Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T01:39:52.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Our Best Physical Theories (Probably and/or Approximately) True?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jeffrey A. Barrett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is good reason to suppose that our best physical theories are false: In addition to its own internal problems, the standard formulation of quantum mechanics is logically incompatible with special relativity. I will also argue that we have no concrete idea what it means to claim that these theories are approximately true.

Type
Topics in Philosophy of Physics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 1206 - 1218
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank David Albert and David Malament for conversations on the status of quantum mechanics and relativity and Craig Callendar for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Aharonov, Yakir, and Albert, David (1980), “States and Observables in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory”, States and Observables in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory D 21:3316–3324.Google Scholar
Aharonov, Yakir, and Albert, David (1981), “Can We Make Sense out of the Measurement Process in Reltivistic Quantum Mechanics?”, Can We Make Sense out of the Measurement Process in Reltivistic Quantum Mechanics? D 24:359–370.Google Scholar
Albert, David (2000), “Special Relativity as an Open Question”, in Breuer, Heinz-Peter and Petruccione, Francesco (eds.), Relativistic Quantum Measurement and Decoherence. Berlin: Springer, 3–13.Google Scholar
Albert, David (1992), Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, Guido (2001), “Remarks on Space-time and Locality in Everett's Interpretation”, NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Modality, Probability, and Bell's Theorems, Cracow, 19–23 August 2001. Pittsburgh PhilSci Archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu. Proceedings to be published by Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. (1996), “Empirical Adequacy and the Availability of Reliable Records in Quantum Mechanics”, Empirical Adequacy and the Availability of Reliable Records in Quantum Mechanics 63:49–64.Google Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. (1999), The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bub, Jeffrey (1997), Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dickson, W. Michael (1998), Quantum Chance and Non-locality: Probability and Non-locality in the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, W. Michael, and Clifton, Rob (1998), “Lorentz-Invariance in Modal Interpretations”, in Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. (eds.), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 9–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1905 [1952]), “On the Elecrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, in The Principle of Relativity. Translated by Perrett, W. and Jeffery, G. B.. London: Dover.Google Scholar
Fleming, Gordon (1988), “Hyperplane-Dependent Quantized Fields and Lorentz Invariance”, in Brown, H. R. and Harré, R. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 93–115.Google Scholar
Instituts Solvay; Conseil de Physique (1928), Électrons et Photons: Rapports et Discussions du cinquième Conseil de physique tenu à Bruxelles du 24 au 29 octobre 1927 sous les auspices de l'Institute international de physique Solvay. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Malament, David B. (1996), “In Defense of Dogma: Why There Cannot be a Relativistic Quantum Mechanics of (Localizable) Particles”, in Clifton, R. (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–10.Google Scholar
Pauli, Wolfgang (1954 [1971]), “Letter to Born, 31 March 1954”, in Born, M. (ed.), The Born-Einstein Letters. London: Walker and Co., 221–225.Google Scholar
Rovelli, Carlo (1997), “Relational Quantum Mechanics”, quant-ph/9609002.Google Scholar
von Neumann, John (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Translated by Beyer, R.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar