The priority of internal symmetries in particle physics

In this paper, I try to decipher the role of internal symmetries in the ontological maze of particle physics. The relationship between internal symmetries and laws of nature is discussed within the framework of “Platonic realism.” The notion of physical “structure” is introduced as representing a deeper ontological layer behind the observable world. I argue that an internal symmetry is a structure encompassing laws of nature. The application of internal symmetry groups to particle physics came about in two revolutionary steps. The first was the introduction of the internal symmetries of hadrons in the early 1960s. These global and approximate symmetries served as means of bypassing the dynamics. I argue that the realist could interpret these symmetries as ontologically prior to the hadrons. The second step was the gauge revolution in the 1970s, where symmetries became local and exact and were integrated with the dynamics. I argue that the symmetries of the second generation are fundamental in the following two respects: (1) According to the so-called “gauge argument,” gauge symmetry dictates the existence of gauge bosons, which determine the nature of the forces. This view, which has been recently criticized by some philosophers, is widely accepted in particle physics at least as a heuristic principle. (2) In view of grand unified theories, the new symmetries can be interpreted as ontologically prior to baryon matter.     

The role of symmetry in the interpretation of physical theories

The symmetries of a physical theory are often associated with two things: conservation laws (via e.g. Noether׳s and Schur׳s theorems) and representational redundancies (“gauge symmetry”). But how can a physical theory׳s symmetries give rise to interesting (in the sense of non-trivial) conservation laws, if symmetries are transformations that correspond to no genuine physical difference? In this paper, I argue for a disambiguation in the notion of symmetry. The central distinction is between what I call “analytic” and “synthetic“ symmetries, so called because of an analogy with analytic and synthetic propositions. “Analytic“ symmetries are the turning of idle wheels in a theory׳s formalism, and correspond to no physical change; “synthetic“ symmetries cover all the rest. I argue that analytic symmetries are distinguished because they act as fixed points or constraints in any interpretation of a theory, and as such are akin to Poincaré׳s conventions or Reichenbach׳s ‘axioms of co-ordination’, or ‘relativized constitutive a priori principles’.     

Symmetries and the explanation of conservation laws in the light of the inverse problem in Lagrangian mechanics

Many have thought that symmetries of a Lagrangian explain the standard laws of energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation in a rather straightforward way. In this paper, I argue that the explanation of conservation laws via symmetries of Lagrangians involves complications that have not been adequately noted in the philosophical literature and some of the physics literature on the subject. In fact, such complications show that the principles that are commonly appealed to to drive explanations of conservation laws are not generally correct without caveats. I hope here to give a clearer picture of the relationship between symmetries and conservation laws in Lagrangian mechanics via an examination of the bearing that results in the inverse problem in the calculus of variations have on this topic.     

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.     

On miracles and spacetime

What have recently been dubbed two ‘miracles’ of general relativity—(1) that all non-gravitational interactions are locally governed by Poincaré invariant dynamical laws; and (2) that, in the regime of experimental practice in which curvature effects may be ignored, the local Poincaré symmetries of the dynamical laws governing matter fields coincide with the local Poincaré symmetries of the dynamical metric field—remain unaccounted for in that theory. In this paper, I demonstrate that these two ‘miracles’ admit of a natural explanation in one particular successor theory to general relativity—namely, perturbative string theory. I argue that this point has important implications when considering both the ‘chronogeometricity’ (that is, the object in question being surveyed by rods and clocks built from matter fields) and spatiotemporal status of the dynamical metric field in both general relativity and perturbative string theory.     

Inference to the hypothesis of extended cognition

This paper examines the justification for the hypothesis of extended cognition (HEC). HEC claims that human cognitive processes can, and often do, extend outside our head to include objects in the environment. HEC has been justified by inference to the best explanation (IBE). Both advocates and critics of HEC claim that we can infer the truth value of HEC based on whether HEC makes a positive or negative explanatory contribution to cognitive science. I argue that IBE cannot play this epistemic role. A serious rival to HEC exists with a differing truth value, and this invalidates IBEs for both the truth and the falsity of HEC. Explanatory value to cognitive science is not a guide to the truth value of HEC.     

A similarity-based approach of Kuhn’s no-overlap principle and anomalies

In their book Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Hanne Andersen, Peter Barker, and Xiang Chen reconstruct Kuhn’s account of conceptual structure and change, based on the dynamic frame model. I argue against their reconstruction of anomalies and of the no-overlap principle and propose a competing model, based on the similarity relation. First, I introduce the concept of psychological distance between objects, and then I show that the conceptual structure of a theory consists of a set of natural families, separated by a significant empty space. I argue that, in such a conceptual structure, the ES condition, according to which the distance between natural families should be greater than the distance between any two objects belonging to the same natural family, is satisfied. Anomalous objects lead to the violation of this condition. I argue that in a conceptual structure satisfying the ES condition, a similarity relation could be defined, so that natural families would be similarity classes, satisfying the no-overlap principle. In a structure not satisfying this principle, such similarity classes could not be delimited.     

Fantastic Beasts and where (not) to find them: Local gravitational energy and energy conservation in general relativity

This paper critically examines energy-momentum conservation and local (differential) notions of gravitational energy in General Relativity (GR). On the one hand, I argue that energy-momentum of matter is indeed locally (differentially) conserved: Physical matter energy-momentum 4-currents possess no genuine sinks/sources. On the other hand, global (integral) energy-momentum conservation is contingent on spacetime symmetries. Local gravitational energy-momentum is found to be a supererogatory notion. Various explicit proposals for local gravitational energy-momentum are investigated and found wanting. Besides pseudotensors, the proposals considered include those of Lorentz and Levi-Civita, Pitts and Baker. It is concluded that the ontological commitment we ought to have towards gravitational energy in GR mimics the natural anti-realism/eliminativism towards apparent forces in Newtonian Mechanics.     

On the alleged non-existence of orbitals

I argue that the claim made by Scerri that in many-electron atoms, orbitals do not exist according to quantum mechanics, is incorrect, for it relies on the view that orbitals are entities. Orbitals are states, not entities, and their use in describing many-electron atoms should be seen as an approximation. The writings by Scerri and others on the issue of realism that are based on the claim therefore lead astray. I furthermore disentangle two issues that Scerri discusses in arguing for his claim: that of electron correlation and that of the Pauli principle. Finally, I point out that more generally there is a misconception in chemistry of what quantum states are.     

Objective probability and the mind-body relation

Objectiveprobability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett's seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked via two alternative interpretations of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing.     

How to think about analogical inferences: A reply to Norton

In this paper, I raise some worries with John D. Norton's application of his material theory of induction to the study of analogical inferences. Skeptical that these worries can be properly addressed, I propose a principle to guide the philosophical research on analogical inferences and argue for its usefulness.     

Naturalized epistemology, or what the Strong Programme can’t explain

In this paper I argue that the Strong Programme’s aim to provide robust explanations of belief acquisition is limited by its commitment to the symmetry principle. For Bloor and Barnes, the symmetry principle is intended to drive home the fact that epistemic norms are socially constituted. My argument here is that even if our epistemic standards are fully naturalized—even relativized—they nevertheless can play a pivotal role in why individuals adopt the beliefs that they do. Indeed, sometimes the fact that a belief is locally endorsed as rational is the only reason why an individual holds it. In this way, norms of rationality have a powerful and unique role in belief formation. But if this is true then the symmetry principle’s emphasis on ‘sameness of type’ is misguided. It has the undesirable effect of not just naturalizing our cognitive commitments, but trivializing them. Indeed, if the notion of ‘similarity’ is to have any content, then we are not going to classify as ‘the same’ beliefs that are formed in accordance with deeply entrenched epistemic norms as ones formed without reflection on these norms, or ones formed in spite of these norms. My suggestion here is that we give up the symmetry principle in favor of a more sophisticated principle, one that allows for a taxonomy of causes rich enough to allow us to delineate the unique impact epistemic norms have on those individuals who subscribe to them.     

Laws and meta-laws of nature: Conservation laws and symmetries

Symmetry principles are commonly said to explain conservation laws—and were so employed even by Lagrange and Hamilton, long before Noether's theorem. But within a Hamiltonian framework, the conservation laws likewise entail the symmetries. Why, then, are symmetries explanatorily prior to conservation laws? I explain how the relation between ordinary (i.e., first-order) laws and the facts they govern (a relation involving counterfactuals) may be reproduced one level higher: as a relation between symmetries and the ordinary laws they govern. In that event, symmetries are meta-laws; they are not mere byproducts of the dynamical and force laws. Symmetries then explain conservation laws whereas conservation laws lack the modal status to explain symmetries. I elaborate the variety of natural necessity that meta-laws would possess. Proposed metaphysical accounts of natural law should aim to accommodate the distinction between meta-laws and mere byproducts of the laws just as they must accommodate the distinction between laws and accidents.     

Principle or constructive relativity

Appealing to Albert Einstein's distinction between principle and constructive theories, Harvey Brown has argued for an interpretation of the theory of relativity as a dynamic and constructive theory. Brown's view has been challenged by Michel Janssen and in this paper I investigate their dispute. I argue that their disagreement appears larger than it actually is due to the two frameworks used by Brown and Janssen to express their respective views: Brown's appeal to Einstein's principle–constructive distinction and Janssen's framing of the disagreement as one over the question whether relativity provides a kinematic or a dynamic constraint. I appeal to a distinction between types of theories drawn by H. A. Lorentz two decades before Einstein's distinction to argue that Einstein's distinction represents a false dichotomy. I argue further that the disagreement concerning the kinematics–dynamics distinction is a disagreement about labels but not about substance. There remains a genuine disagreement over the explanatory role of spacetime geometry and here I agree with Brown arguing that Janssen sees a pressing need for an explanation of Lorentz invariance where no further explanation is needed.     

Proving the principle: Taking geodesic dynamics too seriously in Einstein's theory

In this paper I critically review attempts to formulate and derive the geodesic principle, which claims that free massive bodies follow geodesic paths in general relativity theory. I argue that if the principle is (canonically) interpreted as a law of motion describing the actual evolution of gravitating bodies, then it is impossible to generically apply the law to massive bodies in a way that is coherent with Einstein's field equations. Rejecting the canonical interpretation, I propose an alternative interpretation of the geodesic principle as a type of universality thesis analogous to the universality behavior exhibited in thermal systems during phase transitions.     

Friedman׳s thesis

This essay examines Friedman׳s recent approach to the analysis of physical theories. Friedman argues against Quine that the identification of certain principles as ‘constitutive’ is essential to a satisfactory methodological analysis of physics. I explicate Friedman׳s characterization of a constitutive principle, and I evaluate his account of the constitutive principles that Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation presuppose for their formulation. I argue that something close to Friedman׳s thesis is defensible.     

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.     

Kant and the scope of analogy in the life sciences

In the present paper I investigate the role that analogy plays in eighteenth-century biology and in Kant's philosophy of biology. I will argue that according to Kant, biology, as it was practiced in the eighteenth century, is fundamentally based on analogical reflection. However, precisely because biology is based on analogical reflection, biology cannot be a proper science. I provide two arguments for this interpretation. First, I argue that although analogical reflection is, according to Kant, necessary to comprehend the nature of organisms, it is also necessarily insufficient to fully comprehend the nature of organisms. The upshot of this argument is that for Kant our understanding of organisms is necessarily limited. Second, I argue that Kant did not take biology to be a proper science because biology was based on analogical arguments. I show that Kant stemmed from a philosophical tradition that did not assign analogical arguments an important justificatory role in natural science. Analogy, according to this conception, does not provide us with apodictically certain cognition. Hence, sciences based on analogical arguments cannot constitute proper sciences.     

Realism bit by bit: Part II. Disjunctive partial reference

In this second paper, I continue my discussion of the problem of reference for scientific realism. First, I consider a final objection to Kitcher’s account of reference, which I generalise to other accounts of reference. Such accounts make attributions of reference by appeal to our pretheoretical intuitions about how true statements ought to be distibuted among the scientific utterances of the past. I argue that in the cases that merit discussion, this strategy fails because our intuitions are unstable. The interesting cases are importantly borderline—it really isn’t clear what we ought to say about how those terms referred. I conclude that in many relevant cases, our grounds for thinking that the theoretical terms of the past referred are matched by our grounds for thinking that they failed to refer, in such a way that deciding on either result is arbitrary and bad news for the realist. In response to this problem, in the second part of the paper I expand upon Field’s (1973) account of partial reference to sketch a new way of thinking about the theoretical terms of the past—that they partially referred and partially failed to refer.     

Perspectivism, inconsistent models, and contrastive explanation

It is widely recognized that scientific theories are often associated with strictly inconsistent models, but there is little agreement concerning the epistemic consequences. Some argue that model inconsistency supports a strong perspectivism, according to which claims serving as interpretations of models are inevitably and irreducibly perspectival. Others argue that in at least some cases, inconsistent models can be unified as approximations to a theory with which they are associated, thus undermining this kind of perspectivism. I examine the arguments for perspectivism, and contend that its strong form is defeasible in principle, not merely in special cases. The argument rests on the plausibility of scientific knowledge concerning non-perspectival, dispositional facts about modelled systems. This forms the basis of a novel suggestion regarding how to understand the knowledge these models afford, in terms of a contrastive theory of what-questions.