Gauge Theories

We address a long-standing debate over whether classical magnetic forces can do work, ultimately answering the question in the affirmative. In detail, we couple a classical particle with intrinsic spin and elementary dipole moments to the electromagnetic field, derive the appropriate generalization of the Lorentz force law, show that the particle’s dipole moments must be collinear with its spin axis, and argue that the magnetic field does mechanical work on the particle’s elementary magnetic dipole moment. As consistency checks, we calculate (...) the overall system’s energy-momentum and angular momentum, and show that their local conservation equations lead to the same force law and therefore the same conclusions about magnetic forces and work. We also compute the system’s Belinfante–Rosenfeld energy–momentum tensor. (shrink)

Standard lore holds that magnetic forces are incapable of doing mechanical work. More precisely, the claim is that whenever it appears that a magnetic force is doing work, the work is actually being done by another force, with the magnetic force serving only as an indirect mediator. On the other hand, the most familiar instances of magnetic forces acting in everyday life—bar magnets lifting other bar magnets—appear to present manifest evidence of magnetic forces doing work. These sorts of counterexamples are (...) often dismissed as arising from quantum effects that lie outside the classical regime. In this paper, however, we show that quantum theory is not needed to account for these phenomena, and that classical electromagnetism admits a model of elementary magnetic dipoles on which magnetic forces can indeed do work. In order to develop this model, we revisit the foundational principles of the classical theory of electromagnetism, showcase the importance of constraints from relativity, examine the structure of the multipole expansion, and study the connection between the Lorentz force law and conservation of energy and momentum. (shrink)

In this paper, we review a general technique for converting the standard Lagrangian description of a classical system into a formulation that puts time on an equal footing with the system's degrees of freedom. We show how the resulting framework anticipates key features of special relativity, including the signature of the Minkowski metric tensor and the special role played by theories that are invariant under a generalized notion of Lorentz transformations. We then use this technique to revisit a classification of (...) classical particle-types that mirrors Wigner's classification of quantum particle-types in terms of irreducible representations of the Poincaré group, including the cases of massive particles, massless particles, and tachyons. Along the way, we see gauge invariance naturally emerge in the context of classical massless particles with nonzero spin, as well as study the massless limit of a massive particle and derive a classical-particle version of the Higgs mechanism. (shrink)

In discussions of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, Healey and Lyre have attributed reality to loops $\sigma_0$ (or hoops $[\sigma_0]$), since the electromagnetic potential $A$ is currently unmeasurable and can therefore be transformed. I argue that $[A]=[A+d\lambda]_{\lambda}$ and the hoop $[\sigma_0]$ are related by a meaningful duality, so that however one feels about $[A]$ (or any potential $A\in[A]$), it is no worse than $[\sigma_0]$ (or any loop $\sigma_0\in[\sigma_0]$): no ontological firmness is gained by retreating to the loops, which are just as flimsy (...) as the potentials. And one wonders how the unmeasurability of one entity can invest another with physical reality; would an eventual observation of $A$ dissolve $\sigma_0$, consigning it to a realm of incorporeal mathematical abstractions? The reification of loops rests on the potential's ''gauge dependence''; which in turn rests on its unmeasurability; which is too shaky and arbitrary a notion to carry so much weight. (shrink)

The elucidation of the gauge principle ``is the most pressing problem in current philosophy of physics" Redhead. This paper argues two points that contribute to this elucidation in the context of Yang-Mills theories. 1) Yang-Mills theories, including quantum electrodynamics, form a class. They should be interpreted together. To focus on electrodynamics is a mistake. 2) The essential role of gauge and BRST surplus is to provide a local theory that can be quantized and would be equivalent to the quantization of (...) the non-local reduced theory. (shrink)

This paper is an analysis of the geometrical interpretation of local gauge symmetry for theories of the Yang-Mills type.

This paper shows how the study of surpluses of structure is an interesting philosophical task. In particular I explore how local gauge symmetry in quantized Yang-Mills theories is the by-product of the specific dynamical structure of interaction. It is shown how in non relativistic quantum mechanics gauge symmetry corresponds to the freedom to locally define global features of gauge potentials. Also discussed is how in quantum field theory local gauge symmetry is replaced by BRST symmetry. This last symmetry is apparently (...) the result of the fact that we do not know how to define quantum Yang-Mills theories without unphysical gauge boson states. Since Yang-Mills theories describe successfully three of the four fundamental interactions the elucidation of this symmetry is a pressing philosophical question. (shrink)

Gauge symmetries provide one of the most puzzling examples of the applicability of mathematics in physics. The presented work focuses on the role of analogical reasoning in the gauge argument, motivated by Mark Steiner's claim that the application of the gauge principle relies on a Pythagorean analogy whose success undermines naturalist philosophy. In this paper, we present two different views concerning the analogy between gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear interactions, each providing a different philosophical response to the problem of the applicability (...) of mathematics in the natural sciences. The first is based on an account of Weyl's original work, which first gave rise to the gauge principle. Drawing on his later philosophical writings, we develop an idelaist reading of the mathematical analogies in the gauge argument. On this view, mathematical analogies serve to ensure a conceptual harmony in our scientific account of nature. We further discuss the construction of Yang and Mills's gauge theory in light of this idealist reading. The second account presents a naturalist alternative, formulated in terms of John Norton's account of a material analogy, according to which the analogy succeeds in virtue of a physical similarity between the different interactions. This account is based on the methodological equivalence principle, a simple conceptual extension of the gauge principle that allows us to understand the relation between coordinate transformations and gravity as a manifestation of the same method. The physical similarity between the different cases is based on attributing the success of this method to the dependence of the coupling on relational physical quantities. We conclude by reflecting on the advantages and limits of the idealist, naturalist, and anthropocentric Pythagorean views, as three alternative ways to understand the puzzling relation between mathematics and physics. -/- . (shrink)

Recently, Dewar (2019) has suggested that one can apply the strategy of 'sophistication' - as exemplified by sophisticated substantivalism as a response to the diffeomorphism invariance of General Relativity - to gauge theories such as electrodynamics. This requires a shift to the formalism of fibre bundles. In this paper, I develop and defend this suggestion. Where my approach differs from previous discussions is that I focus on the metaphysical picture underlying the fibre bundle formalism. In particular, I aim to affirm (...) the physical reality of gauge properties. I argue that this allows for a local and separable explanation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Its puzzling features are explained by a form of holism inherent to fibre bundles. (shrink)

In the last five years, the controversy about whether or not gauge transformations can be empirically significant has intensified. On the one hand, Greaves and Wallace (2014) developed a framework according to which, under some circumstances, gauge transformations can be empirically significant---and Teh (2015) further supported this result by using the Constrained Hamiltonian formalism. On the other hand, Friederich (2015, 2016) claims to have proved that gauge transformation can never be empirically significant. In this paper, I accomplish two tasks. First, (...) I argue that there are strong reasons to resist Friederich's proof because one of its assumptions is, at the very least, highly controversial. Second, I argue that, despite criticism by Brading and Brown (2004) and Friederich (2015), 't Hooft's Beam-Splitter experiment is indeed a concrete example of a case where a local gauge symmetry has empirical significance. By shedding light on these two points, this paper shows that recent arguments that claim gauge transformations cannot be empirically significant are not satisfactory. (shrink)

The recent debate about whether gauge symmetries can be empirically significant has focused on the possibility of 'Galileo's ship' types of scenarios, where the symmetries effect relational differences between a subsystem and the environment. However, it has gone largely unremarked that apart from such Galileo's ship scenarios, Greaves and Wallace (2014) proposed that gauge transformations can also be empirically significant in a 'non-relational' manner that is analogous to a Faraday-cage scenario, where the subsystem symmetry is related to a change in (...) a charged boundary state. In this paper, we investigate the question of whether such non-relational scenarios are possible for gauge theories. Remarkably, the answer to this question turns out to be closely related to a foundational puzzle that has driven a host of recent developments at the frontiers of theoretical physics. By drawing on these recent developments, we show that a very natural way of elaborating on Greaves and Wallace's claim of non-relational empirical significance for gauge symmetry is incoherent. However, we also argue that much of what they suggest is correct in spirit: one can indeed construct non-relational models of the kind they sketch, albeit ones where the empirical significance is not witnessed by a gauge symmetry but instead by a superficially similar boundary symmetry. Furthermore, the latter casts doubt on whether one really abandons Galileo's ship in such scenarios. (shrink)

Wigner’s quantum-mechanical classification of particle-types in terms of irreducible representations of the Poincaré group has a classical analogue, which we extend in this paper. We study the compactness properties of the resulting phase spaces at fixed energy, and show that in order for a classical massless particle to be physically sensible, its phase space must feature a classical-particle counterpart of electromagnetic gauge invariance. By examining the connection between massless and massive particles in the massless limit, we also derive a classical-particle (...) version of the Higgs mechanism. (shrink)

This paper criticizes the traditional philosophical account of the quantization of gauge theories and offers an alternative. On the received view, gauge theories resist quantization because they feature distinct mathematical representatives of the same physical state of affairs. This resistance is overcome by a sequence of ad hoc modifications, justified in part by reference to semiclassical electrodynamics. Among other things, these modifications introduce "ghosts": particles with unphysical properties which do not appear in asymptotic states and which are said to be (...) purely a notational convenience. I argue that this sequence of modifications is unjustified and inadequate, making it a poor basis for the interpretation of ghosts. I then argue that gauge theories can be quantized by the same method as any other theory. On this account, ghosts are not purely notation: they are coordinates on the classical configuration space of the theory—specifically, on its gauge structure. This interpretation does not fall prey to the standard philosophical arguments against the significance of ghosts, due to Weingard. Weingard’s argumentative strategy, properly applied, in fact tells in favor of ghosts’ physical significance. (shrink)

This article suggests a fresh look at gauge symmetries, with the aim of drawing a clear line between the a priori theoretical considerations involved, and some methodological and empirical non-deductive aspects that are often overlooked. The gauge argument is primarily based on a general symmetry principle expressing the idea that a change of mathematical representation should not change the form of the dynamical law. In addition, the ampliative part of the argument is based on the introduction of new degrees of (...) freedom into the theory according to a methodological principle that is formulated here in terms of correspondence between passive and active transformations. To demonstrate how the two kinds of considerations work together in a concrete context, I begin by considering spatial symmetries in mechanics. I suggest understanding Mach's principle as a similar combination of theoretical, methodological and empirical considerations, and demonstrate the claim with a simple toy model. I then examine gauge symmetries as a manifestation of the two principles in a quantum context. I further show that in all of these cases the relational nature of physically significant quantities can explain the relevance of the symmetry principle and the way the methodology is applied. In the quantum context, the relevant relational variables are quantum phases. (shrink)

The presence of symmetries in physical theories implies a pernicious form of underdetermination. In order to avoid this theoretical vice, philosophers often espouse a principle called Leibniz Equivalence, which states that symmetry-related models represent the same state of affairs. Moreover, philosophers have claimed that the existence of non-trivial symmetries motivates us to accept the Invariance Principle, which states that quantities that vary under a theory’s symmetries aren’t physically real. Leibniz Equivalence and the Invariance Principle are often seen as part of (...) the same package. I argue that this is a mistake: Leibniz Equivalence and the Invariance Principle are orthogonal to each other. This means that it is possible to hold that symmetry-related models represent the same state of affairs whilst having a realist attitude towards variant quantities. Various arguments have been presented in favour of the Invariance Principle: a rejection of the Invariance Principle is inter alia supposed to cause indeterminism, undetectability or failure of reference. I respond that these arguments at best support Leibniz Equivalence. (shrink)

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, some gauge transformations are physical symmetries. That is, they are mathematical transformations that relate representatives of distinct physical states of affairs. This is at odds with the standard philosophical position according to which gauge transformations are an eliminable redundancy in a gauge theory's representational framework. In this paper I defend the Standard Model's treatment of gauge from an objection due to Richard Healey. If we follow the Standard Model in taking some gauge (...) transformations to be physical symmetries then we face the “strong CP problem”, but if we adopt the standard philosophical position on gauge then the strong CP problem dissolves. Healey offers this as a reason in favor of the standard philosophical view. However, as I argue here, following Healey's recommendation gives a theory that makes bad empirical predictions. (shrink)

Elay Shech and John Earman have recently argued that the common topological interpretation of the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect is unsatisfactory because it fails to justify idealizations that it presupposes. In particular, they argue that an adequate account of the AB effect must address the role of boundary conditions in certain ideal cases of the effect. In this paper I defend the topological interpretation against their criticisms. I consider three types of idealization that might arise in treatments of the effect. First, (...) Shech takes the AB effect to involve an idealization in the form of a singular limit, analogous to the thermodynamic limit in statistical mechanics. But, I argue, the AB effect itself features no singular limits, so it doesn’t involve idealizations in this sense. Second, I argue that Shech and Earman’s emphasis on the role of boundary conditions in the AB effect is misplaced. The idealizations that are useful in connecting the theoretical description of the AB effect to experiment do interact with facts about boundary conditions, but none of these idealizations are presupposed by the topological interpretation of the effect. Indeed, the boundary conditions for which Shech and demands justification are incompatible with some instances of the AB effect, so the topological interpretation ought not justify them. Finally, I address the role of the non-relativistic approximation usually presumed in discussions of the AB effect. This approximation is essential if—as the topological interpretation supposes—the AB effect constrains and justifies a relativistic theory of the electromagnetic interaction. In this case the ends justify the means. So the topological view presupposes no unjustified idealizations. (shrink)

This paper formulates generalized versions of the general principle of relativity and of the principle of equivalence that can be applied to general abstract spaces. It is shown that when the principles are applied to the Hilbert space of a quantum particle, its law of coupling to electromagnetic fields is obtained. It is suggested to understand the Aharonov-Bohm effect in light of these principles, and the implications for some related foundational controversies are discussed.

The logic of gauge theory is considered by tracing its development from general relativity to Yang-Mills theory, through Weyl's two gauge theories. A handful of elements---which for want of better terms can be called \emph{geometrical justice}, \emph{matter wave}, \emph{second clock effect}, \emph{twice too many energy levels}---are enough to produce Weyl's second theory; and from there, all that's needed to reach the Yang-Mills formalism is a \emph{non-Abelian structure group} (say $\mathbb{SU}\textrm{(}N\textrm{)}$).

In this paper I detail three major mathematical developments that led to the emergence of Yang–Mills theories as the foundation for the standard model of particle physics. In less than 10 years, work on renormalizability, the renormalization group, and lattice quantum field theory highlighted the utility of Yang–Mills type models of quantum field theory by connecting poorly understood candidate dynamical models to emerging experimental results. I use this historical case study to provide lessons for theory construction in physics, and touch (...) on issues related to renormalization group realism from a more historical perspective. In particular, I highlight the fact that much of the hard work in theory construction comes when trying to understand the consequences and representational capacities of a theoretical framework. (shrink)

In this paper I will focus on the case of the discovery of parity nonconservation in weak interactions from the period spanning 1947–1957, and the lessons this episode provides for successful theory construction in HEP. I aim to (a) summarize the history into a coherent story for philosophers of science, and (b) use the history as a case study for the epistemological evolution of the understanding of weak interactions in HEP. I conclude with some philosophical lessons regarding theory construction in (...) physics. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is twofold: to distinguish two notions of naturalness employed in beyond the standard model physics and to argue that recognizing this distinction has methodological consequences. One notion of naturalness is an “autonomy of scales” requirement: it prohibits sensitive dependence of an effective field theory’s low-energy observables on precise specification of the theory’s description of cutoff-scale physics. I will argue that considerations from the general structure of effective field theory provide justification for the role this notion (...) of naturalness has played in BSM model construction. A second, distinct notion construes naturalness as a statistical principle requiring that the values of the parameters in an effective field theory be “likely” given some appropriately chosen measure on some appropriately circumscribed space of models. I argue that these two notions are historically and conceptually related but are motivated by distinct theoretical considerations and admit of distinct kinds of solution. (shrink)

Ontic structural realism refers to the novel, exciting, and widely discussed basic idea that the structure of physical reality is genuinely relational. In its radical form, the doctrine claims that there are, in fact, no objects but only structure, i.e., relations. More moderate approaches state that objects have only relational but no intrinsic properties. In its most moderate and most tenable form, ontic structural realism assumes that at the most fundamental level of physical reality there are only relational properties. This (...) means that the most fundamental objects only possess relational but no non-reducible intrinsic properties. The present paper will argue that our currently best physics refutes even this most moderate form of ontic structural realism. More precisely, I will claim that 1) according to quantum field theory, the most fundamental objects of matter are quantum fields and not particles, and show that 2) according to the Standard Model, quantum fields have intrinsic non-relational properties. (shrink)

Two approaches to understanding the idealizations that arise in the Aharonov–Bohm effect are presented. It is argued that a common topological approach, which takes the non-simply connected electron configuration space to be an essential element in the explanation and understanding of the effect, is flawed. An alternative approach is outlined. Consequently, it is shown that the existence and uniqueness of self-adjoint extensions of symmetric operators in quantum mechanics have important implications for philosophical issues. Also, the alleged indispensable explanatory role of (...) said idealizations is examined via a minimal model explanatory scheme. Last, the idealizations involved in the AB effect are placed in a wider philosophical context via a short survey of part of the literature on infinite and essential idealizations. (shrink)

It is very useful to distinguish between four types of interactions in nature: gravitation, and then electromagnetism, weak interaction and strong interaction. The mathematical structure of electromagnetism but also of weak and strong interaction could be understood as induced by a local gauge group. The associated groups are the unitary group in one dimension—U—for electromagnetism, the special unitary group in two dimensions—SU—for the weak interaction, and the special unitary group in three dimensions—SU—for the strong interaction. The essence of this article (...) is to give a “first-principles” explanation for the three gauge groups. (shrink)

I examine the relationship between \\)-dimensional Poincaré metrics and d-dimensional conformal manifolds, from both mathematical and physical perspectives. The results have a bearing on several conceptual issues relating to asymptotic symmetries in general relativity and in gauge–gravity duality, as follows: I draw from the remarkable work by Fefferman and Graham on conformal geometry, in order to prove two propositions and a theorem that characterise which classes of diffeomorphisms qualify as gravity-invisible. I define natural notions of gravity-invisibility that apply to the (...) diffeomorphisms of Poincaré metrics in any dimension. I apply the notions of invisibility, developed in, to gauge–gravity dualities: which, roughly, relate Poincaré metrics in \ dimensions to QFTs in d dimensions. I contrast QFT-visible versus QFT-invisible diffeomorphisms: those gravity diffeomorphisms that can, respectively cannot, be seen from the QFT. The QFT-invisible diffeomorphisms are the ones which are relevant to the hole argument in Einstein spaces. The results on dualities are surprising, because the class of QFT-visible diffeomorphisms is larger than expected, and the class of QFT-invisible ones is smaller than expected, or usually believed, i.e. larger than the PBH diffeomorphisms in Imbimbo et al. :1129, 2000, Eq. 2.6). I also give a general derivation of the asymptotic conformal Killing equation, which has not appeared in the literature before. (shrink)

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 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 is much more specific. We give a result about gauge/gravity duality that shows its relation to gauge symmetries 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. (shrink)

Relational mechanics is a gauge theory of classical mechanics whose laws do not govern the motion of individual particles but the evolution of the distances between particles. Its formulation gives a satisfactory answer to Leibniz’s and Mach’s criticisms of Newton’s mechanics: relational mechanics does not rely on the idea of an absolute space. When describing the behavior of small subsystems with respect to the so called “fixed stars”, relational mechanics basically agrees with Newtonian mechanics. However, those subsystems having huge angular (...) momentum will deviate from the Newtonian behavior if they are described in the frame of fixed stars. Such subsystems naturally belong to the field of astronomy; they can be used to test the relational theory. (shrink)

The missing piece of the puzzle: the discovery of the Higgs boson On July 4, 2012 the CMS and ATLAS collaborations at the large hadron collider jointly announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, which resembled the Higgs boson, the last remaining undiscovered piece of the standard model of elementary particles. Both groups claimed to have observed a five-standard-deviation effect above background, the gold standard for discovery in high-energy physics. In this essay I will briefly discuss the how the (...) CMS collaboration performed the experiment and analyzed the data. I will also show the experimental results. (shrink)

This paper investigates the significance of T-duality in string theory: the indistinguisha- bility 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. (shrink)

This paper argues that there is no single universal conception of scientific explanation that is consistently employed throughout the whole domain of Higgs physics—ranging from the successful experimental search for a standard model Higgs particle and the hitherto unsuccessful searches for any particles beyond the standard model, to phenomenological model builders in the Higgs sector and theoretical physicists interested in how the core principles of quantum field theory apply to spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism. Yet the coexistence of (...) deductive-statistical, unificationist, model-based, and statistical-relevance explanations does not amount to a fragmentation of the discipline, but allows elementary particle physicists to simultaneously pursue a plurality of research strategies and keep the field together by joint convictions about the SM and shared explanatory ideals. These convictions include that the SM both represents a successful explanation of the available particle data and contains aspects in need of further explanation. Especially in the domain of BSM physics, explanatory ideals typically appear as stories motivating the different models and linking them to the whole of the discipline. (shrink)

Sensitivity to the square of the cutoff scale of quantum corrections of the Higgs boson mass self-energy has led many authors to conclude that the Higgs theory suffers from a naturalness or fine-tuning problem. However, speculative new physics ideas to solve this problem have not manifested themselves yet at high-energy colliders, such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. For this reason, the role of naturalness as a guide to theory model-building is being severely questioned. Most attacks suggest that one (...) should not resort to arguments involving gravity, which is a much less understood quantum field theory. Another line of attack is against the assumption that there exists a multitude of additional heavy states specifically charged under the Standard Model gauge symmetries. Nevertheless, if we give ground on both of these assaults on naturalness, what remains is a naturalness concern over the prospect of numerous additional spin-zero scalar states in nature. The proliferation of heavy scalars generically destabilizes the Higgs boson mass, raising it to the highest and most remote scalar mass values in nature, thus straining the legitimacy of the Standard Model. The copious use of extra scalars in theory model building, from explaining flavor physics to providing an inflationary potential and more, and the generic expectation of extra scalar bosons in nature argues for the proliferation instability problem being the central concern for naturalness of the Standard Model. Some approaches to solving this problem are presented. (shrink)

In this article, as a new mathematical approach to origin of the laws of nature, using a new basic algebraic axiomatic (matrix) formalism based on the ring theory and Clifford algebras (presented in Sec.2), “it is shown that certain mathematical forms of fundamental laws of nature, including laws governing the fundamental forces of nature (represented by a set of two definite classes of general covariant massive field equations, with new matrix formalisms), are derived uniquely from only a very few axioms”; (...) where in agreement with the rational Lorentz group, it is also basically assumed that the components of relativistic energy-momentum can only take rational values. In essence, the main scheme of this new mathematical axiomatic approach to fundamental laws of nature is as follows. First based on the assumption of rationality of D-momentum, by linearization (along with a parameterization procedure) of the Lorentz invariant energy-momentum quadratic relation, a unique set of Lorentz invariant systems of homogeneous linear equations (with matrix formalisms compatible with certain Clifford, and symmetric algebras) is derived. Then by first quantization (followed by a basic procedure of minimal coupling to space-time geometry) of these determined systems of linear equations, a set of two classes of general covariant massive (tensor) field equations (with matrix formalisms compatible with certain Clifford, and Weyl algebras) is derived uniquely as well. Each class of the derived general covariant field equations also includes a definite form of torsion field appeared as generator of the corresponding field’ invariant mass. In addition, it is shown that the (1+3)-dimensional cases of two classes of derived field equations represent a new general covariant massive formalism of bispinor fields of spin-2, and spin-1 particles, respectively. In fact, these uniquely determined bispinor fields represent a unique set of new generalized massive forms of the laws governing the fundamental forces of nature, including the Einstein (gravitational), Maxwell (electromagnetic) and Yang-Mills (nuclear) field equations. Moreover, it is also shown that the (1+2)-dimensional cases of two classes of these field equations represent (asymptotically) a new general covariant massive formalism of bispinor fields of spin-3/2 and spin-1/2 particles, corresponding to the Dirac and Rarita–Schwinger equations. -/- As a particular consequence, it is shown that a certain massive formalism of general relativity – with a definite form of torsion field appeared originally as the generator of gravitational field’s invariant mass – is obtained only by first quantization (followed by a basic procedure of minimal coupling to space-time geometry) of a certain set of special relativistic algebraic matrix equations. It has been also proved that Lagrangian densities specified for the originally derived new massive forms of the Maxwell, Yang-Mills and Dirac field equations, are also gauge invariant, where the invariant mass of each field is generated solely by the corresponding torsion field. In addition, in agreement with recent astronomical data, a new form of massive boson is identified (corresponding to U(1) gauge group) with invariant mass: m_γ ≈ 1.47069×10^-41 kg, generated by a coupled torsion field of the background space-time geometry. -/- Moreover, based on the definite mathematical formalism of this axiomatic approach, along with the C, P and T symmetries (represented basically by the corresponding quantum operators) of the fundamentally derived field equations, it has been concluded that the universe could be realized solely with the (1+2) and (1+3)-dimensional space-times (where this conclusion, in particular, is based on the T-symmetry of these equations). It is shown that CPT is the only combined form of C, P, and T symmetries of interacting fields. In addition, on the basis of these discrete symmetries of derived field equations, it has been also shown that only left-handed particle fields (along with their complementary right-handed fields) could be coupled to the corresponding (any) source currents. Furthermore, it has been shown that the metric of background space-time is diagonalized for the uniquely derived fermion field equations (defined and expressed solely in (1+2)-dimensional space-time), where this property generates a certain set of additional symmetries corresponding uniquely to the "SU(2)_L x U(2)_R" symmetry group for spin-1/2 fermion fields (representing “1+3” generations of four fermions, including a group of eight leptons and a group of eight quarks), and also the "SU(2)_L x U(2)_R" and "SU(3)" gauge symmetry groups for spin-1 boson fields coupled to the spin-1/2 fermionic source currents. Hence, along with the known elementary particles, eight new elementary particles, including four new charge-less right-handed spin-1/2 fermions (including two leptons and two quarks), a spin-3/2 fermion, and also three new spin-1 (massive) bosons are predicted uniquely by this axiomatic approach. As a particular result, based on the definite formulation of the derived Maxwell (and Yang-Mills) field equations, it has been also concluded that magnetic monopoles could not exist in nature. -/- Comments: 99 Pages. A summary of a submitted and accepted research project (On "Foundations of Physics"), Ramin Zahedi, Japan, 2012 - 2015. -/- Invited and Presented Research Article at: The 4th International Conference on New Frontiers in Physics ICNFP2015, Europe (CERN), (https://indico.cern.ch/e/icnfp2015); The 2016 SIAM International Conference on Mathematical Aspects of Materials Science, Philadelphia, USA, (https://www.siam.org/meetings/ms16/); The 17th International Conference on Quantum Foundations: Quantum and Beyond, International Centre for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering and Cognitive Sciences ( ICMM), Linnaeus University, Sweden, 2016, (https://lnu.se/en/qb/); The 2016 International Conference on Algebraic Geometry and Mathematical Physics (AGMP 2016), University of Tromsø, Norway, (https://site.uit.no/); International Conference on Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Symmetries and Quantum Gravity (II), XXXVII Max Born International Symposium, Wroclaw University, Poland, 2016, (http://ift.uni.wroc.pl/~mborn37/); 2016 GRavitational-wave Astronomy International Conference (Meeting) in Paris, The Institute d’Astrophysique de Paris (IAP), The University of Paris VI - Sorbonne University, CNRS, LERU, EUA, France, 2016, (Supported by the European Union's Seventh Framework Program: FP7/PEOPLE-2011-CIG); The 22nd Internnational Australian Institute of Physics Congress (AIP), University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2016, (http://appc-aip2016.org.au/); The 21st International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Columbia University, New York, USA, 2016, (http://www.gr21.org/). -/- Acknowledgements: Special thanks are extended to Prof. and Academician Vitaly L. Ginzburg (Russia), Prof. and Academician Dmitry V. Shirkov (Russia), Prof. Leonid A . Shelepin (Russia), Prof. Vladimir Ya. Fainberg (Russia), Prof. Wolfgang Rindler (USA), Prof. Roman W. Jackiw (USA), Prof. Roger Penrose (UK), Prof. Steven Weinberg (USA), Prof. Ezra T. Newman (USA), Prof. Graham Jameson (UK), Prof. Sergey A. Reshetnjak (Russia), Prof. Sir Michael Atiyah (UK) (who, in particular, kindly encouraged me to continue this work as a new unorthodox (primary) mathematical approach to fundamental physics), and many others for their support and valuable guidance during my studies and research. -/- External URLs of the Article (Including updated versions): https://inspirehep.net/record/1387680/, https://indico.cern.ch/event/344173/session/22/contribution/422/attachments/1140145/1646101/R.a.Zahe di--OnDiscretePhysics-Jan.2015-signed.pdf, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1980381/, https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/TDS-MACS/hal-01476703 , http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2115/59279/. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZCHTP. (shrink)

In the philosophical literature on Yang-Mills theories, field formulations are taken to have more structure and to be local, while curve-based formulations are taken to have less structure and to be nonlocal. I formalize the notion of locality at issue and show that theories with less structure are nonlocal. However, the amount of structure had by some formulation is independent of whether it uses fields or curves. The relevant difference in structure is not a difference in set-theoretic structure. Rather, it (...) is a difference in the structure of the category of models of the theory. (shrink)

Much recent philosophy of physics has investigated the process of symmetry breaking. Here, I critically assess the alleged symmetry restoration at the fundamental scale. I draw attention to the contingency that gauge symmetries exhibit, that is, the fact that they have been chosen from an infinite space of possibilities. I appeal to this feature of group theory to argue that any metaphysical account of fundamental laws that expects symmetry restoration up to the fundamental level is not fully satisfactory. This is (...) a symmetry argument in line with Curie’s first principle. Further, I argue that this same feature of group theory helps to explain the ‘unreasonable’ effectiveness of mathematics in physics, and that it reduces the philosophical significance that has been attributed to the objectivity of gauge symmetries. (shrink)

A classic result in the foundations of Yang-Mills theory, due to J. W. Barrett ["Holonomy and Path Structures in General Relativity and Yang-Mills Theory." Int. J. Th. Phys. 30, ], establishes that given a "generalized" holonomy map from the space of piece-wise smooth, closed curves based at some point of a manifold to a Lie group, there exists a principal bundle with that group as structure group and a principal connection on that bundle such that the holonomy map corresponds to (...) the holonomies of that connection. Barrett also provided one sense in which this "recovery theorem" yields a unique bundle, up to isomorphism. Here we show that something stronger is true: with an appropriate definition of isomorphism between generalized holonomy maps, there is an equivalence of categories between the category whose objects are generalized holonomy maps on a smooth, connected manifold and whose arrows are holonomy isomorphisms, and the category whose objects are principal connections on principal bundles over a smooth, connected manifold. This result clarifies, and somewhat improves upon, the sense of "unique recovery" in Barrett's theorems; it also makes precise a sense in which there is no loss of structure involved in moving from a principal bundle formulation of Yang-Mills theory to a holonomy, or "loop", formulation. (shrink)

Philosophers of physics and physicists have long been intrigued by the analogies and disanalogies between gravitational theories and gauge theories. Indeed, repeated attempts to collapse these disanalogies have made us acutely aware that there are fairly general obstacles to doing so. Nonetheless, there is a special case space-time dimensions) in which gravity is often claimed to be identical to a gauge theory. I subject this claim to philosophical scrutiny in this article. In particular, I analyse how the standard disanalogies can (...) be overcome in dimensions, and consider whether really licenses the interpretation of gravity as a gauge theory. Our conceptual analysis reveals more subtle disanalogies between gravity and gauge, and connects these to interpretive issues in classical and quantum gravity. 1 Introduction1.1 Motivation1.2 Prospectus2 Disanalogies3 Three-dimensional gravity and gauge3.1 gravity3.2 Chern–Simons3.2.1 Cartan geometry3.2.2 Overcoming obst-gauge via Cartan connections3.3 Disanalogies collapsed4 Two More Disanalogies4.1 What about the symmetries?4.2 The phase spaces of the two theories5 Summary and Conclusion. (shrink)

This article investigates and resolves the question whether gauge symmetry can display analogs of the famous Galileo’s ship scenario. In doing so, it builds on and clarifies the work of Greaves and Wallace on this subject.

I articulate and discuss a geometrical interpretation of Yang–Mills theory. Analogies and disanalogies between Yang–Mills theory and general relativity are also considered.

I consider two usages of the expression "gauge theory". On one, a gauge theory is a theory with excess structure; on the other, a gauge theory is any theory appropriately related to classical electromagnetism. I make precise one sense in which one formulation of electromagnetism, the paradigmatic gauge theory on both usages, may be understood to have excess structure, and then argue that gauge theories on the second usage, including Yang-Mills theory and general relativity, do not generally have excess structure (...) in this sense. (shrink)

We unify three approaches within the vast body of gauge-theory research that have independently developed distinct representations of a geometrical surface-like structure underlying the vector-potential. The three approaches that we unify are: those who use the compactified dimensions of Kaluza–Klein theory, those who use Grassmannian models models) to represent gauge fields, and those who use a hidden spatial metric to replace the gauge fields. In this paper we identify a correspondence between the geometrical representations of the three schools. Each school (...) was mostly independently developed, does not compete with other schools, and attempts to isolate the gauge-invariant geometrical surface-like structures that are responsible for the resulting physics. By providing a mapping between geometrical representations, we hope physicists can now isolate representation-dependent physics from gauge-invariant physical results and share results between each school. We provide visual examples of the geometrical relationships between each school for \\) electric and magnetic fields. We highlight a first new result: in all three representations a static electric field has a hidden gauge-invariant time dependent surface that is underlying the vector potential. (shrink)

Aharonov and Bohm showed that, far from being merely a mathematical tool, the vector potential \ can have a microphysical effect even when irrotational, in which case the magnetic field is null. Still, at first sight there is something weird about this situation. Do we have to admit a new force? I argue that there is no paradox in the potentials-formulation of electrodynamics, for it shows that, while “\” represents a vanishing magnetic field, it alters the motion of charged matter (...) dragged by the electric field. (shrink)

The discovery of the Higgs particle required a signal of 5σ significance. The rigid application of that condition is a convention that disregards more specific aspects of the given experiment. In particular, it does not account for the characteristics of the look elsewhere effect in the individual experimental context. The paper relates this aspect of data analysis to the question as to what extent theoretical reasoning should be admitted to play a role in the assessment of the significance of empirical (...) data. (shrink)

In this paper, we will analyse the superloop space formalism for a four dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory in deformed superspace. We will deform the \ superspace by imposing imposing non-anticommutativity. This non-anticommutative deformation of the superspace will break half the supersymmetry of the original theory. So, this theory will have \ supersymmetry. We will analyse the superloop space duality for this deformed supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory using the \ superspace formalism. We will demonstrate that the sources in the original theory will (...) become monopoles in the dual theory, and the monopoles in the original theory will become sources in the dual theory. (shrink)

This paper looks at the nature of idealizations and representational structures appealed to in the context of the fractional quantum Hall effect, specifically, with respect to the emergence of anyons and fractional statistics. Drawing on an analogy with the Aharonov–Bohm effect, it is suggested that the standard approach to the effects— the topological approach to fractional statistics—relies essentially on problematic idealizations that need to be revised in order for the theory to be explanatory. An alternative geometric approach is outlined and (...) endorsed. Roles for idealizations in science, as well as consequences for the debate revolving around so-called essential idealizations, are discussed. (shrink)

Rovelli’s “Why Gauge?” offers a parable to show that gauge-dependent quantities have a modal and relational physical significance. We subject the morals of this parable to philosophical scrutiny and argue that, while Rovelli’s main point stands, there are important disanalogies between his parable and Yang-Mills type gauge theory.

It is shown in the present paper that the transformation relating a parallel transported vector in a Weyl space to the original one is the product of a multiplicative gauge transformation and a proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation. Such a Lorentz transformation admits a spinor representation, which is obtained and used to deduce the transportation properties of a Weyl spinor, which are then expressed in terms of a composite gauge group defined as the product of a multiplicative gauge group and the (...) spinor group. These properties render a spinor amenable to its treatment as a particle coupled to a multidimensional gauge field in the framework of the Kaluza–Klein formulation extended to multidimensional gauge fields. In this framework, a fiber bundle is constructed with a horizontal, base space and a vertical, gauge space, which is a Lie group manifold, termed its structure group. For the present, the base is the Minkowski spacetime and the vertical space is the composite gauge group mentioned above. The fiber bundle is equipped with a Riemannian structure, which is used to obtain the classical description of motion of a spinor. In its classical picture, a Weyl spinor is found to behave as a spinning charged particle in translational motion. The corresponding quantum description is deduced from the Klein–Gordon equation in the Riemann spaces obtained by the methods of path-integration. This equation in the present fiber bundle reduces to the equation for a Weyl spinor, which is close to but differs somewhat from the squared Dirac equation. (shrink)

Why do the fundamental forces of nature (i.e., the forces that appear to cause all the movements and interactions in the universe) manifest in the way, shape, and form that they do? This is one of the greatest ontological questions that science can investigate. In this article, we are going to consider this crucial question (and relevant issues) via a new axiomatic mathematical formalism. -/- In Part I (pp. 1-10) of this article we provide a general overview (and analysis) of (...) the basic properties of a number of current notable discontinuous approaches to fundamental physics. -/- In Part II (the main part, pp.11-99, Ref. [37]) of this article, as a new mathematical approach to origin of the laws of nature, using a new basic algebraic axiomatic (matrix) formalism based on the ring theory and Clifford algebras (presented in Sec.2), “it is shown that certain mathematical forms of fundamental laws of nature, including laws governing the fundamental forces of nature (represented by a set of two definite classes of general covariant massive field equations, with new matrix formalisms), are derived uniquely from only a very few axioms”; where in agreement with the rational Lorentz group, it is also basically assumed that the components of relativistic energy-momentum can only take rational values. In essence, the main scheme of this new mathematical axiomatic approach to fundamental laws of nature is as follows. First based on the assumption of rationality of D-momentum, by linearization (along with a parameterization procedure) of the Lorentz invariant energy-momentum quadratic relation, a unique set of Lorentz invariant systems of homogeneous linear equations (with matrix formalisms compatible with certain Clifford, and symmetric algebras) is derived. Then by first quantization (followed by a basic procedure of minimal coupling to space-time geometry) of these determined systems of linear equations, a set of two classes of general covariant massive (tensor) field equations (with matrix formalisms compatible with certain Clifford, and Weyl algebras) is derived uniquely as well. Each class of the derived general covariant field equations also includes a definite form of torsion field appeared as generator of the corresponding field’ invariant mass. In addition, it is shown that the (1+3)-dimensional cases of two classes of derived field equations represent a new general covariant massive formalism of bispinor fields of spin-2, and spin-1 particles, respectively. In fact, these uniquely determined bispinor fields represent a unique set of new generalized massive forms of the laws governing the fundamental forces of nature, including the Einstein (gravitational), Maxwell (electromagnetic) and Yang-Mills (nuclear) field equations. Moreover, it is also shown that the (1+2)-dimensional cases of two classes of these field equations represent (asymptotically) a new general covariant massive formalism of bispinor fields of spin-3/2 and spin-1/2 particles, corresponding to the Dirac and Rarita–Schwinger equations. -/- As a particular consequence, it is shown that a certain massive formalism of general relativity – with a definite form of torsion field appeared originally as the generator of gravitational field’s invariant mass – is obtained only by first quantization (followed by a basic procedure of minimal coupling to space-time geometry) of a certain set of special relativistic algebraic matrix equations. It has been also proved that Lagrangian densities specified for the originally derived new massive forms of the Maxwell, Yang-Mills and Dirac field equations, are also gauge invariant, where the invariant mass of each field is generated solely by the corresponding torsion field. In addition, in agreement with recent astronomical data, a new form of massive boson is identified (corresponding to U(1) gauge group) with invariant mass: m_γ ≈ 4.90571×10^-50 kg, generated by a coupled torsion field of the background space-time geometry. -/- Moreover, based on the definite mathematical formalism of this axiomatic approach, along with the C, P and T symmetries (represented basically by the corresponding quantum operators) of the fundamentally derived field equations, it has been concluded that the universe could be realized solely with the (1+2) and (1+3)-dimensional space-times (where this conclusion, in particular, is based on the T-symmetry of these equations). It is shown that CPT is the only combined form of C, P, and T symmetries of interacting fields. In addition, on the basis of these discrete symmetries of derived field equations, it has been also shown that only left-handed particle fields (along with their complementary right-handed fields) could be coupled to the corresponding (any) source currents. Furthermore, it has been shown that the metric of background space-time is diagonalized for the uniquely derived fermion field equations (defined and expressed solely in (1+2)-dimensional space-time), where this property generates a certain set of additional symmetries corresponding uniquely to the "SU(2)_L x U(2)_R" symmetry group for spin-1/2 fermion fields (representing “1+3” generations of four fermions, including a group of eight leptons and a group of eight quarks), and also the "SU(2)_L x U(2)_R" and "SU(3)" gauge symmetry groups for spin-1 boson fields coupled to the spin-1/2 fermionic source currents. Hence, along with the known elementary particles, eight new elementary particles, including four new charge-less right-handed spin-1/2 fermions (including two leptons and two quarks), a spin-3/2 fermion, and also three new spin-1 (massive) bosons are predicted uniquely by this axiomatic approach. As a particular result, based on the definite formulation of the derived Maxwell (and Yang-Mills) field equations, it has been also concluded that magnetic monopoles could not exist in nature. -/- Comments: 99 Pages. A summary of a submitted and accepted research project (On "Foundations of Physics"), Ramin Zahedi, Japan, 2012 - 2015. -/- Invited and Presented Research Article at: The 4th International Conference on New Frontiers in Physics ICNFP2015, Europe (CERN), (https://indico.cern.ch/e/icnfp2015); The 2016 SIAM International Conference on Mathematical Aspects of Materials Science, Philadelphia, USA, (https://www.siam.org/meetings/ms16/); The 17th International Conference on Quantum Foundations: Quantum and Beyond, International Centre for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering and Cognitive Sciences ( ICMM), Linnaeus University, Sweden, 2016, (https://lnu.se/en/qb/); The 2016 International Conference on Algebraic Geometry and Mathematical Physics (AGMP 2016), University of Tromsø, Norway, (https://site.uit.no/); International Conference on Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Symmetries and Quantum Gravity (II), XXXVII Max Born International Symposium, Wroclaw University, Poland, 2016, (http://ift.uni.wroc.pl/~mborn37/); 2016 GRavitational-wave Astronomy International Conference (Meeting) in Paris, The Institute d’Astrophysique de Paris (IAP), The University of Paris VI - Sorbonne University, CNRS, LERU, EUA, France, 2016, (Supported by the European Union's Seventh Framework Program: FP7/PEOPLE-2011-CIG); The 22nd Internnational Australian Institute of Physics Congress (AIP), University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2016, (http://appc-aip2016.org.au/); The 21st International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Columbia University, New York, USA, 2016, (http://www.gr21.org/). -/- Acknowledgements: Special thanks are extended to Prof. and Academician Vitaly L. Ginzburg (Russia), Prof. and Academician Dmitry V. Shirkov (Russia), Prof. Leonid A . Shelepin (Russia), Prof. Vladimir Ya. Fainberg (Russia), Prof. Wolfgang Rindler (USA), Prof. Roman W. Jackiw (USA), Prof. Roger Penrose (UK), Prof. Steven Weinberg (USA), Prof. Ezra T. Newman (USA), Prof. Graham Jameson (UK), Prof. Sergey A. Reshetnjak (Russia), Prof. Sir Michael Atiyah (UK) (who, in particular, kindly encouraged me to continue this work as a new unorthodox (primary) mathematical approach to fundamental physics), and many others for their support and valuable guidance during my studies and research. -/- External URLs of the Article (Including updated versions): https://inspirehep.net/record/1387680/, https://indico.cern.ch/event/344173/session/22/contribution/422/attachments/1140145/1646101/R.a.Zahe di--OnDiscretePhysics-Jan.2015-signed.pdf, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1980381/, https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/TDS-MACS/hal-01476703 , http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2115/59279/. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PQGA9 . (shrink)