Looking forward,not back: Supporting structuralism in the present

The view that the fundamental kind properties are intrinsic properties enjoys reflexive endorsement by most metaphysicians of science. But ontic structural realists deny that there are any fundamental intrinsic properties at all. Given that structuralists distrust intuition as a guide to truth, and given that we currently lack a fundamental physical theory that we could consult instead to order settle the issue, it might seem as if there is simply nowhere for this debate to go at present. However, I will argue that there exists an as-yet untapped resource for arguing for ontic structuralism – namely, the way that fundamentality is conceptualized in our most fundamental physical frameworks. By arguing that physical objects must be subject to the ‘Goldilock's principle’ if they are to count as fundamental at all, I argue that we can no longer view the majority of properties defining them as intrinsic. As such, ontic structural realism can be regarded as the most promising metaphysics for fundamental physics, and that this is so even though we do not yet claim to know precisely what that fundamental physics is.     

Arguing against fundamentality

This paper aims to open up discussion on the relationship between fundamentality and naturalism, and in particular on the question of whether fundamentality may be denied on naturalistic grounds. A historico-inductive argument for an anti-fundamentalist conclusion, prominent within the contemporary metaphysical literature, is examined; finding it wanting, an alternative ‘internal’ strategy is proposed. By means of an example from the history of modern physics – namely S-matrix theory – it is demonstrated that (1) this strategy can generate similar (though not identical) anti-fundamentalist conclusions on more defensible naturalistic grounds, and (2) that fundamentality questions can be empirical questions. Some implications and limitations of the proposed approach are discussed.     

For or against structural realism? A verdict from high energy physics

When it comes to supporting the main ontic structural realist thesis, that we are better off with a metaphysics purged of objects, its proponents have to meet several challenges, three of which are to ensure that objects can be recast in terms of structure alone at both the level of theory and the level of ontology, to justify on physical grounds that structure exists in the world in a way that affects the goings-on in it, and to show that the relation between objects and structure is non-reciprocal, so that structure is ontologically prior to objects but not the converse. Assuming—tacitly or explicitly—that the objects of physics can be thus recast using symmetry group structure, supporters of the thesis have, therefore, to meet the remaining challenges. The present paper discusses and contests two such attempts, which typify arguments in favor of ontic structural realism from high-energy physics.     

Why eliminativism?

A central thesis of Steven French's brand of ontic structural realism has always been his eliminativism about objects. Unsurprisingly, this bold and controversial thesis has seen a lot of critical discussion. In his book The Structure of the World—Metaphysics & Representation, French accordingly defends this thesis against a range of challenges. A novel feature of this defense is the use of dependence relations to articulate his eliminativism. In this paper I take a critical look at French's defense of eliminativism and argue that the dependence relations invoked do not eliminate objects.     

Failure of ontological excess baggage as a criterion of the ontic approaches to quantum theory

This article presents a discussion of the notion of quantum ontological excess baggage, first proposed by Hardy. It is argued here that this idea does not have the significance suggested in his paper. It is shown that if this concept is properly analyzed, it fails to pose any threat to the ontic approach to quantum theory in general.     

The ontology of quantum field theory: Structural realism vindicated?

In this paper I elicit a prediction from structural realism and compare it, not to a historical case, but to a contemporary scientific theory. If structural realism is correct, then we should expect physics to develop theories that fail to provide an ontology of the sort sought by traditional realists. If structure alone is responsible for instrumental success, we should expect surplus ontology to be eliminated. Quantum field theory (QFT) provides the framework for some of the best confirmed theories in science, but debates over its ontology are vexed. Rather than taking a stand on these matters, the structural realist can embrace QFT as an example of just the kind of theory SR should lead us to expect. Yet, it is not clear that QFT meets the structuralist's positive expectation by providing a structure for the world. In particular, the problem of unitarily inequivalent representations threatens to undermine the possibility of QFT providing a unique structure for the world. In response to this problem, I suggest that the structuralist should endorse pluralism about structure.     

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.     

Emergence in holographic scenarios for gravity

‘Holographic’ relations between theories have become an important theme in quantum gravity research. These relations entail that a theory without gravity is equivalent to a gravitational theory with an extra spatial dimension. The idea of holography was first proposed in 1993 by Gerard ׳t Hooft on the basis of his studies of evaporating black holes. Soon afterwards the holographic ‘AdS/CFT’ duality was introduced, which since has been intensively studied in the string theory community and beyond. Recently, Erik Verlinde has proposed that even Newton׳s law of gravitation can be related holographically to the ‘thermodynamics of information’ on screens. We discuss these scenarios, with special attention to the status of the holographic relation in them and to the question of whether they make gravity and spacetime emergent. We conclude that only Verlinde׳s scheme straightforwardly instantiates emergence. However, assuming a non-standard interpretation of AdS/CFT may create room for the emergence of spacetime and gravity there as well.     

QFT, antimatter, and symmetry

A systematic analysis is made of the relations between the symmetries of a classical field and the symmetries of the one-particle quantum system that results from quantizing that field in regimes where interactions are weak. The results are applied to gain a greater insight into the phenomenon of antimatter.     

The origins of Schwinger׳s Euclidean Green׳s functions

This paper places Julian Schwinger׳s development of the Euclidean Green׳s function formalism for quantum field theory in historical context. It traces the techniques employed in the formalism back to Schwinger׳s work on waveguides during World War II, and his subsequent formulation of the Minkowski space Green׳s function formalism for quantum field theory in 1951. Particular attention is dedicated to understanding Schwinger׳s physical motivation for pursuing the Euclidean extension of this formalism in 1958.     

Naturalness,the autonomy of scales,and the 125 GeV Higgs

The recent discovery of the Higgs at 125 GeV by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC has put significant pressure on a principle which has guided much theorizing in high energy physics over the last 40 years, the principle of naturalness. In this paper, I provide an explication of the conceptual foundations and physical significance of the naturalness principle. I argue that the naturalness principle is well-grounded both empirically and in the theoretical structure of effective field theories, and that it was reasonable for physicists to endorse it. Its possible failure to be realized in nature, as suggested by recent LHC data, thus represents an empirical challenge to certain foundational aspects of our understanding of QFT. In particular, I argue that its failure would undermine one class of recent proposals which claim that QFT provides us with a picture of the world as being structured into quasi-autonomous physical domains.     

Duality as a category-theoretic concept

In a paper published in 1939, Ernest Nagel described the role that projective duality had played in the reformulation of mathematical understanding through the turn of the nineteenth century, claiming that the discovery of the principle of duality had freed mathematicians from the belief that their task was to describe intuitive elements. While instances of duality in mathematics have increased enormously through the twentieth century, philosophers since Nagel have paid little attention to the phenomenon. In this paper I will argue that a reassessment is overdue. Something beyond doubt is that category theory has an enormous amount to say on the subject, for example, in terms of arrow reversal, dualising objects and adjunctions. These developments have coincided with changes in our understanding of identity and structure within mathematics. While it transpires that physicists have employed the term ‘duality’ in ways which do not always coincide with those of mathematicians, analysis of the latter should still prove very useful to philosophers of physics. Consequently, category theory presents itself as an extremely important language for the philosophy of physics.     

Restoring particle phenomenology

No-go theorems are known in the literature to the effect that, in relativistic quantum field theory, particle localizability in the strict sense violates relativistic causality. In order to account for particle phenomenology without particle ontology, Halvorson and Clifton (2002) proposed an approximate localization scheme. In a recent paper, Arageorgis and Stergiou (2013) proved a no-go result that suggests that, even within such a scheme, there would arise act–outcome correlations over the entire spacetime, thereby violating relativistic causality. Here, we show that this conclusion is untenable. In particular, we argue that one can recover particle phenomenology without having to give up relativistic causality.     

Reduction and emergence in the fractional quantum Hall state

We present the fractional quantum Hall (FQH) effect as a candidate emergent phenomenon. Unlike some other putative cases of condensed matter emergence (such as thermal phase transitions), the FQH effect is not based on symmetry breaking. Instead FQH states are part of a distinct class of ordered matter that is defined topologically. Topologically ordered states result from complex long-ranged correlations between their constituent parts, such that the system displays strongly irreducible, qualitatively novel properties.     

QED and the man who didn׳t make it: Sidney Dancoff and the infrared divergence

Sidney Dancoff׳s paper “On Radiative Corrections for Electron Scattering” is generally viewed in the secondary literature as a failed attempt to develop renormalized quantum electrodynamics (QED) a decade early, an attempt that failed because of a mistake that Dancoff made. I will discuss Dancoff׳s mistake and try to reconstruct why it occurred, by relating it to the usual practices of the quantum field theory of his time. I will also argue against the view that Dancoff was on the verge of developing renormalized QED and will highlight the conceptual divides that separate Dancoff׳s work from the QED of the late 1940s. I will finally discuss how the established view of Dancoff׳s paper came to be and how the reading of this specific anecdote relates to more general assessments of the conceptual advances of the late 1940s (covariant techniques, renormalization), in particular to their assessment as being conservative rather than revolutionary.