According to the Standard Model of particle physics, some gauge transformations are physical symmetries. That is, they are mathematical transformations that relate representatives of distinct physical states of affairs. This is at odds with the standard philosophical position according to which gauge transformations are an eliminable redundancy in a gauge theory's representational framework. In this paper I defend the Standard Model's treatment of gauge from an objection due to Richard Healey. If we follow the Standard Model in taking some gauge transformations to be physical symmetries then we face the “strong CP problem”, but if we adopt the standard philosophical position on gauge then the strong CP problem dissolves. Healey offers this as a reason in favor of the standard philosophical view. However, as I argue here, following Healey's recommendation gives a theory that makes bad empirical predictions.
Stein has characterized one of the central problems in accounting for our knowledge in physics as that of getting the laboratory, or observatory, inside the theory - that is, of understanding how the mathematical structures of fundamental physical theories have empirical content. He has argued that physicists respond to this problem by giving schematic representations of observers and experiments. In addition, Stein emphasizes the importance of regarding knowledge as an enterprise, with current theories providing guidance for future inquiry. I will explore some ramifications of this way of thinking about the structure of scientific theories for contemporary cosmology. One goal of observational cosmology is to measure the six basic parameters appearing in the standard model of cosmology. These parameters are well-defined if the universe is suitably approximated at some scale by a perturbed FLRW model. The enormous extrapolations involved in the standard model are often justified by the consistent determination of these parameters via a variety of methods. Here I will consider two recent debates regarding this approach to cosmology, inspired by Stein's work. The first debate regards the impact of different ways of characterizing the propagation of light through a cosmological spacetime on the determination of cosmological parameters (such as H-0). The second regards how the highly symmetric FLRW models relate to describing the real universe, at small scales where it is very lumpy. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The concept of indistinguishable particles in quantum theory is fundamental to questions of ontology. All ordinary matter is made of electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons and they are all indistinguishable particles. Yet the concept itself has proved elusive, in part because of the interpretational difficulties that afflict quantum theory quite generally, and in part because the concept was so central to the discovery of the quantum itself, by Planck in 1900; it came encumbered with revolution. I offer a deflationary reading of the concept 'indistinguishable' that is identical to Gibbs' concept 'generic phase', save that it is defined for state spaces with only finitely-many states of bounded volume and energy (finitely-many orthogonal states, in quantum mechanics). That, and that alone, makes for the difference between the quantum and Gibbsean concepts of indistinguishability. This claim is heretical on several counts, but here we consider only the content of the claim itself, and its bearing on the early history of quantum theory rather than in relation to contemporary debates about particle indistinguishability and permutation symmetry. It powerfully illuminates that history. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
It is standardly claimed in loop quantum gravity (LQG) that spacetime both disappears, fundamentally, and emerges from spin-networks in the low energy regime. In this paper, I critically explore these claims and develop a variety of substantival and relational interpretations of LQG for which these claims are false. According to most of the interpretations I consider, including the "received interpretation", it is in fact false that spacetime emerges from spin-networks. In the process of supporting these claims, I also explain why spacetime is thought to be missing from the theory's fundamental ontology and demonstrate how this conclusion depends on our interpretation of the theory. In fact, I will argue that for a variety of interpretations spacetime survives quantization just as the electromagnetic field survives quantization. The upshot of the following analysis is a much needed clarification of the ontology of LQG and how it relates, or fails to relate, to the spacetime of general relativity.
This paper engages with the following closely related questions that have recently received some attention in the literature: (a) what is the status of the equivalence principle in general relativity (GR)?; (b) how does the metric field obtain its property of being able to act as a metric?; and (c) is the metric of GR derivative on the dynamics of the matter fields? The paper attempts to complement these debates by studying the spin-2 approach to (quantum) gravity. In particular, the paper argues that three lessons can be drawn from the spin-2 approach: (1) different from what is sometimes claimed in the literature, central aspects of the non-linear theory of GR are already derivable in classical spin-2 theory; in particular, 'universal coupling' can be considered a derived 'theorem' in both the classical and the quantum spin-2 approach; this provides new insights for the investigation of the equivalence principle; (2) the 'second miracle' that Read et al. argue characterises GR is explained in the classical as well as in the quantum version of the spin-2 approach; (3) the spin-2 approach allows for an ontological reduction of the metrical part of spacetime to the dynamics of matter fields. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
