Symmetries and the philosophy of language

In this paper, I consider the role of exact symmetries in theories of physics, working throughout with the example of gravitation set in Newtonian spacetime. First, I spend some time setting up a means of thinking about symmetries in this context; second, I consider arguments from the seeming undetectability of absolute velocities to an anti-realism about velocities; and finally, I claim that the structure of the theory licences (and perhaps requires) us to interpret models which differ only with regards to the absolute velocities of objects as depicting the same physical state of affairs. In defending this last claim, I consider how ideas and resources from the philosophy of language may usefully be brought to bear on this topic.     

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.     

Spacetime Visualisation and the Intelligibility of Physical Theories

This paper argues that spacetime visualisability is not a necessary condition for the intelligibility of theories in physics. Visualisation can be an important tool for rendering a theory intelligible, but it is by no means a sine qua non. The paper examines the historical transition from classical to quantum physics, and analyses the role of visualisability (Anschaulichkeit) and its relation to intelligibility. On the basis of this historical analysis, an alternative conception of the intelligibility of scientific theories is proposed, based on Heisenberg's reinterpretation of the notion of Anschaulichkeit.     

Spacetime as a Fundamental and Inalienable Structure of Fields

This paper offers an alternative view of spacetime different from both substantivalism and relationism. Using basic ideas underlying the fiber bundle formulation of field theories, it illustrates the function of spacetime in individuating local fields. As the system of numerical identities for entities that we can individually refer to, spacetime is an intrinsic, indispensable, and inalienable structure of the physical world with distinct entities.     

The role of a posteriori mathematics in physics

The calculus that co-evolved with classical mechanics relied on definitions of functions and differentials that accommodated physical intuitions. In the early nineteenth century mathematicians began the rigorous reformulation of calculus and eventually succeeded in putting almost all of mathematics on a set-theoretic foundation. Physicists traditionally ignore this rigorous mathematics. Physicists often rely on a posteriori math, a practice of using physical considerations to determine mathematical formulations. This is illustrated by examples from classical and quantum physics. A justification of such practice stems from a consideration of the role of phenomenological theories in classical physics and effective theories in contemporary physics. This relates to the larger question of how physical theories should be interpreted.     

Background independence: Lessons for further decades of dispute

Background independence begins life as an informal property that a physical theory might have, often glossed as ‘doesn't posit a fixed spacetime background’. Interest in trying to offer a precise account of background independence has been sparked by the pronouncements of several theorists working on quantum gravity that background independence embodies in some sense an essential discovery of the General Theory of Relativity, and a feature we should strive to carry forward to future physical theories. This paper has two goals. The first is to investigate what a world must be like in order to be truly described by a background independent theory given extant accounts of background independence. The second is to argue that there are no non-empirical reasons to be more confident in theories that satisfy extant accounts of background independence than in theories that don't. The paper concludes by drawing a general moral about a way in which focussing primarily on mathematical formulations of our physical theories can adversely affect debates in the metaphysics of physics.     

What is ontic structural realism?

In recent years a doctrine known as ontic structural realism (OSR) has achieved a degree of notoriety, but many people remain confused as to what exactly the doctrine amounts. In this paper three main variants of OSR are defined and discussed: (i) OSR1, which is the view that relations are ontologically primitive but objects and properties are not; (ii) OSR2, which is the view that objects and relations are ontologically primitive but properties are not; (iii) OSR3, which is the view that properties and relations are ontologically primitive but objects are not. Proponents of OSR claim that it is a “naturalistic” metaphysics, arguing that metaphysical views that take objects and/or properties as ontologically primitive are undermined by contemporary physics. In this paper it is argued that OSR1 and OSR2 are themselves undermined by contemporary physics. On the other hand, it is also argued that considerations about the objects of quantum mechanics and general relativity do seem to suggest that we should abandon some of our “common-sense” metaphysical intuitions, and that OSR3 is one of the metaphysical views that is compatible with what these theories seem to tell us about fundamental ontology.     

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.     

Holism, physical theories and quantum mechanics

Motivated by the question what it is that makes quantum mechanics a holistic theory (if so), I try to define for general physical theories what we mean by `holism'. For this purpose I propose an epistemological criterion to decide whether or not a physical theory is holistic, namely: a physical theory is holistic if and only if it is impossible in principle to infer the global properties, as assigned in the theory, by local resources available to an agent. I propose that these resources include at least all local operations and classical communication. This approach is contrasted with the well-known approaches to holism in terms of supervenience. The criterion for holism proposed here involves a shift in emphasis from ontology to epistemology. I apply this epistemological criterion to classical physics and Bohmian mechanics as represented on a phase and configuration space respectively, and for quantum mechanics (in the orthodox interpretation) using the formalism of general quantum operations as completely positive trace non-increasing maps. Furthermore, I provide an interesting example from which one can conclude that quantum mechanics is holistic in the above mentioned sense, although, perhaps surprisingly, no entanglement is needed.     

Interpretation neutrality in the classical domain of quantum theory

I show explicitly how concerns about wave function collapse and ontology can be decoupled from the bulk of technical analysis necessary to recover localized, approximately Newtonian trajectories from quantum theory. In doing so, I demonstrate that the account of classical behavior provided by decoherence theory can be straightforwardly tailored to give accounts of classical behavior on multiple interpretations of quantum theory, including the Everett, de Broglie–Bohm and GRW interpretations. I further show that this interpretation-neutral, decoherence-based account conforms to a general view of inter-theoretic reduction in physics that I have elaborated elsewhere, which differs from the oversimplified picture that treats reduction as a matter of simply taking limits. This interpretation-neutral account rests on a general three-pronged strategy for reduction between quantum and classical theories that combines decoherence, an appropriate form of Ehrenfest׳s Theorem, and a decoherence-compatible mechanism for collapse. It also incorporates a novel argument as to why branch-relative trajectories should be approximately Newtonian, which is based on a little-discussed extension of Ehrenfest׳s Theorem to open systems, rather than on the more commonly cited but less germane closed-systems version. In the Conclusion, I briefly suggest how the strategy for quantum-classical reduction described here might be extended to reduction between other classical and quantum theories, including classical and quantum field theory and classical and quantum gravity.     

Effective Field Theories,Reductionism and Scientific Explanation

Effective field theories have been a very popular tool in quantum physics for almost two decades. And there are good reasons for this. I will argue that effective field theories share many of the advantages of both fundamental theories and phenomenological models, while avoiding their respective shortcomings. They are, for example, flexible enough to cover a wide range of phenomena, and concrete enough to provide a detailed story of the specific mechanisms at work at a given energy scale. So will all of physics eventually converge on effective field theories? This paper argues that good scientific research can be characterised by a fruitful interaction between fundamental theories, phenomenological models and effective field theories. All of them have their appropriate functions in the research process, and all of them are indispensable. They complement each other and hang together in a coherent way which I shall characterise in some detail. To illustrate all this I will present a case study from nuclear and particle physics. The resulting view about scientific theorising is inherently pluralistic, and has implications for the debates about reductionism and scientific explanation.     

Spacetime without Reference Frames: An Application to the Velocity Addition Paradox

Much conceptualisation in contemporary physics is bogged down by unnecessary assumptions concerning a specific choice of coordinates which often leads to misunderstandings and paradoxes. Considering an absolute (coordinate-free) formulation of special relativistic spacetime, we show clearly that the velocity addition paradox emerged because the use of coordinates obscures that the space of relativistic observers is ‘more relative’ than the space of non-relativistic observers.     

Can Bohmian mechanics be made background independent?

The paper presents an inquiry into the question regarding the compatibility of Bohmian mechanics, intended as a non-local theory of moving point-like particles, with background independence. This issue is worth being investigated because, if the Bohmian framework has to be of some help in developing new physics, it has to be compatible with the most well-established traits of modern physics, background independence being one of such traits. The paper highlights the fact that the notion of background independence in the context of spacetime physics is slippery and interpretation-laden. It is then suggested that the best-matching framework developed by Julian Barbour might provide a robust enough meaning of background independence. The structure of Bohmian dynamics is evaluated against this framework, reaching some intermediate results that speak in favor of the fact that Bohmian mechanics can be made background independent.     

An algebraic approach to physical fields

According to the algebraic approach to spacetime, a thoroughgoing dynamicism, physical fields exist without an underlying manifold. This view is usually implemented by postulating an algebraic structure (e.g., commutative ring) of scalar-valued functions, which can be interpreted as representing a scalar field, and deriving other structures from it. In this work, we point out that this leads to the unjustified primacy of an undetermined scalar field. Instead, we propose to consider algebraic structures in which all (and only) physical fields are primitive. We explain how the theory of natural operations in differential geometry—the modern formalism behind classifying diffeomorphism-invariant constructions—can be used to obtain concrete implementations of this idea for any given collection of fields. For concrete examples, we illustrate how our approach applies to a number of particular physical fields, including electrodynamics coupled to a Weyl spinor.     

The Principle of Equivalence

We start from John Norton's analysis (1985) of the reach of Einstein's version of the principle of equivalence which is not a local principle but an extension of the relativity principle to reference frames in constant acceleration on the background of Minkowski spacetime. We examine how such a point of view implies a profound, and not generally recognised, reconsideration of the concepts of inertial system and field in physics. We then reevaluate the role that the infinitesimal principle, if adequately formulated, can legitimately be claimed to play in general relativity. We show that what we call the ‘punctual equivalence principle’ has significant physical content and that it permits the derivation of the geodesic law.     

The Loss of Coherence in Quantum Cosmology

I analyse two different methods for the retrieval of a classical notion of spacetime from the theory of quantum cosmology in terms of the different means they employ to bring about the necessary loss of coherence. One method employs a direct coarse graining of the appropriate phase space, whereas the other method is based on decohering the system by the interaction with an environment. Although these methods are equivalent on a phenomenological level, I argue that conceptually the decoherence approach is superior. The coarse graining approach construes the necessary loss of coherence in epistemic terms, whereas the method based on decohering the system by interaction with an environment provides a dynamical explanation for the emergence of classical notions of spacetime. On the latter account the emergence of classical behaviour is an objective property of the physical system under consideration, in contradistinction with the subjective coarse graining account of the retrieval of a classical spacetime in terms of measurements made by an observer.     

On conceptual issues in classical electrodynamics: Prospects and problems of an action-at-a-distance interpretation

Some conceptual issues in the foundations of classical electrodynamics concerning the interaction between particles and fields have recently received increased attention among philosophers of physics. After a brief review of the debate, I argue that there are essentially two incompatible solutions to these issues corresponding to F.A. Muller's distinction between the extension and the renormalization program. Neither of these solutions comes free of cost: the extension program is plagued with all problems related to extended elementary charges, the renormalization program works with point charges but trades in the notorious divergences of the field energies. The aim of this paper is to bring back into the discussion a third alternative, the action-at-a-distance program, which avoids both the riddles of extended elementary charges as well as the divergences although it admittedly has other problems. It will be discussed, why action-at-a-distance theories are actually not a far cry from particle–field theories, and I will argue that the main reasons for rejecting action-at-a-distance theories originate in certain metaphysical prejudices about locality and energy conservation. I will broadly suggest how these concepts could be adapted in order to allow for action at a distance.     

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.     

Spacetime Models for the World

In this paper I take a sceptical view of the standard cosmological model and its variants, mainly on the following grounds: (i) The method of mathematical modelling that characterises modern natural philosophy—as opposed to Aristotle's—goes well with the analytic, piecemeal approach to physical phenomena adopted by Galileo, Newton and their followers, but it is hardly suited for application to the whole world. (ii) Einstein's first cosmological model (1917) was not prompted by the intimations of experience but by a desire to satisfy Mach's Principle. (iii) The standard cosmological model—a Friedmann–Lemaı̂tre–Robertson–Walker spacetime expanding with or without end from an initial singularity—is supported by the phenomena of redshifted light from distant sources and very nearly isotropic thermal background radiation provided that two mutually inconsistent physical theories are jointly brought to bear on these phenomena, viz the quantum theory of elementary particles and Einstein's theory of gravity. (iv) While the former is certainly corroborated by high-energy experiments conducted under conditions allegedly similar to those prevailing in the early world, precise tests of the latter involve applications of the Schwarzschild solution or the PPN formalism for which there is no room in a Friedmann–Lemaı̂tre–Robertson–Walker spacetime.