Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T10:17:23.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Finite Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James D. Fraser
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The orthodox characterization of spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) in statistical mechanics appeals to novel properties of systems with infinite degrees of freedom, namely, the existence of multiple equilibrium states. This raises the same puzzles about the status of the thermodynamic limit fueling recent debates about phase transitions. I argue that there are prospects of explaining the success of the standard approach to SSB in terms of the properties of large finite systems. Consequently, despite initial appearances, the need to account for SSB phenomena does not offer decisive support to claims about the explanatory and representational indispensability of the thermodynamic limit.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 585 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Aernout Van Enter, Klaas Landsman, and Hal Tasaki for useful correspondence and three anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions of the article. Thanks also to Steven French and Laura Ruetsche for crucial encouragement.

References

Anderson, Philip W. 1972. “More Is Different.” Science 177 (4047): 393–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, Philip W. 1997. Concepts in Solids: Lectures on the Theory of Solids. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert. 2005. “Critical Phenomena and Breaking Drops: Infinite Idealizations in Physics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36:225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert 2010. “On the Explanatory Role of Mathematics in Empirical Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binney, J. J., Dowrick, N. J., Fisher, A. J., and Newman, M. E. J.. 1992. The Theory of Critical Phenomena: An Introduction to the Renormalization Group. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bratteli, Ola, and Robinson, Derek. 2003. Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics. Vol. 2. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy. 2011. “Less Is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled.” Foundations of Physics 41 (6): 1065–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, Craig, and Menon, Tarun. 2013. “Turn and Face the Strange … Ch-ch-changes: Philosophical Questions Raised by Phase Transitions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, ed. Batterman, Robert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Castellani, Elena. 2003. “On the Meaning of Symmetry Breaking.” In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, ed. Brading, Katherine and Castellani, Elena. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earman, John. 2004. “Curie’s Principle and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2–3): 173–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emch, Gerard G., and Lui, Chuang. 2005. “Explaining Quantum Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36:137–63.Google Scholar
Fraser, James D. 2015. “Essential Idealisations and the Nature of Scientific Explanation.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Friederich, Simon. 2013. “Gauge Symmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories: In Search of Clarification.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (2): 157–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgii, Hans-Otto. 1988. Gibbs Measures and Phase Transitions. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindermann, Ross, and Snell, Laurie. 1980. Markov Random Fields and Their Application. Providence, RI: American Mathematics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koma, Tohru, and Tasaki, Hal. 1994. “Symmetry Breaking and Finite-Size Effects in Quantum Many-Body Systems.” Journal of Statistical Physics 76 (3–4): 745–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsman, N. P. 2013. “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Systems: Emergence or Reduction?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 44 (4): 379–94.Google Scholar
Lebowitz, Joel L. 1999. “Statistical Mechanics: A Selective Review of Two Central Issues.” Reviews of Modern Physics 71:346–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lui, Chuang. 2003. “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Chance in a Classical World.” Philosophy of Science 70 (3): 590–608.Google Scholar
Mainwood, Paul. 2006. “More Is Different? Emergent Properties in Physics.” PhilSci, University of Pittsburgh. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8339/.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1985. “Galilean Idealization.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16 (3): 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John D. 2012. “Approximation and Idealization: Why the Difference Matters.” Philosophy of Science 79 (2): 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura. 2003. “A Matter of Degree: Putting Unitary Inequivalence to Work.” Philosophy of Science 70 (5): 1329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura 2011. Interpreting Quantum Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shech, Elay. 2013. “What Is the Paradox of Phase Transitions?” Philosophy of Science 80 (5): 1170–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar