Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T18:24:37.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflections on Parity Nonconservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Nick Huggett
Nick Huggett*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers the implications for the relational-substantival debate of observations of parity nonconservation in weak interactions, a much neglected topic. It is argued that ‘geometric proofs’ of absolute space, first proposed by Kant (1768), fail, but that parity violating laws allow ‘mechanical proofs’, like Newton's laws. Parity violating laws are explained and arguments analogous to those of Newton's Scholium are constructed to show that they require absolute spacetime structure—namely, an orientation—as Newtonian mechanics requires affine structure. Finally, it is considered how standard relationist responses to Newton's argument might respond to the new challenge of parity nonconservation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 219 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, MC 267, 1421 University Hall, 601 South Morgan Street, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607-7114.

‡

This paper benefitted from comments from Carl Hoeffer, Jon Jarrett, Tim Maudlin, Mark Vuletic, and an anonymous referee. I also received useful feedback from presentations at the annual philosophy of science conference at the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik and to the Belgian Society for Logic and Philosophy of Science. I thank the Institute for the Humanities at UIC for a fellowship during which this work was completed.

References

Baez, John and Munian, Javier P. (1994), Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballentine, Leslie E. (1990), Quantum Mechanics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Bjorken, James D. and Drell, Sidney D. (1964), Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.Google Scholar
Brighouse, Carolyn (1999), “Incongruent Counterparts and Modal Relationism”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13.1: 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budden, Tim (1998), Numbers and Locality. Presented at the Philosophy of Science Conference, The Inter-University Centre, Dubrovnik, April 1998.Google Scholar
Commins, Eugene D. (1993), “Resource Letter ETDSTS-1: Experimental Tests of the Discrete Spacetime Symmetries”, American Journal of Physics 61: 778–788.10.1119/1.17170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John (1971), “Kant, Incongruous Counterparts, and the Nature of Space and Spacetime,” Ratio 13: 1–18. Reprinted in Van Cleve and Frederick 1991, 131–149.Google Scholar
Earman, John. (1989), World Enough and Spacetime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 7 reprinted in Van Cleve and Frederick 1991 as “On the Other Hand: A Reconsideration of Kant, Incongruent Counterparts, and Absolute Space”, 235–255.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard (1748), “Reflections on Space and Time”, translated by Link M. Lotter, in Koslow, Arnold (ed.), The Changeless Order: The Physics of Space, Time and Motion. New York: George Braziller Inc., 115–125. Originally published as “Réflexions sur l'espace et le temps”, Mémoires de l'Académie des Sciences (Berlin)' IV.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1983), Foundations of Spacetime Theories: Relativistic Physics and the Philosophy of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, Martin (1990), The New Ambidextrous Universe (rev. ed.). New York: W. H. Freedman and Co.Google Scholar
Geroch, Robert (1968), “Spinor Structure of Space-Times in General Relativity”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 9: 1739–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, Nick (1999a), “Why Manifold Substantivalism is Probably Not a Consequence of Classical Mechanics”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13.1: 17–34.10.1080/02698599908573605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, Nick. (1999b), Space from Zeno to Einstein: Classic Readings with a Contemporary Commentary. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1768), “Concerning the First Grounds of the Distinction of Regions in Space”, translated by J. Handyside, in Van Cleve and Frederick 1991, 27–38. Originally published as “Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume”, Königsberger Frag- und Anzeigungsnachrichten 6–8 (Königsberg).Google Scholar
Lee, Tsung D. and Yang, Chen N. (1956), “Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions”, Physical Review 104: 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luminet, Jean-Pierre, Starkman, Glenn D., and Weeks, Jeffrey R. (1999), “Is Space Finite?”, Scientific American 280: 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, Ernst (1883 [1893]), The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development. Translated by McCormack, Thomas J. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press. Originally published as Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historisch-Kritisch Dargestellt. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Maglich, Bogdan (1973), Adventures in Experimental Physics y. Princeton: World Science Education.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim (1993), “Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime is Probably a Substance”, Philosophy of Science 60: 183–203.10.1086/289728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merzbacher, Eugen (1961), Quantum Mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Graham (1976), The Shape of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2 reprinted in Van Cleve and Frederick 1991, 151–172.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac (1686 [1729] [1934]), Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by Motte, Andrew and Cajori, Florian. Berkeley: University of California Press. Originally published as Philosophiœ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London.Google Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence (1974), Space, Time and Spacetime. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard (1967), “Newtonian Spacetime”, The Texas Quarterly X: 174–200.Google Scholar
Van Cleeve, James (1991), “Introduction to the Arguments of 1770 and 1783”, in Van Cleve and Frederick 1991, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, James and Frederick, Robert E. (eds.) (1991), The Philosophy of Right and Left. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1970), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time and Space. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, Chien-Shiung, Ambler, Ernest, Hayward, R. W., Hoppes, D. D., and Hudson, R. P. (1957), “Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay”, Physical Review 105: 1413–15. Reprinted in Maglich 1973, 119–120.10.1103/PhysRev.105.1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar