The role of symmetry in the interpretation of physical theories

Caulton, Adam

doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.08.002

Cited by 30 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A common strategy (see e.g. Caulton 2015;Dirac 1930;Nozick 2001) states that, in order to so explicate the ontology underlying symmetry-related models, one should construct a new theory, trading only in the structures which are invariant across those symmetry-related models. Call this strategy reduction; this invariably involves modifying the syntax (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sophistry about symmetries?

Martens

Read²

2020

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common adage runs that, given a theory manifesting symmetries, the syntax of that theory should be modified in order to construct a new theory, from which symmetry-variant structure of the original theory has been excised. Call this strategy for explicating the underlying ontology of symmetry-related models reduction. Recently, Dewar has proposed an alternative to reduction as a means of articulating the ontology of symmetry-related models-what he calls (external) sophistication, in which the semantics of the original theory is modified, and symmetry-related models of that theory are treated as if they are isomorphic. In this paper, we undertake a critical evaluation of sophistication about symmetries-we find the programme underdeveloped in a number of regards. In addition, we clarify the interplay between sophistication about symmetries, and a separate debate to which Dewar has contributed-viz., that between interpretational versus motivational approaches to symmetry transformations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sophistry about symmetries?

Martens

Read²

2020

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This distinction, between a mathematical and a physical symmetry, was labelled, in Section 2), with the label (Redundant); and in De Haro (2016a: Section 1.1.2.b), as (Physical)-(Redundant). It also roughly corresponds to the distinction, in Caulton (2015), between an 'analytic' and a 'synthetic' symmetry. 19 If the dynamics is deterministic, we can write s(t) = D t,t0 (s(t 0 )) where D t,t0 represents the deterministic dynamics; and then 'preserving the dynamics' is equivalent to the commutation i.e.…”

Section: Symmetries Of Uninterpreted Theories and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A bit more precisely: states would be taken as the union of the orbits for all the symmetries for which the 'Yes' answer is true. For recent work on the debate about (i) and (ii), cf Caulton (2015),Dewar (2016). andWeatherall (2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Schema for Duality, Illustrated by Bosonization

Haro

Butterfield²

2018

Foundations of Mathematics and Physics One Century After Hilbert

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present a schema for describing dualities between physical theories (Sections 2 and 3), and illustrate it in detail with the example of bosonization: a bosonfermion duality in two-dimensional quantum field theory (Sections 4 and 5).The schema develops proposals in De Haro (2016, 2016a): these proposals include construals of notions related to duality, like representation, model, symmetry and interpretation. The aim of the schema is to give a more precise criterion for duality than has so far been considered.The bosonization example, or boson-fermion duality, has the feature of being simple yet rich enough to illustrate the most relevant aspects of our schema, which also apply to more sophisticated dualities. The richness of the example consists, mainly, in its concern with two non-trivial quantum field theories: including massive Thirring-sine-Gordon duality, and non-abelian bosonization.This prompts two comparisons with the recent philosophical literature on dualities:-(a) Unlike the standard cases of duality in quantum field theory and string theory, where only specific simplifying limits of the theories are explicitly known, the bosonfermion duality is known to hold exactly. This exactness can be exhibited explicitly.(b) The bosonization example illustrates both the cases of isomorphic and non-isomorphic models: which we believe the literature on dualities has not so far discussed. 4 We agreed that for our notion, the word 'model' has disadvantages. But note that other words also have disadvantages. For example: 'formulation' connotes that any two formulations of a theory are 'notational variants', i.e. fully equivalent: they say exactly the same thing about the world. But that is far from true for our notion (and this matches the connotations of 'model'): for us, two models of a bare theory are in general not isomorphic, and not in any sense equivalent; and so typically, it is surprising to find two isomorphic models, i.e. to find a duality. Other examples: 'realization', 'instance' and 'instantiation' connote being part of the physical world, as in 'the mechanism/hardware which realizes some specific function/software', or 'the object is an instance/instantiation of the predicate'-which is the misleading connotation (iii) above.Notice that in theoretical physics, the use of model is, roughly, between: (a) our use, and (b) (ii) and (iii) above: e.g. the 'massive Thirring model' or the 'sine-Gordon model'.

show abstract

“…Then we may define η ab by η ab ξ a ζ b : Barrett (2015). 12 For readers who are interested in these controversies, see Friedman (1983), Earman (1989), Saunders (1993), Caulton (2015), Dewar (2017), as well as the papers in Brading and Castellani (2003) and references therein. 13 The primary text for the dynamical approach is Brown (2005); but see also Brown (2001), Brown and Pooley (2006), , and Brown and Read (2018).…”

Section: The Dynamical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

General-Relativistic Covariance

Dewar

2019

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an essay about general covariance, and what it says (or doesn't say) about spacetime structure. After outlining a version of the dynamical approach to spacetime theories, and how it struggles to deal with generally covariant theories, I argue that we should think about the symmetry structure of spacetime rather differently in generallycovariant theories compared to non-generally-covariant theories: namely, as a form of internal rather than external symmetry structure.

show abstract

The role of symmetry in the interpretation of physical theories

Cited by 30 publications

References 27 publications

Sophistry about symmetries?

Sophistry about symmetries?

A Schema for Duality, Illustrated by Bosonization

General-Relativistic Covariance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About