Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:13:51.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservation Laws in Scientific Explanations: Constraints or Coincidences?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Marc Lange
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A conservation law in physics can be either a constraint on the kinds of interaction there could be or a coincidence of the kinds of interactions there actually are. This is an important, unjustly neglected distinction. Only if a conservation law constrains the possible kinds of interaction can a derivation from it constitute a scientific explanation despite failing to describe the causal/mechanical details behind the result derived. This conception of the relation between “bottom-up” scientific explanations and one kind of “top-down” scientific explanation is motivated by several examples from classical and modern physics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 333 - 352
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.)

References

Barrow, John D., and Tipler, Frank J.. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Brown, Harvey R. 2005. Physical Relativity. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Brandon. 1990. “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.” In Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, ed. Leslie, John, 125–33. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Davies, Paul. 1986. The Forces of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DiSalle, Robert. 2006. Understanding Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffin, W. J. 1980. Electricity and Magnetism. 3rd ed. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. 1954. “What Is the Theory of Relativity?” In Ideas and Opinions, 27–32. New York: Bonanza.Google Scholar
Elster, John. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard. 1967. The Character of Physical Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halonen, Ilpo, and Hintikka, Jaakko 1999. “Unification: It's Magnificent but Is It Explanatory?” Synthese 120:27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Keeports, David. 2002. “How Does the Potential Energy of a Rising Helium-Filled Balloon Change?” Physics Teacher 40:164–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosso, Peter. 2000. “Fundamental and Accidental Symmetries.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14:109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanczos, Cornelius. 1986. The Variational Principles of Mechanics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc. 2007. “Laws and Meta-laws of Nature: Conservation Laws and Symmetries.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38:457–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Marc. 2009. Laws and Lawmakers. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lederman, Leon, and Teresi, Dick. 1993. The God Particle. New York: Dell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, Bernard. 1985. “Archimedes Principle: A Simple Derivation.” European Journal of Physics 6:56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, Ernst. 1960. The Science of Mechanics. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Ne’eman, Yuval, and Kirsh, Yoram. 1996. The Particle Hunters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planck, Max. 1948. “Ansprache des Vorsitzenden Sekretars, Gehalten in der öffentlichen Sitzung zur Feier des Leibnizschen Jahrestages, 29 June 1922.” In Max Planck in Seinen Akademie-Ansprachen, 46–48. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Pnueli, David, and Gutfinger, Chaim. 1992. Fluid Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudiak, V. M. 1964. “A Proof of Archimedes’ Principle.” Physics Teacher 2:293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. 1989. “Four Decades of Scientific Explanation.” In Scientific Explanation: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13, ed. Philip Kitcher and Wesley Salmon, 3–219. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, Mark. 1978. “Mathematics, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge.” Noûs 12:17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarasov, Lev, and Tarasova, Aldina. 1973. Questions and Problems in School Physics. Moscow: Mir.Google Scholar
Trefil, James. 2003. The Nature of Science: An A–Z Guide to the Laws and Principles Governing Our Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Steven. 1995. The Quantum Theory of Fields. vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, William. 1874. History of the Inductive Sciences. Vol. 1, 3rd ed. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Wigner, Eugene. 1972. “Events, Laws of Nature, and Invariance Principles.” In Collected Papers, pt. A, vol. 3, 185–96. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar