, Volume 194, Issue 2, pp 433–460 | Cite as

The variety of explanations in the Higgs sector

  • Michael StöltznerEmail author
S.I.: Evidence for the Higgs Particle


This paper argues that there is no single universal conception of scientific explanation that is consistently employed throughout the whole domain of Higgs physics—ranging from the successful experimental search for a standard model (SM) Higgs particle and the hitherto unsuccessful searches for any particles beyond the standard model (BSM), to phenomenological model builders in the Higgs sector and theoretical physicists interested in how the core principles of quantum field theory apply to spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism. Yet the coexistence of deductive-statistical, unificationist, model-based, and statistical-relevance explanations does not amount to a fragmentation of the discipline, but allows elementary particle physicists to simultaneously pursue a plurality of research strategies and keep the field together by joint convictions about the SM and shared explanatory ideals. These convictions include that the SM both represents a successful explanation of the available particle data and contains aspects in need of further explanation. Especially in the domain of BSM physics, explanatory ideals typically appear as stories (in Hartmann’s sense) motivating the different models and linking them to the whole of the discipline.


Explanation Models Elementary particle physics Higgs particle Higgs mechanism 



This paper has emerged from the research group “Epistemology of the LHC” funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG). I am grateful to all members of this group for a large number of informative and critical discussions. An early version has been presented at a workshop at the University of South Carolina in April 2014 that was organized by Richard Dawid and myself and supported by a USC Provost Grant, the USC Nanocenter, and the Department of Philosophy. Later versions were delivered while I was a visiting scholar at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP) and as a colloquium talk at the Bielefeld Institute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Science (I2SOS). I am grateful for all the manifold feedback that I have received on those occasions. I am also indebted to the anonymous referees for their comments and helpful suggestions.


  1. Achinstein, P. (2010). Evidence, explanation, and realism: Essays in philosophy of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailer-Jones, D. (2002). Scientists’ thoughts on scientific models. Perspectives on Science, 10, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batterman, R., & Rice, C. (2014). Minimal model explanations. Philosophy of Science, 81, 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (2007). Biological mechanisms: Organized to maintain autonomy. In F. C. Boogerd, F. J. Bruggerman, J. S. Hofmeyr, H. V. Westerhoff, et al. (Eds.), Systems biology: Philosophical foundations (pp. 269–302). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokulich, A. (2014). Bohr’s correspondence principle. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2014 ed.). URL
  6. Borrelli, A. (2012). The case of the composite Higgs: The model as a “Rosetta stone” in contemporary high-energy physics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 43, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borrelli, A. (2014). Between logos and mythos: Narratives of “naturalness” in today’s particle physics community. In H. Blume & C. Leitgeb (Eds.), Narrated communities: Narrated realities (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  8. Borrelli, A. (2016). Was Sie schon immer über das CERN wissen wollten, aber bisher nicht zu fragen wagten—eine philosophische und soziologische Perspektive. In C. Kommer (Ed.), Großforschung in neuen Dimensionen. Denker unserer Zeit über die aktuelle Elementarteilchenphysik am CERN (pp. 119–149). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borrelli, A., & Stöltzner, M. (2013). Model landscapes in the Higgs Sector. In V. Karakostas & D. Dieks (Eds.), EPSA11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science. The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings 2 (pp. 241–252). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Buchholz, D. (2008). Quantenfeldtheorie ohne Felder. Ein alternativer Zugang zur Teilchenphysik. Physik-Journal, 7(8/9), 45–50.Google Scholar
  11. Buchholz, D., Doplicher, S., Longo, R., & Roberts, J. E. (1992). A new look at Goldstone’s theorem. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 4(Spec. Issue), 49–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cousins, R. D. (2014). The Jeffreys-Lindley paradox and discovery criteria in high energy physics. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0525-z.
  14. Dawid, R. (2014). Higgs discovery and the look-elsewhere effect. Philosophy of Science, 82(1), 76–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Earman, J. (2004). Laws, symmetry, and symmetry breaking: Invariance, conservation principles, and objectivity. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 1227–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falkenburg, B. (2007). Particle metaphysics: A critical account of subatomic reality. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, A. (2013). Shifting standards. Experiments in particle physics in the twentieth century. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  18. Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friederich, S., Harlander, R., & Karaca, K. (2014). Philosophical perspectives on ad hoc-hypotheses and the Higgs mechanism. Synthese, 191(16), 3897–3917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic. A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hartmann, S. (1999). Models and stories in hadron physics. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. (pp. 326–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hempel, C., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hon, G., & Rakover, S. S. (2001). Explanation: Theoretical approaches and applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Humphreys, P. (2014). Explanation as condition satisfaction. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 1103–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karaca, K. (2013a). The strong and weak senses of theory-ladenness of experimentation: Theory-driven versus exploratory experiments in the history of high-energy particle physics. Science in Context, 26(1), 93–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karaca, K. (2013b). The construction of the Higgs mechanism and the emergence of the electroweak theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karaca, K. (2016a). Modelling data acquisition at the large Hadron Collider: Against the hierarchy of models in high energy physics experiments. Synthese. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  28. Karaca, K. (2016b) Representing experimental procedures through diagrams at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider: The communicatory value of diagrammatic representations in collaborative research. Perspectives on Science. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  29. Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Liu, C., & Emch, G. G. (2005). Explaining quantum spontaneous symmetry breaking. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 36(1), 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyre, H. (2004). Holism and structuralism in Gauge theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35(4), 643–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyre, H. (2008). Does the Higgs mechanism exist? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22(2), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyre, H. (2012). The just-so Higgs story: A response to Adrian Wüthrich. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 43, 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morgan, M. (2001). Models, stories, and the economic world. Journal of Economic Methodology, 8, 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morgan, M., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morrison, M. (2000). Unifying scientific theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morrison, M. (2003). Spontaneous symmetry breaking: Theoretical arguments and philosophical problems. In K. Brading & E. Castellani (Eds.), Symmetries in physics: Philosophical reflections (pp. 347–363). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison, M. (2014). Complex systems and renormalization group explanations. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 1144–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicholson, D. J. (2012). The concept of mechanism in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Randall, L. (2005). Warped passages. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe’s hidden dimensions. New York: Ecco.Google Scholar
  42. Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Salmon, W. (1994). Causality without counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science, 61, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salmon, W. (1997). Causality and explanation: A reply to two critiques. Philosophy of Science, 64, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smeenk, C. (2006). The Elusive Higgs mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Staley, K. (2004). The evidence for the top quark: Objectivity and bias in collaborative experimentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Struyve, W. (2011). Gauge invariant accounts of the Higgs mechanism. studies in history and philosophy of modern physics, 42, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stöltzner, M. (1999). On various realisms in quantum theory. In M. C. Galavotti & A. Pagnini (Eds.), Experience Reality&Scientific Explanation. Essays in Honor of Merrilee and Wesley Salmon (pp. 163–186) Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Western Ontario Series vol. 61).Google Scholar
  49. Stöltzner, M. (2012). Constraining the Higgs mechanism: Ontological worries and the prospects for an Algebraic cure. Philosophy of Science, 79, 930–941.Google Scholar
  50. Stöltzner, M. (2014). Higgs models and other stories about mass generation. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 45, 369–384.Google Scholar
  51. Thirring, W., & Narnhofer, H. (1992). Covariant QED without indefinite metric. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 4(special issue), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weinberg, S. (1972). Mixing angle in renormalizable theories of weak and electromagnetic interactions. Physical Review D, 5, 1962–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinberg, S. (1992). Dreams of a final theory. New York: Parthenon.Google Scholar
  55. Wells, J. (2014). Higgs naturalness and the scalar boson proliferation instability problem. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0618-8.
  56. Williams, P. (2015). Naturalness, the autonomy of scales, and the 125 GeV Higgs. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 49, 102–108Google Scholar
  57. Woodward, J. (2014). Scientific explanation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2014 ed.). URL
  58. Wüthrich, A. (2012). Eating goldstone bosons in a phase transition: A critical review of Lyre’s analysis of the Higgs mechanism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 43, 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wüthrich, A. (2016). The Higgs discovery as a diagnostic causal inference. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations