Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:05:38.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial versus Substantial Gauge Symmetries: A Criterion and an Application to the Electroweak Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jordan François
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To systematically answer the generalized Kretschmann objection, I propose a mean to make operational a criterion widely recognized as allowing one to decide whether the gauge symmetry of a theory is artificial or substantial. My proposition is based on the dressing field method of gauge symmetry reduction, a new simple tool from mathematical physics. This general scheme allows one in particular to straightforwardly argue that the notion of spontaneous symmetry breaking is superfluous to the empirical success of the electroweak theory. Important questions regarding the context of justification of the theory then arise.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 472 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

To contact the author, please write to: Université de Lorraine, CNRS, Institut Élie Cartan de Lorraine, UMR 7502, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, F-54506, France; e-mail: jordanfrancois54@gmail.com.

†

This article benefited from the input of two careful reviewers, whose remarks and suggestions helped to clarify and sharpen several of the arguments presented. For this, the author expresses his gratitude.

References

Aharonov, Y., and Bohm, D.. 1959. “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory.” Physical Review 115 (3): 485–91..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Y., and Bohm, D.. 1961. “Further Considerations on Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory.” Physical Review 123 (4): 1511–24..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R., and Krauss, L.. 2012. “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?” Atlantic, April.Google Scholar
Attard, J., and François, J.. 2017. “Tractors and Twistors from Conformal Cartan Geometry: A Gauge Theoretic Approach II, Twistors.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 34 (8). doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa627d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attard, J., and François, J.. 2018. “Tractors and Twistors from Conformal Cartan Geometry: A Gauge Theoretic Approach I, Tractors.” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 22 (8), forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attard, J., François, J., Lazzarini, S., and Masson, T.. 2018. “The Dressing Field Method of Gauge Symmetry Reduction, a Review with Examples.” In Foundations of Mathematics and Physics One Century after Hilbert: New Perspectives, ed. Kouneiher, Joseph, 377–416. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batalin, I., and Tyutin, I.. 1991. “Existence Theorem for the Effective Gauge Algebra in the Generalized Canonical Formalism with Abelian Conversion of Second-Class Constraints.” International Journal of Modern Physics A 6 (18): 3255–82..Google Scholar
Becchi, C. M., and Ridolfi, G.. 2006. An Introduction to Relativistic Processes and the Standard Model of Electroweak Interactions. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertlmann, R. A. 1996. Anomalies in Quantum Field Theory. International Series of Monographs on Physics 91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brading, K., and Castellani, E.. 2003. Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, W. 1985. Applied Differential Geometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, T. Y., ed. 1999. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. 2012. The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads Us to the Edge of a New World. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Carroll, S.. 2015. The Higgs Boson and Beyond. The Great Courses. Chantilly, VA: Teaching Company.Google Scholar
Chernodub, M. N., Faddeev, L., and Niemi, A. J.. 2008. “Non-Abelian Supercurrents and Electroweak Theory.” Journal of High Energy Physics 12:014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Rham, C. 2014. “Massive Gravity.” Living Reviews in Relativity 17 (7).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dirac, P. A. M. 1955. “Gauge-Invariant Formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics.” Canadian Journal of Physics 33:650–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirac, P. A. M.. 1958. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, J. 2017. “Sameness and Separability in Gauge Theories.” Philosophy of Science 84 (5): 1189–201..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 2004a. “Curie’s Principle and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2–3): 173–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J.. 2004b. “Laws, Symmetry, and Symmetry Breaking: Invariance, Conservation Principles, and Objectivity.” Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 1227–41..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elitzur, S. 1975. “Impossibility of Spontaneously Breaking Local Symmetries.” Physical Review D 12 (12): 3978–82..Google Scholar
Faddeev, L. D. 2009. An Alternative Interpretation of the Weinberg-Salam Model. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournel, C., François, J., Lazzarini, S., and Masson, T.. 2014. “Gauge Invariant Composite Fields out of Connections, with Examples.” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 11 (1): 1450016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, T. 2011. The Geometry of Physics: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederich, S. 2013. “Gauge Symmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories: In Search of Clarification.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (2): 157–82..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederich, S.. 2014. “A Philosophical Look at the Higgs Mechanism.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 45:335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, J., Morchio, G., and Strocchi, F.. 1981. “Higgs Phenomenon without Symmetry Breaking Order Parameter.” Nuclear Physics B 190 (3): 553–82..Google Scholar
Guay, A. 2008. “A Partial Elucidation of the Gauge Principle.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 39 (2): 346–63..Google Scholar
Hawking, S., and Mlodinow, L.. 2010. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Healey, R. 2009. Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Higgs, P. W. 1964. “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons.” Physical Review Letters 13:508–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, P. W.. 1966. “Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons.” Physical Review 145:1156–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilderton, A., Lavelle, M., and McMullan, D.. 2010. “Symmetry Breaking, Conformal Geometry and Gauge Invariance.” Journal of Physics A 43 (31): 312002.Google Scholar
Kibble, T. W. B. 1967. “Symmetry Breaking in Non Abelian Gauge Theories.” Physical Review 155:1554–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, L. 2012. “The Consolation of Philosophy.” Scientific American, April.Google Scholar
Krauss, L.. 2017. The Greatest Story Ever Told … So Far. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Krauss, L., and Moskowitz, C.. 2017. “Q&A: Lawrence Krauss on The Greatest Story Ever Told.” Scientific American, March.Google Scholar
Kretschmann, E. 1917. “Uber den physikalischen Sinn der Relativitätspostulat, A. Einsteins neue and seine ursprüngliche Relativitätstheorie.” Annalen der Physik 53:575–614.Google Scholar
Lavelle, M., and McMullan, D.. 1995. “Observables and Gauge Fixing in Spontaneously Broken Gauge Theories.” Physics Letters B 347 (1): 89–94..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyre, H. 2004. “Holism and Structuralism in U(1)-gauge Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35:643–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyre, H.. 2008. “Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist?” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (2): 119–33..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. A. 2002. “Gauge Principles, Gauge Arguments and the Logic of Nature.” Philosophy of Science 69 (Proceedings): S221–S234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, T., and Wallet, J. C.. 2011. “A Remark on the Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking Mechanism in the Standard Model.” arXiv, Cornell University. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.1176.pdf.Google Scholar
Nguyen, J., Teh, N. J., and Wells, L.. 2018. “Why Surplus Structure Is Not Superfluous.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Ogievetski, V., and Polubarinov, I.. 1962. “On the Meaning of Gauge Invariance.” Il Nuovo Cimento 23 (1): 173–80..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogievetski, V., and Polubarinov, I.. 1963. “Interacting Fields of Spin 1 and Symmetry Properties.” Annals of Physics 25:358–86.Google Scholar
Ogievetski, V., and Polubarinov, I.. 1964. “Interacting Spin 1 Fields and Symmetry Properties.” Soviet Physics—JETP 18 (3): 668–75..Google Scholar
Ogievetski, V., and Polubarinov, I.. 1966. “Theories of Interacting Fields with Spin 1.” Nuclear Physics 76:677–83.Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B. 2008. “General Covariance, Artificial Gauge Freedom and Empirical Equivalence.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B.. 2009. “Empirical Equivalence, Artificial Gauge Freedom and a Generalized Kretschmann Objection.” arXiv, Cornell University. https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.5400.Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B.. 2012. “The Nontriviality of Trivial General Covariance: How Electrons Restrict Time Coordinates, Spinors (almost) Fit into Tensor Calculus, and 7/16 of a Tetrad Is Surplus Structure.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pooley, O. 2017. “Background Independence, Diffeomorphism Invariance and the Meaning of Coordinates.” In Towards a Theory of Spacetime Theories, ed. Lehmkuhl, Dennis, Schiemann, Gregor, and Scholz, Erhard, 105–43. Einstein Studies 13. New York: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
Rubakov, V. 1999. Classical Theory of Gauge Fields. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruegg, R., and Ruiz-Altaba, M.. 2004. “The Stueckelberg Field.” International Journal of Modern Physics A 19:3265–347.Google Scholar
Sharpe, R. W. 1996. Differential Geometry: Cartan’s Generalization of Klein’s Erlangen Program. Graduate Texts in Mathematics 166. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Smeenk, C. 2006. “The Elusive Higgs Mechanism.” Philosophy of Science 73 (5): 487–99..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, S. 1994. Group Theory and Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Struyve, W. 2011. “Gauge Invariant Accounts of the Higgs Mechanism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 42 (4): 226–36..Google Scholar
Trautman, A. 1979. “Fiber Bundles, Gauge Field and Gravitation.” In General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 1, One Hundred Years after the Birth of Albert Einstein, ed. Held, A. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. 2014. “Deflating the Aharonov-Bohm Effect.” arXiv, Cornell University. https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5073.Google Scholar
Westenholz, C. V. 1980. “On Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and the Higgs Mechanism.” Acta Physica Academia Scientiarum Hungaricae 48:213–24.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2005. Selected Papers, 1945–1980, with Commentary. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar