This title appears in the Scientific Report :
2020
Please use the identifier:
http://hdl.handle.net/2128/26243 in citations.
Please use the identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00368-y in citations.
Misconceptions on Effective Field Theories and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking: Response to Ellis’ Article
Misconceptions on Effective Field Theories and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking: Response to Ellis’ Article
In an earlier paper Luu and Meißner (arXiv:1910.13770 [physics.hist-ph]) we discussed emergence from the context of effective field theories, particularly as related to the fields of particle and nuclear physics. We argued on the side of reductionism and weak emergence. George Ellis has critiqued ou...
Saved in:
Personal Name(s): | Luu, Thomas (Corresponding author) |
---|---|
Meißner, Ulf-G. | |
Contributing Institute: |
Theorie der Starken Wechselwirkung; IAS-4 Institut 3 (Theoretische Kernphysik); IKP-3 |
Published in: | Foundations of physics, 50 (2020) 10, S. 1140 - 1151 |
Imprint: |
New York, NY [u.a.]
Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
2020
|
DOI: |
10.1007/s10701-020-00368-y |
Document Type: |
Journal Article |
Research Program: |
Theory, modelling and simulation |
Link: |
OpenAccess OpenAccess |
Publikationsportal JuSER |
Please use the identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00368-y in citations.
In an earlier paper Luu and Meißner (arXiv:1910.13770 [physics.hist-ph]) we discussed emergence from the context of effective field theories, particularly as related to the fields of particle and nuclear physics. We argued on the side of reductionism and weak emergence. George Ellis has critiqued our exposition in Ellis (arXiv:2004.13591 [physics.hist-ph]), and here we provide our response to his critiques. Many of his critiques are based on incorrect assumptions related to the formalism of effective field theories and we attempt to correct these issues here. We also comment on other statements made in his paper. Important to note is that our response is to his critiques made in archive versions arXiv:2004.13591v1-5 [physics.hist-ph]. That is, versions 1–5 of this archive post. Version 6 has similar content as versions 1–5, but versions 7–9 are seemingly a different paper altogether (even with a different title). |