arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2110.07203

Same-diff? Conceptual similarities between gauge transformations and diffeomorphisms. Part I: Symmetries and isomorphisms

Abstract

The following questions are germane to our understanding of gauge-(in)variant quantities and physical possibility: how are gauge transformations and spacetime diffeomorphisms understood as symmetries, in which ways are they similar, and in which are they different? To what extent are we justified in endorsing different attitudes -- nowadays called sophistication, haecceitism, and eliminativism -- towards each? This is the first of four papers taking up this question. This first paper will discuss notions of symmetries and isomorphisms that will be used in the remaining papers in the series. There are several such notions in the literature and the question of how they mesh with empirical discernibility is a delicate one; even the orthodox view that symmetries are empirically unobservable (even in principle) has recently been challenged by Belot. Focusing on local field theories, I will provide a precise definition of dynamical symmetries in terms of the space of states of the theory at hand. I will then apply the definition to Yang-Mills theories and general relativity and show that these symmetries correspond to automorphisms of `natural' geometric structures: the small diffeomorphisms of the spacetime manifold and the small fiber-preserving diffeomorphisms of a fibered space. Finally, I will show that these automorphisms can be given a passive gloss, since they correspond 1-1 to the coordinate transformations of the underlying manifolds.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Henrique Gomes. 2022-10-26. Same-diff? Conceptual similarities between gauge transformations and diffeomorphisms. Part I: Symmetries and isomorphisms. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07203

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Lorenz vs Lorentz. The controversy examined from the original texts

The attribution of the condition div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 has been under discussion since 1938 as a question of priority between Ludvig Lorenz and Hendrik Lorentz. This work argues that the problem is of a different nature, and that the discussion does not close because it has never been specified what is being attributed. Drawing on the three versions of the 1867 paper and on six further primary sources, it is documented that three separable acts have been designated under a single name: the obtaining of the relation between potentials, its imposition as a restriction on the admissible potentials, and its denomination as a gauge. It is further documented that in none of the three versions of the 1867 paper does the word potential appear, that the magnetic field does not figure in it as a quantity of the theory, and that the vocabulary in which that paper is described today enters the literature after it was written. It is concluded that the disjunction between the two denominations, posed without specifying which of the three acts is being attributed, is ill formed.

physics.hist-ph

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Does DESI Provide Evidence for Dynamical Dark Energy?

Recent results from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) have suggested that dark energy, long considered to be a cosmological constant, may actually be \lq{}dynamical\rq{}. To clarify what follows from these results, we distinguish three claims: (D1) the data disfavour the \LCDM expansion history; (D2) within the phenomenological Chevallier--Polarski--Linder (CPL) parametrisation, the data prefer $(w_0,w_a)\neq(-1,0)$; and (D3) there exist one or more genuine dynamical dark-energy degrees of freedom in the matter-sector, within GR and coupled to the standard sectors only gravitationally, whose dynamics account for the departure from the \LCDM expansion history. We demonstrate that DESI establishes D2, which supports D1, but does not establish D3. The \lq{}designer\rq{} construction in $f(R)$ gravity provides a gravitational realisation of the same background history, so that no observable determined solely by that history can discriminate, even in principle, between its \lq{}matter\rq{} and \lq{}gravitational\rq{} readings. Furthermore, non-minimally coupled models admit regular effective phantom-crossing realisations of the relevant phenomenology, while the selected crossing places additional pressure on a single-component, minimally coupled realisation of the matter-sector reading. We characterise the resulting underdetermination between matter and gravitational interpretations---exact at the level of background history, but breakable beyond it---and draw the corresponding norm for survey reporting.

physics.hist-ph