pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.16151 · v3 · submitted 2025-02-22 · 🧮 math-ph · hep-th· math.MP· physics.hist-ph

Global Gauge Symmetries and Spatial Asymptotic Boundary Conditions in Yang-Mills theory

Silvester Borsboom , Hessel Posthuma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 02:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math-ph hep-thmath.MPphysics.hist-ph
keywords Yang-Mills theoryphysical gauge groupasymptotic boundary conditionsGauss law constraintYang-Mills-Higgs theoryinstantaneous state spaceboundary-preserving transformations
0
0 comments X

The pith

The structure of the instantaneous state space determines the physical gauge group in Yang-Mills theory.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives that the physical gauge group takes the form G^I over G^infty_0 because the instantaneous Lagrangian is defined only on a state space whose geometry automatically restricts to boundary-preserving transformations that asymptote to constants. This derivation is carried out rigorously for both Abelian and non-Abelian theories without extra physical assumptions. The same framework is applied to Yang-Mills-Higgs, where unbroken and broken phases produce distinct boundary conditions and therefore distinct physical groups. A reader would care because the result replaces an often-adopted convention with a consequence of the domain on which the Lagrangian is defined.

Core claim

The physical gauge group is G^I / G^infty_0, where G^I consists of boundary-preserving gauge transformations asymptoting to a constant and G^infty_0 consists of transformations generated by the Gauss law constraint. Restricting to G^I follows directly from the structure of the instantaneous state space on which the instantaneous Lagrangian is defined. The result holds for both Abelian and non-Abelian Yang-Mills theories and extends to the Higgs model with phase-dependent differences in boundary conditions and the resulting physical group.

What carries the argument

The instantaneous state space on which the instantaneous Lagrangian is defined, whose structure enforces restriction to boundary-preserving gauge transformations that asymptote to a constant (G^I).

Load-bearing premise

The instantaneous Lagrangian is defined on a state space whose structure automatically enforces restriction to boundary-preserving gauge transformations asymptoting to a constant, independent of additional physical input.

What would settle it

An explicit construction of a consistent instantaneous Lagrangian whose domain allows gauge transformations that do not asymptote to constants while still satisfying the spatial boundary conditions would falsify the claim.

read the original abstract

In Yang-Mills theory on a Euclidean Cauchy surface, the physical gauge group is often taken to be $\mathcal{G}^I/\mathcal{G}^\infty_0$, where $\mathcal{G}^I$ consists of boundary-preserving gauge transformations asymptoting to a constant, and $\mathcal{G}^\infty_0$ consists of transformations generated by the Gauss law constraint. We rigorously derive this physical gauge group for both Abelian and non-Abelian theories. A key result is that restricting to $\mathcal{G}^I$ follows from the structure of the instantaneous state space on which the instantaneous Lagrangian is defined. We extend our analysis to Yang-Mills-Higgs theory, showing that boundary conditions and the physical gauge group differ between the unbroken and broken phases.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to rigorously derive the physical gauge group in Yang-Mills theory on a Euclidean Cauchy surface as G^I / G^∞_0 for both Abelian and non-Abelian cases. The central result is that the restriction to G^I (boundary-preserving gauge transformations asymptoting to a constant) follows from the structure of the instantaneous state space on which the instantaneous Lagrangian is defined, without additional physical input. The analysis is extended to Yang-Mills-Higgs theory, with boundary conditions and the physical gauge group differing between unbroken and broken phases.

Significance. If the derivation is non-circular, the result would clarify the origin of asymptotic boundary conditions and the physical gauge group from the state space structure alone. This could resolve ambiguities in the treatment of global gauge symmetries in field theories with spatial boundaries.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that restricting to G^I follows from the structure of the instantaneous state space is load-bearing for the central result. The manuscript must demonstrate that the state space is first defined without asymptotic restrictions (e.g., on all smooth connections) and that the restriction to boundary-preserving transformations asymptoting to a constant emerges from the requirement that the instantaneous Lagrangian be well-defined or from the Gauss-law constraint alone, rather than being presupposed in the state space definition.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: For the non-Abelian case, the derivation of the physical gauge group must be checked against the Abelian case to confirm that no additional assumptions about the Lie algebra or adjoint action are introduced that would undermine the claim of a uniform derivation from state space structure.
minor comments (2)
  1. The groups G^I and G^∞_0 should be defined with explicit mathematical notation at their first appearance in the introduction, rather than relying solely on the abstract.
  2. The extension to Yang-Mills-Higgs theory would benefit from a brief comparison table or explicit statement of how the unbroken vs. broken phase alters the allowed asymptotic values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for highlighting the importance of clarifying the logical order in our derivation. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that restricting to G^I follows from the structure of the instantaneous state space is load-bearing for the central result. The manuscript must demonstrate that the state space is first defined without asymptotic restrictions (e.g., on all smooth connections) and that the restriction to boundary-preserving transformations asymptoting to a constant emerges from the requirement that the instantaneous Lagrangian be well-defined or from the Gauss-law constraint alone, rather than being presupposed in the state space definition.

    Authors: Section 2 defines the instantaneous configuration space as the affine space of all smooth connections on the Cauchy surface with no a priori asymptotic conditions imposed. The instantaneous Lagrangian is then introduced as a functional on this space; its well-definedness (finite action and existence of a well-posed variational principle) forces the admissible gauge transformations to lie in G^I. The Gauss-law constraint subsequently generates the normal subgroup G^∞_0. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit sentence at the beginning of Section 2 stating this order of definition, and we will insert it in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: For the non-Abelian case, the derivation of the physical gauge group must be checked against the Abelian case to confirm that no additional assumptions about the Lie algebra or adjoint action are introduced that would undermine the claim of a uniform derivation from state space structure.

    Authors: The derivation proceeds identically in both cases: the state space is the space of connections, the Lagrangian is the integral of the squared curvature, and the only functional-analytic requirement is that the gauge transformation preserve the L^2 integrability of the curvature. In the non-Abelian setting the adjoint action appears naturally when transforming the curvature, but it does not impose any extra restriction beyond what is already required for the Abelian case; the same Sobolev-type estimates close the argument. No additional Lie-algebra assumptions are used. We will add a short comparative paragraph after the non-Abelian proof to make this uniformity explicit. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation presented as following from state space structure; no reduction to input by construction visible

full rationale

The abstract states that restricting to G^I follows from the structure of the instantaneous state space on which the instantaneous Lagrangian is defined. No equations or sections are provided in the query that exhibit a self-definitional loop (e.g., the state space being introduced already equipped with the G^I boundary conditions and then the restriction being 'derived' from that). The paper claims a rigorous derivation for both Abelian and non-Abelian cases and extends to Yang-Mills-Higgs, indicating the central claim has independent mathematical content rather than reducing to a renaming or fitted input. This is the normal case of a self-contained derivation; no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling is evidenced in the given material.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on standard gauge theory structures and the definition of the instantaneous Lagrangian and state space; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are mentioned.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The instantaneous Lagrangian is defined on a state space structure that restricts gauge transformations to G^I.
    Invoked as the source of the restriction to boundary-preserving transformations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5660 in / 1174 out tokens · 34197 ms · 2026-05-23T02:48:11.646385+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Spontaneous Breaking of Global Gauge Symmetries in the Higgs mech- anism,

    S. Borsboom, “Spontaneous Breaking of Global Gauge Symmetries in the Higgs mech- anism,” 2024. Available at PhilSci Archive, https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/ 24403/, and at https://scripties.uba.uva.nl/search?id=record_54629

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Gauge invariance, boundary conditions, and charges,

    J. ´Sniatycki, “Gauge invariance, boundary conditions, and charges,” Reports on Mathemati- cal Physics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 291–303, 1988

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    On boundary conditions for Yang-Mills fields in spatially bounded domains,

    J. ´Sniatycki, “On boundary conditions for Yang-Mills fields in spatially bounded domains,” in Differential Geometry, Group Representations, and Quantization (J.-D. Hennig, W. Lücke, and J. Tolar, eds.), (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 43–53, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Unified geometric framework for boundary charges and particle dressings,

    H. Gomes and A. Riello, “Unified geometric framework for boundary charges and particle dressings,” Physical Review D, vol. 98, no. 2, p. 025013, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    A unified geometric framework for bound- ary charges and dressings: Non-Abelian theory and matter,

    H. Gomes, F. Hopfmüller, and A. Riello, “A unified geometric framework for bound- ary charges and dressings: Non-Abelian theory and matter,” Nuclear Physics B , vol. 941, pp. 249–315, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Gauging the boundary in field-space,

    H. Gomes, “Gauging the boundary in field-space,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Sci- ence Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 67, pp. 89–110, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    The quasilocal degrees of freedom of Yang-Mills theory,

    H. Gomes and A. Riello, “The quasilocal degrees of freedom of Yang-Mills theory,” SciPost Physics, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 130, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Edge modes without edge modes,

    A. Riello, “Edge modes without edge modes,” 2021. Available at arXiv:2104.10182, http: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.10182

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Hamiltonian gauge theory with corners: constraint reduction and flux superselection,

    A. Riello and M. Schiavina, “Hamiltonian gauge theory with corners: constraint reduction and flux superselection,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics , vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1241–1424, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Null hamiltonian yang–mills theory: Soft symmetries and memory as superselection,

    A. Riello and M. Schiavina, “Null hamiltonian yang–mills theory: Soft symmetries and memory as superselection,” Annales Henri Poincaré, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 389–477, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling,

    B. D. Josephson, “Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling,” Physics Letters , vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 251–253, 1962. 22

    work page 1962

  12. [12]

    Gravitational waves in general relativity. VII. waves from axi-symmetric isolated systems,

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. VII. waves from axi-symmetric isolated systems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, vol. 269, pp. 21–52, 1962

    work page 1962

  13. [13]

    Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,

    R. Sachs, “Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,” Physical Review, vol. 128, no. 6, pp. 2851–2864, 1962. Publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 1962

  14. [14]

    The asymptotic structure of gravity at spatial infinity in four spacetime dimensions,

    M. Henneaux and C. Troessaert, “The asymptotic structure of gravity at spatial infinity in four spacetime dimensions,” Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics , vol. 309, no. 1, pp. 127–149, 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Asymptotic symmetries of Yang-Mills theory,

    A. Strominger, “Asymptotic symmetries of Yang-Mills theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2014, no. 7, p. 151, 2014

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory

    A. Strominger, “Lectures on the infrared structure of gravity and gauge theory,” 2018. Available at arXiv:1703.05448, http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05448

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Asymptotic symmetries of electromagnetism at spatial infinity,

    M. Henneaux and C. Troessaert, “Asymptotic symmetries of electromagnetism at spatial infinity,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2018, no. 5, p. 137, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Pasterski, M

    S. Pasterski, M. Pate, and A.-M. Raclariu, “Celestial holography.” Available at arXiv:2111.11392, http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11392

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    Asymptotic symmetries of Yang-Mills fields in Hamiltonian for- mulation,

    R. Tanzi and D. Giulini, “Asymptotic symmetries of Yang-Mills fields in Hamiltonian for- mulation,” JHEP, vol. 10, p. 094, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [21]

    Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 13, no. 16, pp. 508–509, 1964

    work page 1964

  21. [22]

    Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,” Physi- cal Review Letters, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 321–323, 1964

    work page 1964

  22. [23]

    Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles,

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 13, no. 20, pp. 585–587, 1964

    work page 1964

  23. [24]

    The Empirical Status of Symmetries in Physics,

    P . Kosso, “The Empirical Status of Symmetries in Physics,”The British Journal for the Philos- ophy of Science, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 81–98, 2000

    work page 2000

  24. [25]

    Are Gauge Symmetry Transformations Observable?,

    K. Brading and H. R. Brown, “Are Gauge Symmetry Transformations Observable?,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 645–665, 2004

    work page 2004

  25. [26]

    Healey, Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories

    R. Healey, Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories. Oxford University Press, 2007

    work page 2007

  26. [27]

    Gauge invariant accounts of the Higgs mechanism,

    W. Struyve, “Gauge invariant accounts of the Higgs mechanism,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 226–236, 2011

    work page 2011

  27. [28]

    Galileo’s Gauge: Understanding the Empirical Significance of Gauge Symme- try,

    N. J. Teh, “Galileo’s Gauge: Understanding the Empirical Significance of Gauge Symme- try,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 93–118, 2016

    work page 2016

  28. [29]

    Isolated systems and their symmetries, part I: General framework and particle-mechanics examples,

    D. Wallace, “Isolated systems and their symmetries, part I: General framework and particle-mechanics examples,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 92, pp. 239– 248, 2022. 23

    work page 2022

  29. [30]

    Isolated Systems and Their Symmetries, Part II: Local and Global Symmetries of Field Theories,

    D. Wallace, “Isolated Systems and Their Symmetries, Part II: Local and Global Symmetries of Field Theories,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , vol. 92, pp. 249–259, 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [31]

    Holism as the empirical significance of symmetries,

    H. Gomes, “Holism as the empirical significance of symmetries,” European Journal for Phi- losophy of Science, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 87, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [32]

    Berghofer, J

    P . Berghofer, J. François, S. Friederich, H. Gomes, G. Hetzroni, A. Maas, and R. Sonden- heimer, Gauge Symmetries, Symmetry Breaking, and Gauge-Invariant Approaches . Cambridge University Press, 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [33]

    H. D. A. Gomes, Gauge Theory and the Geometrisation of Physics. Elements in the Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge University Press, 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [34]

    Generalized Hamiltonian Dynamics,

    P . A. M. Dirac, “Generalized Hamiltonian Dynamics,” Canadian Journal of Mathematics , vol. 2, pp. 129–148, 1950

    work page 1950

  34. [35]

    Constraints in covariant field theories,

    J. L. Anderson and P . G. Bergmann, “Constraints in covariant field theories,” Phys. Rev., vol. 83, pp. 1018–1025, 1951

    work page 1951

  35. [36]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems. Princeton University Press, 1992

    work page 1992

  36. [37]

    Dirac-Bergmann Constraints in Physics: Singular Lagrangians, Hamiltonian Constraints and the Second Noether Theorem,

    L. Lusanna, “Dirac-Bergmann Constraints in Physics: Singular Lagrangians, Hamiltonian Constraints and the Second Noether Theorem,” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, vol. 15, no. 10, 2018

    work page 2018

  37. [38]

    A First Class Constraint Generates Not a Gauge Transformation, But a Bad Physical Change: The Case of Electromagnetism,

    J. B. Pitts, “A First Class Constraint Generates Not a Gauge Transformation, But a Bad Physical Change: The Case of Electromagnetism,” Annals of Physics, vol. 351, pp. 382–406, 2014

    work page 2014

  38. [39]

    First-class constraints generate gauge transformations in elec- tromagnetism (reply to Pitts),

    O. Pooley and D. Wallace, “First-class constraints generate gauge transformations in elec- tromagnetism (reply to Pitts),” 2022. Available at arXiv:2210.09063,http://arxiv.org/ abs/2210.09063

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [40]

    Do First-Class Constraints Generate Gauge Transformations? A Geometric Resolution,

    C. Bradley, “Do First-Class Constraints Generate Gauge Transformations? A Geometric Resolution,” 2024. Available at: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23730/

    work page 2024

  40. [41]

    The Relationship Between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics: The Ir- regular Case,

    C. Bradley, “The Relationship Between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics: The Ir- regular Case,” 2025. Available at: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/25200/

    work page 2025

  41. [42]

    Gauge Symmetries,Topology and Quantisation

    A. P . Balachandran, “Gauge Symmetries,Topology and Quantisation,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 317, pp. 1–81, 1994. Available at arXiv:hep-th/9210111, http://arxiv. org/abs/hep-th/9210111

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  42. [43]

    Asymptotic symmetry groups of long ranged gauge configurations,

    D. Giulini, “Asymptotic symmetry groups of long ranged gauge configurations,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A, vol. 10, pp. 2059–2070, 1995

    work page 2059

  43. [44]

    Dirac’s Observables for the Higgs Model: I) the Abelian Case,

    L. Lusanna and P . Valtancoli, “Dirac’s Observables for the Higgs Model: I) the Abelian Case,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 12, no. 26, 1997

    work page 1997

  44. [45]

    M. F. Atiyah, Geometry of Yang-Mills Fields. Scuola Normale Superiore, 1979

    work page 1979

  45. [46]

    J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu, Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry: A Basic Exposition of Classical Mechanical Systems, vol. 17 of Texts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, 1999. 24

    work page 1999

  46. [47]

    A. C. Da Silva, Lectures on Symplectic Geometry , vol. 1764 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  47. [48]

    E. Binz, J. ´Sniatycki, and H. Fischer, Geometry of Classical Fields , vol. 154 of North-Holland Mathematics Studies. Elsevier, 1988

    work page 1988

  48. [49]

    Symmetry and gauge freedom,

    G. Belot, “Symmetry and gauge freedom,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 189–225, 2003

    work page 2003

  49. [50]

    The Geometry of the Orbit Space for Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,

    I. M. Singer, “The Geometry of the Orbit Space for Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,” Physica Scripta, vol. 24, no. 5, p. 817, 1981

    work page 1981

  50. [51]

    Gauge Theories of the Forces Between Elementary Particles,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Gauge Theories of the Forces Between Elementary Particles,” Scientific Ameri- can, vol. 242N6, pp. 90–116, 1980

    work page 1980

  51. [52]

    Empirical Consequences of Symmetries,

    H. Greaves and D. Wallace, “Empirical Consequences of Symmetries,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 59–89, 2014

    work page 2014

  52. [53]

    Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields. Part I: Covariant Field Theory

    M. J. Gotay, J. Isenberg, J. E. Marsden, and R. Montgomery, “Momentum maps and clas- sical relativistic fields. part i: Covariant field theory.” Available at arXiv:physics/9801019, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9801019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [54]

    Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields. Part II: Canonical Analysis of Field Theories

    M. J. Gotay, J. Isenberg, and J. E. Marsden, “Momentum maps and classical relativistic fields. part II: Canonical analysis of field theories.” Available at arXiv:math-ph/0411032, http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0411032

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [55]

    M. J. Hamilton, Mathematical Gauge Theory. Universitext, Springer International Publishing, 2017

    work page 2017

  55. [56]

    Linearization stability of gravitational and gauge fields,

    J. M. Arms, “Linearization stability of gravitational and gauge fields,” Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 443–453, 1979

    work page 1979

  56. [57]

    The Existence and uniqueness of solutions of Yang-Mills equations with bag boundary conditions,

    J. Sniatycki and G. Schwarz, “The Existence and uniqueness of solutions of Yang-Mills equations with bag boundary conditions,” Commun. Math. Phys. , vol. 159, pp. 593–604, 1994

    work page 1994

  57. [58]

    Fields, observables and gauge transformations I,

    S. Doplicher, R. Haag, and J. E. Roberts, “Fields, observables and gauge transformations I,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 1969

    work page 1969

  58. [59]

    Fields, observables and gauge transformations II,

    S. Doplicher, R. Haag, and J. E. Roberts, “Fields, observables and gauge transformations II,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 173–200, 1969

    work page 1969

  59. [60]

    Local observables and particle statistics I,

    S. Doplicher, R. Haag, and J. E. Roberts, “Local observables and particle statistics I,” Com- munications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 199–230, 1971

    work page 1971

  60. [61]

    A new duality theory for compact groups,

    S. Doplicher and J. E. Roberts, “A new duality theory for compact groups,” Inventiones mathematicae, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 157–218, 1989

    work page 1989

  61. [62]

    Why there is a field algebra with a compact gauge group describing the superselection structure in particle physics,

    S. Doplicher and J. E. Roberts, “Why there is a field algebra with a compact gauge group describing the superselection structure in particle physics,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 51–107, 1990

    work page 1990

  62. [63]

    An Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory,

    R. Haag and D. Kastler, “An Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 848–861, 1964. 25

    work page 1964

  63. [64]

    The structure of the solution set for the Yang-Mills equations,

    J. M. Arms, “The structure of the solution set for the Yang-Mills equations,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 361–372, 1981

    work page 1981

  64. [65]

    On symmetry and conserved quantities in classical mechanics,

    J. Butterfield, “On symmetry and conserved quantities in classical mechanics,” in Physical Theory and its Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Bub (W. Demopoulos and I. Pitowsky, eds.), pp. 43–100, Springer Netherlands, 2006

    work page 2006

  65. [66]

    Asymptotic symmetries of scalar electrodynamics and of the abelian Higgs model in Hamiltonian formulation,

    R. Tanzi and D. Giulini, “Asymptotic symmetries of scalar electrodynamics and of the abelian Higgs model in Hamiltonian formulation,” JHEP, vol. 08, p. 117, 2021

    work page 2021

  66. [67]

    Invariante variationsprobleme,

    E. Noether, “Invariante variationsprobleme,” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wis- senschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, pp. 235–257, 1918

    work page 1918

  67. [68]

    Curie’s Principle and spontaneous symmetry breaking,

    J. Earman, “Curie’s Principle and spontaneous symmetry breaking,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 18, no. 2-3, pp. 173–198, 2004

    work page 2004

  68. [69]

    The Elusive Higgs Mechanism,

    C. Smeenk, “The Elusive Higgs Mechanism,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 487– 499, 2006

    work page 2006

  69. [70]

    Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist?,

    H. Lyre, “Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist?,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Sci- ence, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 119–133, 2008

    work page 2008

  70. [71]

    Constraining the Higgs Mechanism: Ontological Worries and the Prospects for an Algebraic Cure,

    M. Stöltzner, “Constraining the Higgs Mechanism: Ontological Worries and the Prospects for an Algebraic Cure,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 930–941, 2012

    work page 2012

  71. [72]

    The Higgs mechanism and superconductivity: A case study of formal analogies,

    D. Fraser and A. Koberinski, “The Higgs mechanism and superconductivity: A case study of formal analogies,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 55, pp. 72–91, 2016

    work page 2016

  72. [73]

    Dirac’s Observables for the Higgs Model: II) the non- Abelian SU(2) Case,

    L. Lusanna and P . Valtancoli, “Dirac’s Observables for the Higgs Model: II) the non- Abelian SU(2) Case,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 12, no. 26, 1997

    work page 1997

  73. [74]

    The global existence of Yang-Mills-Higgs fields in 4- dimensional minkowski space,

    D. M. Eardley and V . Moncrief, “The global existence of Yang-Mills-Higgs fields in 4- dimensional minkowski space,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 193–212, 1982

    work page 1982

  74. [75]

    Global Gauge Symmetry Breaking in the Abelian Higgs Mechanism,

    S. Borsboom and S. De Haro, “Global Gauge Symmetry Breaking in the Abelian Higgs Mechanism,” 2025. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17483

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Localization and symmetries,

    G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, “Localization and symmetries,” Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical, vol. 40, no. 12, p. 3173, 2007

    work page 2007

  76. [77]

    A non-perturbative argument for the non-Abelian Higgs mechanism,

    G. De Palma and F. Strocchi, “A non-perturbative argument for the non-Abelian Higgs mechanism,” Annals of Physics, vol. 336, pp. 112–117, 2013

    work page 2013

  77. [78]

    Strocchi, An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Foundations of Quantum Field Theory

    F. Strocchi, An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Foundations of Quantum Field Theory . Inter- national Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  78. [79]

    Edge modes as reference frames and boundary actions from post-selection,

    S. Carrozza and P . A. Höhn, “Edge modes as reference frames and boundary actions from post-selection,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2022, no. 2, p. 172, 2022

    work page 2022

  79. [80]

    Dynamical edge modes in Yang-Mills theory

    A. Ball and L. Ciambelli, “Dynamical edge modes in Yang-Mills theory.”

    work page

  80. [81]

    Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups,

    A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley, “Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 367, 2020. 26

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.