Element contents
Philosophy of Particle Physics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 July 2023
Summary
This Element offers an introduction to selected philosophical issues that arise in contemporary particle physics, aimed at philosophers who have limited prior exposure to quantum field theory. One the one hand, it critically surveys philosophical work on the representation of particles in quantum field theory, the formal machinery and conceptual implications of renormalization and renormalization group methods, and ontological and methodological questions raised by the use of effective field theory techniques in particle physics. On the other, it identifies topics in particle physics that have not yet received philosophical attention and sketches avenues for philosophical analysis of those topics. The primary aim of the Element is to provide philosophers of physics with an entry point into the literature on the philosophy of particle physics and identify interesting directions for future research for students and researchers alike.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009205382Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 24 August 2023
References
Arageorgis, Aristidis, Earman, John, and Ruetsche, Laura. 2003. Fulling non-uniqueness and the Unruh effect: A primer on some aspects of quantum field theory. Philosophy of Science, 70(1):164–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aydemir, Ufuk, Anber, Mohamed M, and Donoghue, John F. 2012. Self-healing of unitarity in effective field theories and the onset of new physics. Physical Review D, 86(1):014025.Google Scholar
Bain, Jonathan. 2013. Effective field theories. In Batterman, Robert W, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, pages 224–254. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, David. 2016. The philosophy of quantum field theory. Oxford Handbooks Online. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/42642/chapter/358144601. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.33.Google Scholar
Baker, David John. 2009. Against field interpretations of quantum field theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(3):585–609.Google Scholar
Barbieri, Riccardo. 2013. Electroweak theory after the first LHC phase. arXiv preprint: 1309.3473.Google Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. 2000. Multiple realizability and universality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51(1):115–145.Google Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. 2001. The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. 2018. Autonomy of theories: An explanatory problem. Noûs, 52(4):858–873.Google Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. 2019. Universality and RG explanations. Perspectives on Science, 27(1):26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. 2021. A Middle Way: A Non-Fundamental Approach to Many-Body Physics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Daniel, Goon, Garrett, Lee, Hayden, and Pimentel, Guilherme L. 2018. Partially massless fields during inflation. Journal of High Energy Physics. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2018)140.Google Scholar
Benfatto, Giuseppe, and Gallavotti, Giovanni. 1995. Renormalization Group. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Blanchard, Thomas. 2020. Explanatory abstraction and the goldilocks problem: Interventionism gets things just right. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71: 633–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, Alexander S. 2017. The state is not abolished, it withers away: How quantum field theory became a theory of scattering. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 60:46–80.Google Scholar
Borrelli, Arianna, and Castellani, Elena. 2019. The practice of naturalness: A historical-philosophical perspective. Foundations of Physics, 49(9):860–878.Google Scholar
Boyd, Nora Mills. 2021. Epistemology of Experimental Physics (Elements in the Philosophy of Physics). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brivio, Ilaria, and Trott, Michael. 2019. The standard model as an effective field theory. Physics Reports, 793:1–98.Google Scholar
Burgess, Cliff. 2021. Introduction to Effective Field Theory: Thinking Effectively about Hierarchies of Scale (1st ed. ). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy. 2011. Less is different: Emergence and reduction reconciled. Foundations of Physics, 41(6):1065–1135.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy. 2014. Reduction, emergence, and renormalization. The Journal of Philosophy, 111(1):5–49.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy, and Bouatta, Nazim. 2015. Renormalization for philosophers. In Bigaj, Tomasz and Wüthrich, Christian (eds.). Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics, volume 104 of Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, pages 437–485. Brill.Google Scholar
Cardy, John. 1996. Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Lu. 2022. Can we “effectivize” spacetime? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science: 75–83.Google Scholar
Clifton, Rob, and Halvorson, Hans. 2001. Entanglement and open systems in algebraic quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 32(1):1–31.Google Scholar
Cohen, Timothy. 2020. As scales become separated: Lectures on effective field theory. arXiv preprint: 1903.03622.Google Scholar
Coleman, Sidney. 1985. Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, Sidney. 2019. Quantum Field Theory: Lectures of Sidney Coleman. World Scientific.Google Scholar
Collins, John C. 1984. Renormalization: An Introduction to Renormalization, the Renormalization Group, and the Operator-Product Expansion. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Contino, Roberto, Falkowski, Adam, Goertz, Florian, Grojean, Christophe, and Riva, Francesco. 2016. On the validity of the effective field theory approach to SM precision tests. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(7):1–26.Google Scholar
Crispino, Luis CB, Higuchi, Atsushi, and Matsas, George EA. 2008. The Unruh effect and its applications. Reviews of Modern Physics, 80(3):787–838.Google Scholar
Davidson, Sacha, Gambino, Paolo, Laine, Mikko, Neubert, Matthias, and Salomon, Christophe. 2020. Effective Field Theory in Particle Physics and Cosmology: Lecture Notes of the Les Houches Summer School: Volume 108, July 2017. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Rham, Claudia, Kundu, Sandipan, Reece, Matthew, Tolley, Andrew J, and Zhou, Shuang-Yong. 2022. Snowmass white paper: UV constraints on IR physics. arXiv preprint: 2203.06805.Google Scholar
Delamotte, Bertrand. 2012. An introduction to the nonperturbative renormalization group. In Schwenk, Achim, Polonyi, Janos (eds.). Renormalization Group and Effective Field Theory Approaches to Many-Body Systems, pages 49–132. Springer.Google Scholar
Dirac, Paul AM. 1933/2005. The Lagrangian in quantum mechanics. In Brown, Laurie M, ed., Feynman’s Thesis: A New Approach to Quantum Theory, pages 111–119. World Scientific.Google Scholar
Duncan, Anthony. 2012. The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earman, John. 2011. The Unruh effect for philosophers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(2):81–97.Google Scholar
Earman, John, and Fraser, Doreen. 2006. Haag’s theorem and its implications for the foundations of quantum field theory. Erkenntnis, 64(3):305–344.Google Scholar
Ellis, John, Murphy, Christopher W, Sanz, Verónica, and You, Tevong. 2018. Updated global SMEFT fit to Higgs, diboson and electroweak data. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(6):1–34.Google Scholar
Esfeld, Michael. 2009. The modal nature of structures in ontic structural realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23(2):179–194.Google Scholar
Feynman, Richard. 1948. Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 20(2):367–387.Google Scholar
Forgione, Marco. 2020. Path integrals and holism. Foundations of Physics, 50(8):799–827.Google Scholar
Franklin-Hall, Laura. 2016. High-level explanation and the interventionist’s “variables problem.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67(2):553–577.Google Scholar
Fraser, Doreen. 2008. The fate of “particles” in quantum field theories with interactions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39(4):841–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Doreen. 2009. Quantum field theory: Underdetermination, inconsistency, and idealization. Philosophy of Science, 76(4):536–567.Google Scholar
Fraser, Doreen. 2011. How to take particle physics seriously: A further defence of axiomatic quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(2):126–135.Google Scholar
Fraser, Doreen. 2021. Particles in quantum field theory. In Knox, Eleanor and Wilson, Alistair, eds., The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Physics, pages 232–336. Routledge.Google Scholar
Fraser, James D. 2018. Renormalization and the formulation of scientific realism. Philosophy of Science, 85(5):1164–1175.Google Scholar
Fraser, James D. 2020. Towards a realist view of quantum field theory. In French, Steven and Saatsi, Juha, eds., Scientific Realism and the Quantum, pages 276–291. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Georgi, Howard. 1993. Effective field theory. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 43(1):209–252.Google Scholar
Giudice, Gian Francesco. 2017. The dawn of the post-naturalness era. arXiv preprint: 1710.07663.Google Scholar
Halvorson, Hans. 2001. Reeh–Schlieder defeats Newton–Wigner: On alternative localization schemes in relativistic quantum field theory. Philosophy of Science, 68(1):111–133.Google Scholar
Halvorson, Hans, and Clifton, Rob. 2002. No place for particles in relativistic quantum theories? Philosophy of Science, 69(1):1–28.Google Scholar
Henning, Brian, Lu, Xiaochuan, and Murayama, Hitoshi. 2016. How to use the standard model effective field theory. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(1):1–97.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Meinard. 2010. Why conceptual rigour matters to philosophy: On the ontological significance of algebraic quantum field theory. Foundations of Physics, 40(9–10):1625–1637.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, Ross, Don, Spurrett, David, and Collier, John. 2007, Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1981. A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48:19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Benjamin W, Quigg, Ch, and Thacker, HB. 1977a. Strength of weak interactions at very high energies and the Higgs boson mass. Physical Review Letters, 38(16):883–885.Google Scholar
Lee, Benjamin W, Quigg, Chris, and Thacker, HB. 1977b. Weak interactions at very high energies: The role of the Higgs-boson mass. Physical Review D, 16(5):1519–1531.Google Scholar
Malament, David. 1996. In defense of dogma: Why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) particles. In Clifton, Rob, ed., Perspectives on Quantum Reality, pages 1–10. Springer.Google Scholar
Manohar, Aneesh. 2020. Introduction to effective field theories. In Davidson, Sacha, Gambino, Paolo, Laine, Mikko, Neubert, Matthias, and Salomon, Christophe, eds., Effective Field Theory in Particle Physics and Cosmology: Lecture Notes of the Les Houches Summer School: Volume 108, July 2017. pages 47–136. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Michael E. 2018. Haag’s theorem, apparent inconsistency, and the empirical adequacy of quantum field theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69(3):801–820.Google Scholar
Mukhanov, Viatcheslav, and Winitzki, Sergei. 2007. Introduction to Quantum Effects in Gravity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Penco, Riccardo. 2020. An introduction to effective field theories. arXiv preprint: 2006.16285.Google Scholar
Peskin, Michael, and Schroeder, Daniel. 1995. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Westview Press.Google Scholar
Petrov, Alexey A, and Blechman, Andrew E. 2016. Effective Field Theories. World Scientific.Google Scholar
Polchinski, Joseph. 1984. Renormalization and effective lagrangians. Nuclear Physics B, 231(2):269–295.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael. 1995. More ado about nothing. Foundations of Physics, 25(1):123–137.Google Scholar
Remmen, Grant N, and Rodd, Nicholas L. 2019. Consistency of the standard model effective field theory. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(12):1–52.Google Scholar
Rivat, Sébastien. 2019. Renormalization scrutinized. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 68:23–39.Google Scholar
Rivat, Sébastien, and Grinbaum, Alexei. 2020. Philosophical foundations of effective field theories. The European Physical Journal A, 56(3):1–10.Google Scholar
Roberts, Bryan W. 2011. Group structural realism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(1):47–69.Google Scholar
Rosaler, Joshua, and Harlander, Robert. 2019. Naturalness, Wilsonian renormalization, and “fundamental parameters” in quantum field theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 66:118–134.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura. 2018. Renormalization group realism: The ascent of pessimism. Philosophy of Science, 85(5):1176–1189.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura. 2020. Perturbing realism. In French, Steven and Saatsi, Juha, eds., Scientific Realism and the Quantum, pages 293–314. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saatsi, Juha. 2022. (In)effective realism. European Journal of Philosophy of Science, 12:1–16.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Matthew D. 2014. Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schweber, Silvan S. 1994. QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shifman, Mikhail. 2012. Advanced Topics in Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streater, Ray F, and Wightman, Arthur S. 1964. PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Strocchi, Franco. 2013. An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swanson, Noel. 2017. A philosopher’s guide to the foundations of quantum field theory. Philosophy Compass, 12(5): e12414.Google Scholar
Swanson, Noel. forthcoming. Philosophy of Quantum Field Theory (Elements in the Philosophy of Physics). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, Peter. 2019. Counterpossible non-vacuity in scientific practice. The Journal of Philosophy, 116(1):32–60.Google Scholar
Wald, Robert M. 1994. Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Steven. 1977. The search for unity: Notes for a history of quantum field theory. Daedalus: Volume 06, 17–35.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Steven. 1983. Why the renormalization group is a good thing. In Guth, Alan, Huang, Kerson, and Jaffe, Robert L, eds., Asymptotic Realms of Physics: Essays in Honor of Francis Low, pages 1–19. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Steven. 1995. The Quantum Theory of Fields, volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, James D. 2015. The utility of naturalness, and how its application to quantum electrodynamics envisages the standard model and Higgs boson. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 49:102–108.Google Scholar
Williams, Porter. 2015. Naturalness, the autonomy of scales, and the 125 GeV Higgs. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51:82–96.Google Scholar
Williams, Porter. 2017. Scientific realism made effective. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70:209–237.Google Scholar
Williams, Porter. 2019. Two notions of naturalness. Foundations of Physics, 49(9):1022–1050.Google Scholar
Wilson, Alastair. 2021. Counterpossible reasoning in physics. Philosophy of Science, 88(5):1113–1124.Google Scholar
Wilson, Kenneth G, and Kogut, John. 1974. The renormalization group and the ɛ expansion. Physics Reports, 12(2):75–199.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Witten, Edward. 2001. Quantum gravity in de Sitter space. arXiv preprint: hep-th/0106109.Google Scholar
Witten, Edward. 2018. APS medal for exceptional achievement in research: Invited article on entanglement properties of quantum field theory. Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(4):045003.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 2021b. Explanatory autonomy: The role of proportionality, stability, and conditional irrelevance. Synthese, 198(1):237–265.Google Scholar
Worrall, John. 1989. Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43:99–124.Google Scholar
Zee, Anthony. 2010. Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by