Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:25:27.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking: Quantum Statistical Mechanics versus Quantum Field Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Doreen Fraser
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Philosophical analysis of spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) in particle physics has been hindered by the unavailability of rigorous formulations of models in quantum field theory (QFT). A strategy for addressing this problem is to use the rigorous models that have been constructed for SSB in quantum statistical mechanics (QSM) systems as a basis for drawing analogous conclusions about SSB in QFT. On the basis of an analysis of this strategy as an instance of the application of the same mathematical formalism to different domains and as an instance of drawing analogies between domains, I conclude that certain structural explanations can be exported from QSM to QFT but that causal explanations cannot.

Type
Physics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 5 , December 2012 , pp. 905 - 916
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.)

Footnotes

†

Thank you to the members of the audience at PSA 2010 and my fellow symposiasts (Chris Smeenk, Ward Struyve, and Michael Stöltzner) for helpful feedback. This work was supported by a standard research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

Earman, J. 2004. “Laws, Symmetry, and Symmetry Breaking: Invariance, Conservation Principles, and Objectivity.” Philosophy of Science 71:1227–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glimm, J., and Jaffe, A.. 1987. Quantum Physics: A Functional Integral Point of View. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jona-Lasinio, G. 2002. “Cross Fertilization in Theoretical Physics: The Case of Condensed Matter and Particle Physics.” In Highlights of Theoretical Physics, ed. Fokas, A. E. A., 143–52. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Liu, C., and Emch, G. G.. 2005. “Explaining Quantum Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36:137–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peskin, M. E., and Schroeder, D. V.. 1995. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Ed. David Pines. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, L. 2011. Interpreting Quantum Theories. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöltzner, Michael. 2012. “Constraining the Higgs Mechanism: Ontological Worries and the Prospects for an Algebraic Cure.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strocchi, F. 2008. Symmetry Breaking. 2nd ed. Lecture Notes in Physics. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struyve, W. 2011. “Gauge Invariant Accounts of the Higgs Mechanism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42:226–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, K. G., and Kogut, J.. 1974. “The Renormalization Group and the ∊ Expansion.” Physics Reports 12:75–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar