Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T21:26:54.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Awkward Symmetry: The Tension between Particle Ontologies and Permutation Invariance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Benjamin Jantzen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Physical theories continue to be interpreted in terms of particles. The idea of a particle has required modification for successive theories but remains central to scientific explanation. Particle ontologies also have the virtue of explaining basic epistemic features of the world and so remain appealing for the scientific realist. However, particle ontologies are untenable when coupled with the empirically necessary postulate of permutation invariance—the claim that permuting the roles of particles in a representation of a physical state results in a representation of the same state. I demonstrate that any permutation invariant theory is incompatible with a particle ontology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 39 - 59
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 am grateful to John Earman, Jeremy Butterfield, Bryan Roberts, Peter Spirtes, and Kristina Jantzen for valuable discussion and criticism of previous drafts of this article. I am particularly indebted to Clark Glymour for helping me to clarify the logical structure of my argument, to two anonymous referees for their careful reading and insightful critique, and to Mara Harrell for guiding the development of the ideas reported here.

References

Bach, Alexander. 1997. Indistinguishable Classical Particles. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitbol, Michael. 2007. “Schrödinger against Particles and Quantum Jumps.” In Quantum Mechanics at the Crossroads: New Perspectives from History, Philosophy and Physics, ed. Evans, James and Thorndike, A. S., 81–106. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, Michael. 2007. “Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics.” In Philosophy of Physics, ed. Butterfield, Jeremy and Earman, John, 275–415. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard P., Leighton, Robert B., and Sands, Matthew. 1963. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. vol. 1. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
French, Steven. 1989. “Identity and Individuality in Classical and Quantum Physics.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67 (4): 432–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven, and Krause, Décio. 2006. Identity in Physics. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartle, James B., and Taylor, John R.. 1969. “Quantum Mechanics of Paraparticles.” Physical Review 178 (5): 2043–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P. D., and Callender, Craig. 2004. “Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy.” Philosophy of Science 71:320–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messiah, A. M. L., and Greenberg, O. W.. 1964. “Symmetrization Postulate and Its Experimental Foundation.” Physical Review 136 (1): 248–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. 2007. “The ‘Miracle Argument’ for Scientific Realism.” Rutherford Journal: The New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, no. 2.Google Scholar
Nash, Leonard K. 1950. “The Atomic-Molecular Theory.” In Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, ed. Conant, James Bryan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. 1966. “Optiks.” In The World of the Atom, ed. Boorse, Henry A. and Motz, Lloyd, 102–4. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Michael A., and Chuang, Isaac L.. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Omnès, Roland. 1994. The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakurai, J. J. 1994. Modern Quantum Mechanics, ed. Tuan, San Fu. Rev. ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Saunders, Simon. 2006. “On the Explanation for Quantum Statistics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37:192–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankar, R. 1994. Principles of Quantum Mechanics. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar