发表机构
University of Oxford; University of Bonn; London School of Economics & Political Science（牛津大学; 波恩大学; 伦敦政治经济学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文反驳“曲率基要主义”，论证规范不变性而非场强$F$约束物理意义，并借助Klein-Gordon-Maxwell场相对相位实例，证明存在$F$无法预测的干涉实验结果，从而质疑电磁学两种表述的等价性。
AI 中文摘要
最近的正统观点（我们称之为“曲率基要主义”）认为，时空上的场强$F$穷尽了电磁学的物理意义内容，至少在平凡的（可收缩）时空上如此。我们认为，约束物理意义的是规范不变性。因此，即使在可收缩时空上，也存在$F$无法捕捉的具有物理意义的量。我们证明这一结果是稳健的：在存在带电物质场的情况下，存在干涉实验，其结果无法仅基于初始柯西数据由$F$或任何其他点局域规范不变物理量预测。我们以Klein-Gordon-Maxwell场的相对相位为例证明了这一点，并借此指出一个广泛声称的麦克斯韦-法拉第表述$EM_1$与规范表述$EM_2$之间等价性不成立的语境，且还原论计划可能需要新的策略。
英文摘要
Recent orthodoxy, which we call Curvature Fundamentalism, posits that the field strength $F$ on spacetime exhausts the physically significant content of electromagnetism, at least on prosaic (contractible) spacetimes. We argue that it is gauge invariance that constrains physical significance. As a result, there are physically significant quantities that $F$ does not capture, even on contractible spacetimes. We show that this result is robust: in the presence of charged matter fields, there are interference experiments whose outcome cannot be predicted by $F$ or any other point-local gauge invariant quantities on the basis of initial Cauchy data. We prove this using the example of relative phase of a Klein-Gordon-Maxwell field, and use it to identify a context in which the widely-claimed equivalence between the Maxwell-Faraday formulation $EM_1$ and the gauge formulation $EM_2$ of electromagnetism is untenable, and that new strategies may be needed for the reductionist project.
