Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:30:32.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Compatible?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Nicholas Maxwell
Nicholas Maxwell*
Affiliation:
Department of the History and Philosophy of Science University College, London, U.K
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are probabilism and special relativity compatible? Dieks argues that they are. But the possible universe he specifies, designed to exemplify both probabilism and special relativity, either incorporates a universal “now” (and is thus incompatible with special relativity), or amounts to a many world universe (which I have discussed, and rejected as too ad hoc to be taken seriously), or fails to have any one definite overall Minkowskian-type space-time structure (and thus differs drastically from special relativity as ordinarily understood). Probabilism and special relativity appear to be incompatible after all. What is at issue is not whether “the flow of time” can be reconciled with special relativity, but rather whether explicitly probabilistic versions of quantum theory should be rejected because of incompatibility with special relativity.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , December 1988 , pp. 640 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by 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 wish to thank Robert Seymour for helpful discussion.

References

REFERENCES

Dieks, D. (1988), “Discussion: Special Relativity and the Flow of Time”, Philosophy of Science 55: 456–460.10.1086/289452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1968), “Can there be Necessary Connections between Successive Events?”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19: 1–25.10.1093/bjps/19.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1976), “Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics”, Foundations of Physics 6: 275–292, 661–676.10.1007/BF00708802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1982), “Instead of Particles and Fields: A Micro Realistic Quantum ‘Smearon’ Theory”, Foundations of Physics 12: 607–631.10.1007/BF00731931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1984), From Knowledge to Wisdom. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1985), “Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Incompatible?”, Philosophy of Science 52: 23–43.10.1086/289220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, N. (1988), “Quantum Propensiton Theory: A Testable Resolution of the Wave/Particle Dilemma”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39: 1–50.10.1093/bjps/39.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTaggart, J. E. (1927), The Nature of Existence, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rietdijk, C. W. (1966), “A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity”, Philosophy of Science 33: 341–344.10.1086/288106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietdijk, C. W. (1976), “Special Relativity and Determinism”, Philosophy of Science 43: 598–609.10.1086/288719CrossRefGoogle Scholar