Target space ≠ space

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 59:81-88 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 107,191

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-08-31

Downloads
212 (#128,085)

6 months
25 (#140,167)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nick Huggett
University of Illinois, Chicago

Citations of this work

Duality and Ontology.Baptiste Le Bihan & James Read - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13:e12555.
Priority Monism Beyond Spacetime.Baptiste Le Bihan - 2018 - Metaphysica 19 (1):95-111.
Composing Spacetime.Sam Baron & Baptiste Le Bihan - 2022 - Journal of Philosophy 119 (1):33-54.
Have we Lost Spacetime on the Way? Narrowing the Gap between General Relativity and Quantum Gravity.Baptiste Le Bihan & Niels Siegbert Linnemann - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 65 (C):112-121.

View all 42 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Saving the phenomena.James Bogen & James Woodward - 1988 - Philosophical Review 97 (3):303-352.
of Modern Physics.Nick Huggett & Christian Wuthrich - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44:276-285.
Symmetry in intertheory relations.M. L. G. Redhead - 1975 - Synthese 32 (1-2):77 - 112.
On the reality of gauge potentials.Richard Healey - 2001 - Philosophy of Science 68 (4):432-455.

View all 11 references / Add more references