Whence the Effectiveness of Effective Field Theories?

Franklin, Alexander

doi:10.1093/bjps/axy050

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 Consequently, the parameters g φ (Λ), g φψ (Λ), g ψ (Λ) of the full theory (where g φψ (Λ) correspond to operators that couple φ and ψ) do constitute a more fundamental parametrization of lightfield amplitudes than do the parameters g φ (Λ) of the light field EFT. 22 Thus, the progression from a more to a less fundamental parametrization occurs not in the flow to smaller values of Λ, but in the projection of the RG flow of the 21 Within the philosophical literature, the subjects of reduction and emergence as they relate to renormalization and effective field theory have been examined at length in the work of Butterfield, Hartmann, Castellani, Bain, Crowther, Huggett, Williams, Franklin, and others (Butterfield, 2014), (Hartmann, 2001), (Castellani, 2002), (Bain, 2013), (Crowther, 2015), (Huggett and Weingard, 1995), (Williams, 2017), (Franklin, 2017). Recent discussion concerning the general methodology of reduction in physics can be found in Butterfield, Crowther, Fletcher, and Rosaler (Butterfield, 2011a), (Butterfield, 2011b), (Butterfield and Bouatta, 2012), (Butterfield, 2014), (Fletcher, 2015), (Crowther, 2015), (Crowther, 2017), (Rosaler, 2015), (Rosaler, 2017), (Rosaler, 2018), (Rosaler, 2013).…”

Section: Objection 1: Aren't Wilsonian Rg Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the philosophical literature, the subjects of reduction and emergence as they relate to renormalization and effective field theory have been examined at length in the work ofButterfield, Hartmann, Castellani, Bain, Crowther, Huggett, Williams, Franklin, and others (Butterfield, 2014),(Hartmann, 2001),(Castellani, 2002),(Bain, 2013),(Crowther, 2015),(Huggett and Weingard, 1995),(Williams, 2017),(Franklin, 2017). Recent discussion concerning the general methodology of reduction in physics can be found inButterfield, Crowther, Fletcher, and Rosaler (Butterfield, 2011a),(Butterfield, 2011b),(Butterfield and Bouatta, 2012),(Butterfield, 2014),(Fletcher, 2015),(Crowther, 2015),(Crowther, 2017),(Rosaler, 2015),(Rosaler, 2017),(Rosaler, 2018),(Rosaler, 2013).22 Note that the parameters g φ (Λ) of the light field EFT differ from the light field parameters g φ (Λ) of the full theory since they are subject to so-called "matching corrections" that reflect the influence of heavy fields that have been integrated out.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Naturalness, Wilsonian renormalization, and “fundamental parameters” in quantum field theory

Rosaler

Harlander

2019

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Higgs naturalness principle served as the basis for the so far failed prediction that signatures of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) would be discovered at the LHC. One influential formulation of the principle, which prohibits fine tuning of bare Standard Model (SM) parameters, rests on the assumption that a particular set of values for these parameters constitute the "fundamental parameters" of the theory, and serve to mathematically define the theory. On the other hand, an old argument by Wetterich suggests that fine tuning of bare parameters merely reflects an arbitrary, inconvenient choice of expansion parameters and that the choice of parameters in an EFT is therefore arbitrary. We argue that these two interpretations of Higgs fine tuning reflect distinct ways of formulating and interpreting effective field theories (EFTs) within the Wilsonian framework: the first takes an EFT to be defined by a single set of physical, fundamental bare parameters, while the second takes a Wilsonian EFT to be defined instead by a whole Wilsonian renormalization group (RG) trajectory, associated with a one-parameter class of physically equivalent parametrizations. From this latter perspective, no single parametrization constitutes the physically correct, fundamental parametrization of the theory, and the delicate cancellation between bare Higgs mass and quantum corrections appears as an eliminable artifact of the arbitrary, unphysical reference scale with respect to which the physical amplitudes of the theory are parametrized. While the notion of fundamental parameters is well motivated in the context of condensed matter field theory, we explain why it may be superfluous in the context of high energy physics.

show abstract

Section: Objection 1: Aren't Wilsonian Rg Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Naturalness, Wilsonian renormalization, and “fundamental parameters” in quantum field theory

Rosaler

Harlander

2019

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 See Read (2019) for more on this kind of explanation. Note that it is plausible that such reasoning could also be deployed in the context of effective field theory (see Franklin 2020), in which it is claimed that the ultimate explanation as to why certain effective field theories can be constructed is that the coupling parameters in the associated more fundamental theories scale in the right way. Given the foregoing, it is clear that this need not be the ultimate explanation-for one may, in turn, appeal to certain string-theoretic geometrical properties in order to account for such field theories.…”

Section: Prediction and Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The landscape and the multiverse: What’s the problem?

Read

Bihan

2021

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a candidate theory of quantum gravity, the popularity of string theory has waxed and waned over the past four decades. One current source of scepticism is that the theory can be used to derive, depending upon the input geometrical assumptions that one makes, a vast range of different quantum field theories, giving rise to the so-called landscape problem. One apparent way to address the landscape problem is to posit the existence of a multiverse; this, however, has in turn drawn heightened attention to questions regarding the empirical testability and predictivity of string theory. We argue first that the landscape problem relies on dubious assumptions and does not motivate a multiverse hypothesis. Nevertheless, we then show that the multiverse hypothesis is scientifically legitimate and could be coupled to string theory for other empirical reasons. Looking at various cosmological approaches, we offer an empirical criterion to assess the scientific status of multiverse hypotheses.

show abstract

“…This point of view has also been advocated in the work of Tim Morris on the non-perturbative renormalization group, although it has received little attention in the scientific or philosophical literature on naturalness or in the philosophical literature on the foundations of quantum field theory [19,20]. 9 Its implications for naturalness are explored in detail in [23].…”

Section: "Quotient-ing Over" the Wilsonian Rg Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To see this, note that from the formula what matters most directly to the values of correlation functions-which ultimately determine the physical predictions of an EFT-is the dependence of path integral Z[J] on the external source fields J. Moreover, the formula (9) shows that this dependence remains unaltered irrespective of the chosen value of Λ along the theory's RG trajectory.…”

Section: Interpretation Of the Path Integral And Wilsonian Rgmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dogmas of Effective Field Theory: Scheme Dependence, Fundamental Parameters, and the Many Faces of the Higgs Naturalness Principle

Rosaler

2021

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The earliest formulation of the Higgs naturalness argument has been criticized on the grounds that it relies on a particular cutoff-based regularization scheme. One response to this criticism has been to circumvent the worry by reformulating the naturalness argument in terms of a renormalized, regulator-independent parametrization. An alternative response is to deny that regulator dependence poses a problem for the naturalness argument, because nature itself furnishes a particular, physically correct regulator for any effective field theory (EFT) in the form of that EFT’s physical cutoff, together with an associated set of bare parameters that constitute the unique physically preferred “fundamental parameters” of the EFT. Here, I argue that both lines of defense against the initial worry about regulator dependence are flawed. I argue that reformulation of the naturalness argument in terms of renormalized parameters simply trades dependence on a particular regularization scheme for dependence on a particular renormalization scheme, and that one or another form of scheme dependence afflicts all formulations of the Higgs naturalness argument. Concerning the second response, I argue that the grounds for suspending the principle of regularization or renormalization scheme independence in favor of a physically preferred parametrization are thin; the assumption of a physically preferred parametrization, whether in the form of bare “fundamental parameters” or renormalized “physical parameters,” constitutes a theoretical idle wheel in generating the confirmed predictions of established EFTs, which are invariably scheme-independent. I highlight certain features of the alternative understanding of EFTs, and the EFT-based approach to understanding the foundations of QFT, that emerges when one abandons the assumption of a physically preferred parametrization. I explain how this understanding departs from several dogmas concerning the mathematical formulation and physical interpretation of EFTs in high-energy physics.

show abstract

Whence the Effectiveness of Effective Field Theories?

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Naturalness, Wilsonian renormalization, and “fundamental parameters” in quantum field theory

Naturalness, Wilsonian renormalization, and “fundamental parameters” in quantum field theory

The landscape and the multiverse: What’s the problem?

Dogmas of Effective Field Theory: Scheme Dependence, Fundamental Parameters, and the Many Faces of the Higgs Naturalness Principle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About