Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:55:24.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gauge Invariance, Cauchy Problem, Indeterminism, and Symmetry Breaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Chuang Liu
Chuang Liu*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concepts in the title refer to properties of physical theories (which are given, in this paper, a model-theoretic formulation and appropriate idealizations) and this paper investigates their nature and relations. The first three concepts, especially gauge invariance and indeterminism, have been widely discussed in connection to spacetime theories and the hole argument. Since the gauge invariance principle is at the crux of the issue, this paper aims at clarifying the nature of gauge invariance (either in general or as general covariance). I first explore the following chain of relations: gauge invariance => the conservation laws => the Cauchy problem => indeterminism. Then I discuss gauge invariance in light of our understanding of the above relations and the possibility of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Type
Space-time Issues
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1996. , 1996 , pp. S71 - S79
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

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

†

I would like to thank John Norton for discussions on the nature of gauge principles. I am also indebted to Richard Healey and J. B. Kennedy for discussion on matters related to this paper.

‡

Department of Philosophy, 330 Griffin-Floyd Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.

References

Adler, R., Bazin, M. and Schiffer, M. (1965), Introduction to General Relativity. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Aharonov, Y. and Bohm, D. (1959), “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory”, Physical Review 115: 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, A. (1994), “What is Spacetime, if not a Substance?” in Majer, U. and Schmitt, H-J. (eds.), Semantical Aspects of Spacetime Theories. Mannheim: BI-Wissenschaftsverlag, pp. 41–51.Google Scholar
Berestetskii, V. B., Lifshitz, E. M. and Pitaevskii, L. P. (1971), Relativistic Quantum Theory. Part I, London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Brighouse, C. (1994), Spacetime and Holes. in Hull, D., Forbes, M. and Burian, R. M. (eds.), PSA 1994, Vol. 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 117–125.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1989), “The Hole Truth”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1986), A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1989), World Enough and Space-Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. and Norton, J. (1987), “What Price Space-Time Substantivalism? The Hole Story”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38: 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastrup, H. A. (1987), “The Contributions of Emmy Noether, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie to the Modern Concept of Symmetries in Physical Systems”, in Doncel, M. G. et al. (eds.), Symmetries in Physics (1600–1980). Servei de Publications, UAB.Google Scholar
Hawking, S. W. and Ellis, G. F. R. (1973), The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, & Lifshitz, , (1975) The Classical Theory of Fields. (Translated from the 6th rev. ed.) London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Liu, C. (1994), “The Aharonov-Bohm Effect and the Reality of Wave Packets”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 977–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C. (1996), “Realism and Spacetime: Of Arguments against Metaphysical Realism and Manifold Realism”, (forthcoming in Philosophia Naturalis 33).Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1990), “Substances and Space-Time: What Aristotle Would Have Said to Einstein”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21: 531–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. (1989), “Coordinates and Covariance: Einstein's View of Space-Time and the Modern View”, Foundation of Physics 19: 1215–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. (1992), “The Physical Content of General Covariance”, in Eisenstaedt, J. & Kox, A. J. (eds.), Studies in the History of General Relativity. Boston: Birkhäuser, pp. 281–315.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (1993), “General Covariance and the Foundations of General Relativity”, Reports on Progress in Physics 56: 791–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. (1994), “Why Geometry is not Conventional: The Verdict of Covariance Principles”, in Majer, U. and Schmitt, H-J. (eds.), Semantical Aspects of Spacetime Theories. Mannheim: BI-Wissenschaftsverlag, pp. 159–167.Google Scholar
Peshkin, M. and Tonomura, A. (eds.), (1989), The Aharonov-Bohm Effect. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynasiewicz, R. (1994), “The Lessons of The Hole Arguments”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 407–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiff, L. (1968), Quantum Mechanics. 3rd ed., New York: McGrill-Hill.Google Scholar
Wald, R. (1984), General Relativity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1972), Gravitation and Cosmology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar