David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoria 1 (2):439-459 (1985)
In this paper I review the different opinions held by scientists and philosophers as regards the status of the action-at-a-distance concept within relativistic physics. It is shown that in spite of the fact that the prevailing opinion has been that special relativity precludes actions at a distance, some important physicists have continued employing that concept throughout the present century. The key to understand that “anomalous” behaviour lies, in fact, in the relationships existent between quantum and classical physics (“inverse” principle of correspondence)
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul M. Clark (ed.) (1981). Modern Physics and Problems of Knowledge. Open University Press.
A. Zee (1986/1999). Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. Princeton University Press.
Richard Staley (2008). Einstein's Generation: The Origins of the Relativity Revolution. University of Chicago Press.
Richard Schlegel (1980). Superposition & Interaction: Coherence in Physics. University of Chicago Press.
Edward Rosen (1962). Book Review:Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics Mary Brenda Hesse. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 29 (4):434-.
Michael Redhead (1987). Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press.
Roberto Torretti (1999). The Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge University Press.
Rinat M. Nugayev (1996). Why Did the New Physics Force Out the Old? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):127 – 140.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #302,332 of 1,018,157 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #65,321 of 1,018,157 )
How can I increase my downloads?