Misconceptions on Effective Field Theories and spontaneous symmetry breaking: Response to Ellis' article

TL;DR

This paper defends the formalism of effective field theories against critiques by George Ellis, clarifying misconceptions and emphasizing the role of reductionism and weak emergence in particle and nuclear physics.

Contribution

It provides a detailed response to critiques of effective field theories, correcting misconceptions and clarifying the formalism's conceptual foundations.

Findings

Many critiques are based on incorrect assumptions about effective field theories.

Clarifies the distinction between reductionism and emergence in physics.

Reinforces the validity of effective field theories in describing physical phenomena.

Abstract

In an earlier paper~\cite{Luu:2019jmb} 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~\cite{Ellis:2020vij}, 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).