate radius: instead phenomenal space must be a higher-level phenomenon, not fundamental.     

Science denial as a form of pseudoscience

Science denialism poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudoscience, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. It is argued that the scientific response to science denialism has to be conceived with these characteristics in mind. In particular, it is important to expose the fabricated fake controversies for what they are and to reveal how science denialists consistently use deviant criteria of assent to distort the scientific process.     

Inter-theory relations in quantum gravity: Correspondence,reduction, and emergence

Relationships between current theories, and relationships between current theories and the sought theory of quantum gravity (QG), play an essential role in motivating the need for QG, aiding the search for QG, and defining what would count as QG. Correspondence is the broad class of inter-theory relationships intended to demonstrate the necessary compatibility of two theories whose domains of validity overlap, in the overlap regions. The variety of roles that correspondence plays in the search for QG are illustrated, using examples from specific QG approaches. Reduction is argued to be a special case of correspondence, and to form part of the definition of QG. Finally, the appropriate account of emergence in the context of QG is presented, and compared to conceptions of emergence in the broader philosophy literature. It is argued that, while emergence is likely to hold between QG and general relativity, emergence is not part of the definition of QG, and nor can it serve usefully in the development and justification of the new theory.     

String theory,Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical

String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein's biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics.     

General Relativity and the Standard Model: Why evidence for one does not disconfirm the other

General Relativity and the Standard Model often are touted as the most rigorously and extensively confirmed scientific hypotheses of all time. Nonetheless, these theories appear to have consequences that are inconsistent with evidence about phenomena for which, respectively, quantum effects and gravity matter. This paper suggests an explanation for why the theories are not disconfirmed by such evidence. The key to this explanation is an approach to scientific hypotheses that allows their actual content to differ from their apparent content. This approach does not appeal to ceteris-paribus qualifiers or counterfactuals or similarity relations. And it helps to explain why some highly idealized hypotheses are not treated in the way that a thoroughly refuted theory is treated but instead as hypotheses with limited domains of applicability.     

John Wheeler’s Desert Island: The conservatism of non-empirical physics

This paper argues that non-empirical physics, as paradigmatically embodied by string theory, is a conservative research program, in spite of appearances. John Wheeler's 1950s research program of "daring conservatism" is identified as another non-empirical research program that checks all the same boxes as string theory. This case study is used to further analyze the connection between conservatism and a non-empirical approach. It is concluded that the prime difficulty of non-empirical physics is not that it involves unbridled speculation, but that the lack of empirical input prevents it from achieving revolutionary progress.