European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 419–445 | Cite as

Decoupling emergence and reduction in physics

Original paper in Philosophy of Physics

Abstract

An effective theory in physics is one that is supposed to apply only at a given length (or energy) scale; the framework of effective field theory (EFT) describes a ‘tower’ of theories each applying at different length scales, where each ‘level’ up is a shorter-scale theory. Owing to subtlety regarding the use and necessity of EFTs, a conception of emergence defined in terms of reduction is irrelevant. I present a case for decoupling emergence and reduction in the philosophy of physics. This paper develops a positive conception of emergence, based on the novelty and autonomy of the ‘levels’, by considering physical examples, involving critical phenomena, the renormalisation group, and symmetry breaking. This positive conception of emergence is related to underdetermination and universality, but, I argue, is preferable to other accounts of emergence in physics that rely on universality.

Keywords

Emergence Effective field theory Renormalization group RG Critical phenomena Universality Novelty Autonomy Symmetry breaking Quantum field theory 

References

  1. Anderson, P.W. (1972). More is different. Science, 177, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelquist, T., & Carazzone, J. (1975). Infrared singularities and massive fields. Physical Review D, 11, 2856–2861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain, J. (2013a). Effective field theories. In Batterman, R. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of physics (pp. 224–254). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bain, J. (2013b). Emergence in effective field theories. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3, 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batterman, R.W. (2011). Emergence, singularities, and symmetry breaking. Foundations of Physics, 41, 1031–1050.Google Scholar
  6. Bazavov, A., Bernard, C., DeTar, C., Gottlieb, S., Heller, U.M., Hetrick, J.M., Laiho, J., Levkova, M., Mackenzie, P.B., Oktay, M.B., Sugar, R., Toussaint, D., & Van de Water, R.M. (2010). Nonperturbative QCD simulations with 2+1 flavors of improved staggered quarks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 1349–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bedau, M.A. (1997) In Tomberlin, J.E. (Ed.), Weak emergence (Vol. 11, pp. 375–399). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Bickle, J. (2008). Multiple realizability. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/multiple-realizability/ Accessed 23 February 2013.
  9. Burgess, C.P. (2004). Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory. Living Reviews in Relativity. www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-5/, Accessed 23 February 2013.
  10. Butterfield, J. (2011a). Emergence, reduction and supervenience: A varied landscape. Foundations of Physics, 41, 920–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butterfield, J. (2011b). Less is different: Emergence and reduction reconciled. Foundations of Physics, 41, 1065–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butterfield, J., & Bouatta, N. (2012). Emergence and reduction combined in phase transitions. Proceedings of Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, 11(1446), 383–403.Google Scholar
  13. Butterfield, J., & Isham, C. (1999) In Butterfield, J. (Ed.), On the emergence of time in quantum gravity, (pp. 116–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Callaway, D.J.E., & Rahman, A. (1982). Microcanonical ensemble formulation of lattice gauge theory. Physical Review Letters, 49, 613–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callaway, D.J.E., & Rahman, A. (1983). Lattice gauge theory in the microcanonical ensemble. Physical Review D, 28, 1506–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Callender, C. (2013). Turn and face the strange... ch-ch-changes: philosophical questions raised by phase transitions. In Batterman, R. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of physics (pp. 189–223). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cao, T.Y., & Schweber, S. (1993). The conceptual foundations and the philosophical aspects of renormalization theory. Synthese, 97, 33–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castellani, E. (2002). Reductionism, emergence, and effective field theories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 33, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dürr, S., Fodor, Z., Frison, J., Hoelbling, C., Hoffmann, R., Katz, S.D., Krieg, S., Kurth, T., Lellouch, L., Lippert, T., Szabo, K., & Vulvert, G. (2008). Ab initio determination of light hadron masses. Science, 322, 1224–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elitzur, S. (1975). Impossibility of spontaneously breaking local symmetries. Physical Review D, 12, 3978–2982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fodor, J. (1974). Special sciences: Or the disunity of science as a working hypothesis. Synthese, 28, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fodor, J. (1997). Special sciences: Still autonomous after all these years. Tomberlin, 149–164.Google Scholar
  23. Friedrich, S. (2013). Gauge symmetry breaking in gauge theories: in search of clarification. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Georgi, H. (1993). Effective field theory. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 43, 209–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartmann, S. (2001). Effective field theories, reductionism and scientific explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 32, 267–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huggett, N., & Weingard, R. (1995). The renormalisation group and effective field theories. Synthese, 102, 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kadanoff, L. (1966). Scaling laws for Ising models near T c. Physics, 2, 263–272.Google Scholar
  28. Kadanoff, L. (2000). Statistical physics: Statics, dynamics and renormalization. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, J. (1992). Multiple realization and the metaphysics of reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laughlin, R.B., & Pines, D. (2000). The theory of everything. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lepage, P. (1989). What is renormalization? In Toussaint, T., & DeGrand, D. (Eds.) From actions to answers, proceedings of the 1989 theoretical study institute in elementary particle physics (pp. 483–509). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  32. Mainwood, P. (2006). Is more different? Emergent properties in physics. PhD thesis at Merton College, University of Oxford. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/8339, http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11922743.pdf.
  33. McLaughlin, B., & Bennett, K. (2011). Supervenience. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/supervenience/ Accessed 20 February 2013.
  34. Morrison, M. (2012). Emergent physics and micro-ontology. Philosophy of Science, 79, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nambu, Y., & Jona-Lasinio, G. (1961a). Dynamical model of elementary particles based on an analogy with superconductivity. i. Physical Review, 122, 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nambu, Y., & Jona-Lasinio, G. (1961b). Dynamical model of elementary particles based on an analogy with superconductivity. ii. Physical Review, 124, 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfeuty, P., & Toulouse, G. (1977). Introduction to the renormalization group and to critical phenomena. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Pich, A. (1998). Effective field theory. arXiv:hep-ph/9806303v1/ Accessed 17 February 2011.
  39. Polchinski, J. (1993). Effective field theory and the Fermi surface. In Harvey, J., & Polchinski, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1992 Theoretical Advanced Studies Institute in Elementary Particle Physics. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  40. Putnam, H. (1967). Psychological predicates. In Capitan, W.H., & Merrill, D.D. (Eds.) Art, mind, and religion (pp. 37–48). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  41. Putnam, H. (1988). Representation and reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Robinson, D. (1992). Renormalization and the effective field theory programme. PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, 1992, 393–403.Google Scholar
  43. Shifman, M. (1998). Snapshot of hadrons. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 131, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silberstein, M. (2012). Emergence and reduction in context: Philosophy of science and/or analytic metaphysics. Metascience, 21, 627–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silberstein, M., & McGeever, J. (1999). The search for ontological emergence. The Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sober, E. (1999). The multiple realizability argument against reductionism. Philosophy of Science, 66, 542–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinberg, S. (1986). Superconductivity for particular theorists. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 86, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson, K.G. (1971). The renormalization group (RG) and critical phenomena 1. Physical Review B, 4, 3174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, K.G., & Kogut, J. (1974). The renormalisation group and the 𝜖 expansion. Physics Reports, 12, 75–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zee, A. (2010). Quantum field theory in a nutshell, Second edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zhang, S. (2004). To see a world in a grain of sand. In Barrow, J.D., Davies, P.C.W., & Harper, C.L. (Eds.) Science and ultimate reality: quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations