Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T02:42:04.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viewing Quantum Charge from the Classical Vantage Point

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2022

Marian J. R. Gilton Open the ORCID record for Marian J. R. Gilton [Opens in a new window]
Marian J. R. Gilton*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 4200 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States
*
E-mail: marian.gilton@pitt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article demonstrates the benefit of studying a classical version of chromodynamics in order to better understand color charge in quantum chromodynamics. Standard presentations of the conservation and confinement of color charge serve to obscure the Lie-algebra-valued character of the conserved Noether charge. This article shows how we can remove these obscuring factors by studying color charge from the vantage point of classical chromodynamics. This key example of color charge illustrates the larger methodological benefit of this classical vantage point: interpreting classical gauge theories helps to delineate the uniquely quantum features of quantum field theories.

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 1233 - 1242
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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

*

I would like to thank Dave Boozer, Mark Mace, John Norton, Jim Weatherall, and David Wallace for helpful discussions on topics discussed in the article. I would also like to thank Benjamin Feintzeig, Joshua Rosaler, and Jeremy Steeger for a stimulating symposium.

References

Bañados, Máximo, and Reyes, Ignacio. 2016. “A Short Review on Noether’s Theorems, Gauge Symmetries and Boundary Terms.” International Journal of Modern Physics D 25 (10):1630021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. 2009. “Idealization and Modeling.” Synthese 169 (3):427–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleecker, David D. 2013. Gauge Theory and Variational Principles. Minneola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Bokulich, Alisa. 2008. Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond Reductionism and Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard. 1983. The Newtonian Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deur, Alexandre, Brodsky, Stanley J., and de Teramond, Guy F.. 2016. “The QCD Running Coupling.” Nuclear Physics 90 (1):195.Google Scholar
Gilton, Marian J. 2021. “Could Charge and Mass Be Universals?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 102 (3):624–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilton, Marian J. R. 2019. “Charge in Classical Gauge Theories.” PhD diss., University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Gross, David J. 2004. “Asymptotic Freedom and QCD—a Historical Perspective.” Nuclear Physics B—Proceedings Supplements 135 (1):193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Mark J. 2017. Mathematical Gauge Theory: With Applications to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, Robin Findlay. 2006. “Is There Downward Causation in Chemistry?” In Philosophy of Chemistry, edited by Baird, Davis, Robert Scerri, Eric, and McIntyre, Lee, 173–89. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerner, Ryszard. 1968. “Generalization of the Kaluza-Klein Theory for an Arbitrary Nonabelian Gauge Group.” Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré 9 (2):143–52.Google Scholar
Kosmann-Schwarzbach, Yvette. 2011. The Noether Theorems: Invariance and Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Bihui. 2013. “Interpretive Strategies for Deductively Insecure Theories: The Case of Early Quantum Electrodynamics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (4):395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mace, Mark. 2018. “Infrared Dynamics of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories Out of Equilibrium.” PhD diss., State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim. 2007. The Metaphysics within Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olver, Peter J. 1993. Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Erhard. 2003. “The Case against Asymptotic Freedom.” Paper presented at Seminar on Applications of RG Methods in Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Shlomo. 1977. “Minimal Coupling and the Symplectic Mechanics of a Classical Particle in the Presence of a Yang-Mills Field.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 74 (12):5253–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storchak, Sergey N. 2014. “Wong’s Equations in Yang-Mills Theory.” Central European Journal of Physics 12 (4):233–44.Google Scholar
Wald, Robert M. 1984. General Relativity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. 2016. “Fiber Bundles, Yang–Mills Theory, and General Relativity.” Synthese 193 (8):2389–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, Alan. 1978. “A Universal Phase Space for Particles in Yang-Mills Fields.” Letters in Mathematical Physics 2 (5):417–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. 1987. “False Models as Means to Truer Theories.” In Neutral Models in Biology, edited by Nitecki, M. H. and Hoffman, A., 23–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, S. 1970. “Field and Particle Equations for the Classical Yang-Mills Field and Particles with Isotopic Spin.” Il Nuovo Cimento A 65 (4):689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar