No superluminal propagation for classical relativistic and relativistic quantum fields

Earman, John

doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.07.005

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly definitions hold for the chronological (causal) past. The whole causal past of an event p is often interpreted intuitively as the total set of events that could "influence" p, and its whole causal future as those that it could "influence"; it is a surprisingly subtle matter to make this idea precise, however (Earman, 2014). Even when a spacetime does not have a temporal orientation, one can still define the two-place relation of chronological (resp.…”

Section: Standard Geometrical Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Relativistic Spacetime Structure

Fletcher¹

2021

The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I survey from a modern perspective what spacetime structure there is according to the general theory of relativity, and what of it determines what else. I describe in some detail both the "standard" and various alternative answers to these questions. Besides bringing many underexplored topics to the attention of philosophers of physics and of science, metaphysicians of science, and foundationally minded physicists, I also aim to cast other, more familiar ones in a new light.

show abstract

Section: Standard Geometrical Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Relativistic Spacetime Structure

Fletcher¹

2021

The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…41 The fact that the null cones determine a topological boundary for the chronological I think Manchak's definition of "local" is superior, as judged by its physical significance in the context of general relativity, to the one I proposed in Curiel (1999, §5), though the latter may still be of interest in purely mathematical contexts, or in contexts of physical investigation that transcend the scope of a single theory. 41 See, however, Geroch (2010) and Earman (2013) for dissenting arguments.…”

Section: Manifest Physicalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Existence of Spacetime Structure

Curiel

2018

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I examine the debate between substantivalists and relationalists about the ontological character of spacetime and conclude it is not well posed. I argue that the so-called Hole Argument does not bear on the debate, because it provides no clear criterion to distinguish the positions. I propose two such precise criteria and construct separate arguments based on each to yield contrary conclusions, one supportive of something like relationalism and the other of something like substantivalism. The lesson is that one must fix an investigative context in order to make such criteria precise, but different investigative contexts yield inconsistent results. I examine questions of existence about spacetime structures other than the spacetime manifold itself to argue that it is more fruitful to focus on pragmatic issues of physicality, a notion that lends itself to several different explications, all of philosophical interest, none privileged a priori over any of the others. I conclude by suggesting an extension of the lessons of my arguments to the broader debate between realists and instrumentalists. † This paper is forthcoming in British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2015. ‡ I owe a great debt to Howard Stein's papers "Yes, but. . . : Some Skeptical Remarks on Realism and Anti-Realism" and "Some Reflections on the Structure of Our Knowledge in Physics", both of which inspired the paper's spirit. I am not sure whether Prof. Stein would endorse the paper's methods. I have hopes he would. It is a pleasure to thank the Philosophy Department at Carnegie Mellon for tough questioning after a colloquium in which I presented an earlier version of this paper, and in particular Richard Scheines, Teddy Seidenfeld and Peter Spirtes for pushing me on the arguments of §3; I thank as well the philosophy of physics reading group at Irvine, and especially Jim Weatherall, for penetrating questions about §3. The paper is much stronger for my attempts to address their skepticism. I also thank the Fellows at the Center for Philosophy of Science (2008Science ( -2009 [W]e must bear in mind that the scientific or science-producing value of the efforts made to answer these old standing questions is not to be measured by the prospect they afford us of ultimately obtaining a solution, but by their effect in stimulating men to a thorough investigation of nature. To propose a scientific question presupposes scientific knowledge, and the questions which exercise men's minds in the present state of science may very likely be such that a little more knowledge would shew us that no answer is possible. The scientific value of the question, How do bodies act on one another at a distance?is to be found in the stimulus it has given to investigations into the properties of the intervening medium. James Clerk Maxwell "Attraction", Encyclopaedia Brittanica (9th ed.)[B]etween a cogent and enlightened "realism" and a sophisticated "instrumentalism" there is no significant difference-no difference that makes a difference.

show abstract

“…Then I will present some general definitions and propositions that allow one to define a notion of (maximal) propagation velocity. At the end of the section, I will turn to a proposal by Geroch (2011) and Earman (2014) to the effect that the sense of propagation velocity given by Geroch's analysis is the salient one in connection with relativity theory.…”

Section: Geroch and Earman On Superluminal Propagationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is not to say that the more principled question is never taken up. In recent work, Geroch (2011) and Earman (2014) have articulated a precise and general account of what it would mean for a physical system to propagate superluminally in relativity theory. 2 More 1 Here I limit attention to cases where the electromagnetic field is treated classically.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Against dogma: On superluminal propagation in classical electromagnetism

Weatherall

2014

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is deeply entrenched dogma that relativity theory prohibits superluminal propagation. It is also experimentally well-established that under some circumstances, classical electromagnetic fields propagate through a dielectric medium with superluminal group velocities and superluminal phase velocities. But it is usually claimed that these superluminal velocities do not violate the relativistic prohibition. Here I analyze electromagnetic fields in a dielectric medium within a framework for understanding superluminal propagation recently developed by Geroch (1996Geroch ( , 2011 and elaborated by Earman (2014). I will argue that for some parameter values, electromagnetic fields do propagate superluminally in the Geroch-Earman sense.

show abstract

No superluminal propagation for classical relativistic and relativistic quantum fields

Cited by 17 publications

References 9 publications

Relativistic Spacetime Structure

Relativistic Spacetime Structure

On the Existence of Spacetime Structure

Against dogma: On superluminal propagation in classical electromagnetism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About