Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-t28k2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T08:21:22.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Reality of Gauge Potentials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Richard Healey
Richard Healey*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721–0027; email: rhealey@U.Arizona.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Classically, a gauge potential was merely a convenient device for generating a corresponding gauge field. Quantum-mechanically, a gauge potential lays claim to independent status as a further feature of the physical situation. But whether this is a local or a global feature is not made any clearer by the variety of mathematical structures used to represent it. I argue that in the theory of electromagnetism (or a non-Abelian generalization) that describes quantum particles subject to a classical interaction, the gauge potential is best understood as a feature of the physical situation whose global character is most naturally represented by the holonomies of closed curves in space-time.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 432 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I thank Frank Arntzenius, Jeff Barrett, Jenann Ismael, Steven Leeds, David Malament, Tim Maudlin, Paul Teller; several referees for Philosophy of Science; and especially Harvey Brown, who introduced me to the work of Jeeva Anandan.

References

Aharonov, Yakir and Bohm, David (1959), “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory”, Physical Review 115: 485–91.10.1103/PhysRev.115.485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, Yakir and Safko, J. L. (1975), “Measurement of Noncanonical Variables”, Annals of Physics 91: 279–294.10.1016/0003-4916(75)90222-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anandan, Jeeva (1980), “Quantum Interference and the Classical Limit”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 19: 537–56.10.1007/BF00671820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anandan, Jeeva (1983), “Holonomy Groups in Gravity and Gauge Fields”, in Denardo, G. and Doebner, H.D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics, Trieste. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Feynman, Richard P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M. L. (1965), The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 2. Reading, MA.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur and Leplin, Jarrett (eds.) (1989), PSA 1988, vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Gribov, V. N. (1977), “Instability of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories and Impossibility of Choice of Coulomb Gauge”. Translated from a lecture at the 12th Winter School of the Leningrad Nuclear Physics Institute, SLAC-TRANS-0176.Google Scholar
Healey, Richard (1991), “Holism and Nonseparability”, Journal of Philosophy, LXXXVIII: 393–421.10.2307/2026702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Richard (1994), “Nonseparable Processes and Causal Explanation”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25: 337–374.10.1016/0039-3681(94)90057-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Richard (1997), “Nonlocality and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect”, Philosophy of Science 64: 18–41.10.1086/392534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Richard (1999), “Quantum Analogies: a Reply to Maudlin”, Philosophy of Science 66: 440–447.10.1086/392696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong-Mo, Chan and Tsou, Sheung Tsun (1993), Some Elementary Gauge Theory Concepts. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, S. and Nomizu, K. (1963), Foundations of Differential Geometry, vol. 1. New York: Interscience.Google Scholar
Leeds, Steven (1999), “Gauges: Aharonov, Bohm, Yang, Healey”, Philosophy of Science 66: 606–627.10.1086/392757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim (1998), “Discussion: Healey on the Aharonov-Bohm Effect”, Philosophy of Science 65: 361–368.10.1086/392644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, I. M. (1978), “Some Remarks on the Gribov Ambiguity”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 60: 7–12.10.1007/BF01609471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, T. T. and Yang, C. N. (1975), “Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Factors and Global Formulation of Gauge Fields”, Physical Review D12: 3845–3857.Google Scholar