The Geometry of Reduction: Compound Reduction and Overlapping State Space Domains
- 171 Downloads
The relationship whereby one physical theory encompasses the domain of empirical validity of another is widely known as “reduction.” Elsewhere I have argued that one influential methodology for showing that one physical theory reduces to another, associated with the so-called “Bronstein cube” of theories, rests on an oversimplified and excessively vague characterization of the mathematical relationship between theories that typically underpins reduction. I offer what I claim is a more precise characterization of this relationship, which here is based on a more basic notion of reduction between distinct models (one from each theory) of a single physical system. Reduction between two such models, I claim, rests on a particular type of approximation relationship between group actions over the models’ state spaces, characterized by a particular function between the model state spaces and a particular subset of the more encompassing model’s state space. Within this approach, I show formally in what sense and under what conditions reduction is transitive, so that reduction of a model 1 to another model 2 and reduction of model 2 to a third model 3 entails direct reduction of model 1 to model 3. Building on this analysis, I consider cases in which reduction of a model 1 to a model 3 may be effected via distinct intermediate models 2a and 2b, and motivate a set of formal consistency requirements between distinct “reduction paths” having the same models as their “end points”. These constraints are explicitly shown to hold in the reduction of a model of non-relativistic classical mechanics (model 1) to a model of relativistic quantum mechanics (model 3), which may be effected by a composite reduction that proceeds either via a model of non-relativistic quantum mechanics (model 2a) or a model of relativistic classical mechanics (model 2b). I offer some brief speculations as to whether and how this sort of consistency requirement might serve to constrain the reductions relating other theories and models, including the relationship that the Standard Model and general relativity must bear to any viable unification of these frameworks.
This work was supported by the DFG, Grant FOR 2063.
The author gratefully acknowledges support from the DFG
- 3.Butterfield, J.: On philosophy of quantum gravity. (2013). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnAhExrvxOM. Accessed Aug 2018
- 5.Crowther, K.: Inter-theory relations in quantum gravity: correspondence, reduction, and emergence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00473 (2017)
- 6.Dine, M.: “Nonrelativistic limit of the Dirac equation,” notes for Physics 218, quantum field theory, UCSC. http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~dine/ph218/218_dirac_nr.pdf. Accessed July 2018
- 9.Ehlers, J.: On limit relations between and approximate explanations of physical theories. In: Marcus, B., et al. (eds.) Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, VII edn. Elsiever, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
- 10.Feintzeig, B.: The status of scaling limits as approximations in quantum theories. (2018). http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/14905/. Accessed Aug 2018
- 11.Fletcher, S.C.: On the reduction of general relativity to Newtonian gravitation. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2019.04.005
- 13.French, S., Ladyman, J.: In defence of ontic structural realism. In: Bokulich, A., Bokulich, P. (eds.) Scientific Structuralism, pp. 25–42. Springer, Dordrecht (2011)Google Scholar
- 15.Hossenfelder, S: The cube of physical theories. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2011/05/cube-of-physical-theories.html. Accessed Feb 2016
- 22.Oriti, D.: The Bronstein hypercube of quantum gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02577 (2018)
- 24.Rosaler, J.: Inter-theory relations in physics: case studies from quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. PhD thesis, University of Oxford (2013)Google Scholar