AG-2024.08-740·physics.hist-ph·cross-listed: hep-phhep-th
Motivating Gauge-Invariant Approaches to Particle Physics
Authors
- Philipp Berghofer
Abstract
There is noticeable consensus among physicists and philosophers that only gauge-invariant quantities can be physically real. However, this insight that physical quantities must be gauge-invariant is not well-reflected in standard approaches to particle physics. For instance, each and every elementary field/particle of the Standard Model fails to be gauge-invariant! The main objective of this paper is to offer an accessible, concise, and convincing analysis of why philosophers and physicists should devote more of their energy to working on gauge-invariant approaches. Correspondingly, the thesis of this paper is that pursuing gauge-invariant approaches has several virtues. For instance, gauge-invariant reformulations allow us to make particle physics consistent with the mathematical framework in which it is formulated. This is illustrated by how mathematical theorems such as Elitzur's theorem, the Gribov ambiguity, and Haag's theorem pose problems for standard approaches but are avoided by gauge-invariant approaches.
Submitted
21 August 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2408.11705
Summary
A philosophical argument that particle physics should be reformulated using only gauge-invariant quantities, since the Standard Model's elementary particles aren't actually gauge-invariant—a mathematical inconsistency that gauge-invariant approaches could resolve.
- The Standard Model treats particles as physically real even though they mathematically lack gauge invariance, violating physicists' own principle that only gauge-invariant quantities are physical.
- Gauge-invariant reformulations sidestep deep mathematical problems (like Gribov ambiguities and Haag's theorem) that plague standard approaches but remain hidden in textbook treatments.
- This is partly a philosophical call to action: physicists and philosophers should prioritize developing gauge-invariant frameworks rather than accepting the current mismatch between what the math says and how we interpret it.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.