Renormalization for Philosophers

We have two aims. The main one is to expound the idea of renormalization in quantum field theory, with no technical prerequisites (Sections 2 and 3). Our motivation is that renormalization is undoubtedly one of the great ideas—and great successes--of twentieth-century physics. Also it has strongly influenced in diverse ways, how physicists conceive of physical theories. So it is of considerable philosophical interest. Second, we will briefly relate renormalization to Ernest Nagel's account of inter-theoretic relations, especially reduction (Section 4). One theme will be a contrast between two approaches to renormalization. The old approach, which prevailed from ca. 1945 to 1970, treated renormalizability as a necessary condition for being an acceptable quantum field theory. On this approach, it is a piece of great good fortune that high energy physicists can formulate renormalizable quantum field theories that are so empirically successful. But the new approach to renormalization (from 1970 onwards) explains why the phenomena we see, at the energies we can access in our particle accelerators, are described by a renormalizable quantum field theory. For whatever non-renormalizable interactions may occur at yet higher energies, they are insignificant at accessible energies. Thus the new approach explains why our best fundamental theories have a feature, viz. renormalizability, which the old approach treated as a selection principle for theories. That is worth saying since philosophers tend to think of scientific explanation as only explaining an individual event, or perhaps a single law, or at most deducing one theory as a special case of another. Here we see a framework in which there is a space of theories. And this framework is powerful enough to deduce that what seemed “manna from heaven” (that some renormalizable theories are empirically successful) is to be expected: the good fortune is generic. We also maintain that universality, a concept stressed in renormalization theory, is essentially the familiar philosophical idea of multiple realizability; and that it causes no problems for reductions of a Nagelian kind.

[1]  T. Cao,et al.  The conceptual foundations and the philosophical aspects of renormalization theory , 1993, Synthese.

[2]  Mary Hesse,et al.  Forces and Fields , 1961 .

[3]  Jeremy Butterfield,et al.  Reduction, Emergence and Renormalization , 2014, 1406.4354.

[4]  Frank Wilczek ASYMPTOTIC FREEDOM: FROM PARADOX TO PARADIGM , 2005 .

[5]  Lawrence Sklar,et al.  Types of Inter-Theoretic Reduction* , 1967, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[6]  J. Moffat,et al.  Radiative Corrections In An Ultraviolet Complete Electroweak Model Without A Higgs Particle , 2011, 1103.0979.

[7]  E. Mcmullin Indifference principle and anthropic principle in cosmology , 1993 .

[8]  J. Butterfield,et al.  Emergence and Reduction Combined in Phase Transitions , 2011, 1104.1371.

[9]  B. Lautrup,et al.  G-2 and the trust in experimental results , 1999 .

[10]  A. Fisher,et al.  The Theory of Critical Phenomena: An Introduction to the Renormalization Group , 1992 .

[11]  Robert L. Causey Attribute-Identities in Microreductions , 1972 .

[12]  John D. Norton,et al.  Approximation and Idealization: Why the Difference Matters* , 2012, Philosophy of Science.

[13]  R. Batterman Reduction and Renormalization , 2006 .

[14]  K. Schaffner REDUCTIONISM IN BIOLOGY , 1976 .

[15]  S. Weinberg The Quantum Theory of Fields: THE CLUSTER DECOMPOSITION PRINCIPLE , 1995 .

[16]  Electroweak interactions and high-energy limit , 1996, hep-ph/9603321.

[17]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  Critical phenomena and breaking drops: Infinite idealizations in physics , 2005 .

[18]  Ernest Nagel,et al.  The Structure of Science , 1962 .

[19]  C. Hempel Philosophy of Natural Science , 1966 .

[20]  S. Schweber Changing Conceptualization of Renormalization Theory , 1993 .

[21]  Paul K. Feyerabend,et al.  Explanation, reduction, and empiricism , 1962 .

[22]  Margaret Morrison Emergent Physics and Micro-Ontology* , 2012, Philosophy of Science.

[23]  Jeremy Butterfield,et al.  Less is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled , 2011, 1106.0702.

[24]  Thomas Nickles,et al.  Two Concepts of Intertheoretic Reduction , 1973 .

[25]  Kenneth F. Schaffner,et al.  Approaches to Reduction , 1967, Philosophy of Science.

[26]  Jeremy Butterfield,et al.  Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape , 2011, 1106.0704.

[27]  Jaegwon Kim,et al.  Emergence: Core ideas and issues , 2006, Synthese.

[28]  K. Symanzik Infrared singularities and small-distance-behaviour analysis , 1973 .

[29]  J. Fodor Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis) , 1974, Synthese.

[30]  H. Putnam Philosophy and our Mental Life , 2002 .

[31]  A. D. R.,et al.  An Introduction to Philosophy , 1945, Nature.

[32]  Stephan Hartmann,et al.  Who’s Afraid of Nagelian Reduction? , 2010 .

[33]  A. Wightman The usefulness of a general theory of quantized fields , 1999 .

[34]  T. Cao New Philosophy of Renormalization: From the Renormalization Group Equations to Effective Field Theories , 1993 .

[35]  P. Needham Reduction and emergence: a critique of Kim , 2009 .

[36]  T. Appelquist,et al.  Infrared Singularities and Massive Fields , 1975 .

[37]  J. Bain Effective field theories , 2013 .

[38]  E. Nagel Issues in the Logic of Reductive Explanations , 2008 .

[39]  Jaegwon Kim,et al.  Making Sense of Emergence , 1999 .

[40]  S. Schweber QED and the Men Who Made It , 1994 .

[41]  I. Aitchison Nothing's plenty. The vacuum in modern quantum field theory , 1985 .

[42]  L. Zuchowski For electrodynamic consistency , 2013 .

[43]  R. Batterman The Tyranny of Scales , 2013 .

[44]  Tian Yu Cao,et al.  Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field Theories , 2019 .

[45]  Ausonio Marras Kim On Reduction , 2002 .

[46]  Jaegwon Kim Physicalism, or Something Near Enough , 2005 .

[47]  The Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics , 2003 .

[48]  E. Sober The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism , 1999, Philosophy of Science.

[49]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  The devil in the details : asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence , 2001 .

[50]  Michael Redhead Quantum field theory and the philosopher , 1999 .

[51]  K. Wilson Problems in Physics with many Scales of Length , 1979 .

[52]  J. Butterfield Some Aspects of Modality in Analytical Mechanics , 2002, physics/0210081.

[53]  J. Butterfield,et al.  On emergence in gauge theories at the ’t Hooft limit , 2012, 1208.4986.

[54]  Steven Weinberg,et al.  What is Quantum Field Theory, and What Did We Think It Is? , 1996, hep-th/9702027.

[55]  Kenneth F. Schaffner,et al.  Ernest Nagel and Reduction , 2012 .