Philosophers of science have often favoured reductive approaches to how-possibly explanation. This article identifies three alternative conceptions making how-possibly explanation an interesting phenomenon in its own right. The first variety approaches “how possibly X?” by showing that X is not epistemically impossible. This can sometimes be achieved by removing misunderstandings concerning the implications of one’s current belief system but involves characteristically a modification of this belief system so that acceptance of X does not result in contradiction. The second variety offers (...) a potential how-explanation of X. It is usually followed by a range of further potential how-explanations of the same phenomenon. In recent literature the factual claims implied by the second variety have been downplayed whereas the heuristic role of mapping the space of conceptual possibilities has been emphasized. I will focus especially on this truth-bracketing sense of potentiality when looking closer at the second variety in the paper. The third variety has attracted less interest. It presents a partial how-explanation of X. Typically it aims to establish the existence of a mechanism by which X could be and was generated. The third conception stands out as the natural alternative for the advocate of ontic how-possibly explanations. This article transfers Salmon’s view that explanation-concepts can be broadly divided into epistemic, modal, and ontic to the context of how-possibly explanations. Moreover, it is argued that each of the three above-mentioned varieties of how-possibly explanation occurs in science. To recognize this may be especially relevant for philosophers. We are often misled by the promises of various why-explanation accounts, and seem to have forgotten nearly everything about the diversity of how-possibly explanations. (shrink)

Philosophers of physics have spent much effort unpacking the structure of gauge theories. But surprisingly, little attention has been devoted to the question of why we should require our best theories to be locally gauge invariant in the first place. Drawing on Steven Weinberg's works in the mid-1960s, I argue that the principle of local gauge invariance follows from Lorentz invariance and other natural assumptions in the context of perturbative relativistic quantum field theory. On this view, gauge freedom is a (...) mere accidental feature of an already highly constrained set of quantities; the distinctive structure of our best gauge theories, in turn, traces back to the peculiar space-time transformation properties of particles like photons, gluons, and gravitons. I conclude by drawing a few interpretative lessons for the philosophy of gauge theories. (shrink)

Essay review of Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories R. Healey. Oxford University Press (2007). To be published in the Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39(3):687-693, 2008.

I articulate and discuss a geometrical interpretation of Yang–Mills theory. Analogies and disanalogies between Yang–Mills theory and general relativity are also considered.

We propose the conjecture according to which the fact that quantum mechanics does not admit sharp value attributions to both members of a complementary pair of observables can be understood in the light of the symplectic reduction of phase space in constrained Hamiltonian systems. In order to unpack this claim, we propose a quantum ontology based on two independent postulates, namely the phase postulate and the quantum postulate. The phase postulate generalizes the gauge correspondence between first-class constraints and gauge transformations (...) to the observables of unconstrained Hamiltonian systems. The quantum postulate specifies the relationship between the numerical values of the observables that permit us to individualize a physical system and the symmetry transformations generated by the operators associated to these observables. We argue that the quantum postulate and the phase postulate are formally implemented by the two independent stages of the geometric quantization of a symplectic manifold, namely the prequantization formalism and the election of a polarization of pre-quantum states respectively. (shrink)

Symposium review of Richard Healey, Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pp. 297. $99.00 HB.

The standard $\mathbb{U}(1)$ “gauge principle” or “gauge argument” produces an exact potential A=dλ and a vanishing field F=d 2 λ=0. Weyl (in Z. Phys. 56:330–352, 1929; Rice Inst. Pam. 16:280–295, 1929) has his own gauge argument, which is sketchy, archaic and hard to follow; but at least it produces an inexact potential A and a nonvanishing field F=dA≠0. I attempt a reconstruction.

The ''gauge argument'' is often used to 'deduce' interactions from a symmetry requirement. A transition---whose justification can take some effort---from global to local transformations is typically made at the beginning of the argument. But one can spare the trouble by \emph{starting} with local transformations, as global ones do not exist in general. The resulting economy seems noteworthy.

En este artículo, se introducirá el formalismo de cuantificación canónica denominado "cuantificación geométrica". Dado que dicho formalismo permite entender la mecánica cuántica como una extensión geométrica de la mecánica clásica, se identificarán las insuficiencias de esta última resueltas por dicha extensión. Se mostrará luego como la cuantificación geométrica permite explicar algunos de los rasgos distintivos de la mecánica cuántica, como, por ejemplo, la noconmutatividad de los operadores cuánticos y el carácter discreto de los espectros de ciertos operadores. In this article, (...) We shall introduce the formalism of canonical quantization called "geometric quantization". Since this formalism let us understand quantum mechanics as a geometric extension of classical mechanics, we shall identify the insufficiencies of the latter that are resolved by such an extension. We shall show that geometric quantization permits us to explain some fundamental features of quantum mechanics, such as the non-commutativity of quantum operators and the discrete spectrum of some operators describing physical quantities. (shrink)