David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 70 (3):379 - 395 (2009)
It was recognized almost from the original formulation of general relativity that the theory was incomplete because it dealt only with classical, rather than quantum, matter. What must be done in order to complete the theory has been a subject of considerable debate over the last century, and here I just mention a few of the various options that have been suggested for a quantum theory of gravity. The aim of what follows is twofold. First, I address worries about the consistency and physical plausibility of hybrid theories of gravity—theories involving a classical gravitational field and quantum matter fields. Such worries are shown to be unfounded. These hybrid theories—mongrel gravity—in fact comprise the only current, actual theories of gravity that incorporate quantum matter, and they also offer legitimate promise as tools for discovering the full theory of gravity. So my second aim is to highlight these theories as providing an interesting example of scientific revolution in action. I begin to try to draw some philosophical lessons from mongrel gravity theories, but more importantly I try to convince philosophers of physics that they should pay more attention to them.
|Keywords||Philosophy Logic Ethics Ontology Epistemology Philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
Imre Lakatos (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press.
James Mattingly (2005). The Structure of Scientific Theory Change: Models Versus Privileged Formulations. Philosophy of Science 72 (2):365-389.
Kenneth Eppley & Eric Hannah (1977). The Necessity of Quantizing the Gravitational Field. Foundations of Physics 7 (1-2):51-68.
Daniel R. Terno (2006). Inconsistency of Quantum—Classical Dynamics, and What It Implies. Foundations of Physics 36 (1):102-111.
Citations of this work BETA
Karen Crowther (2013). Emergent Spacetime According to Effective Field Theory: From Top-Down and Bottom-Up. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (3):321-328.
James Mattingly (2014). Unprincipled Microgravity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 46 (2):179-185.
James Mattingly (2013). Emergence of Spacetime in Stochastic Gravity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (3):329-337.
Similar books and articles
Y. T. (2001). Prerequisites for a Consistent Framework of Quantum Gravity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (2):181-204.
Nick Huggett & Craig Callender (2001). Why Quantize Gravity (or Any Other Field for That Matter)? Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S382-.
Jeremy Butterfield & Chris Isham (2001). Spacetime and the Philosophical Challenge of Quantum Gravity. In Physics Meets Philosophy at the Panck Scale. Cambridge University Press
Henrik Zinkernagel (2006). The Philosophy Behind Quantum Gravity. Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 21 (3):295-312.
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi, Are the Concepts of Mass in Quantum Theory and in General Relativity the Same?
Christian Wuthrich (2005). To Quantize or Not to Quantize: Fact and Folklore in Quantum Gravity. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):777-788.
Added to index2009-03-16
Total downloads28 ( #141,035 of 1,907,660 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #158,844 of 1,907,660 )
How can I increase my downloads?