Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:28:55.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physical Magnitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2024

Niels C. M. Martens
Niels C. M. Martens
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands

Summary

Dimensional quantities such as length, mass and charge, i.e., numbers combined with a conventional unit, are essential components of theories in the sciences, especially physics, chemistry and biology. Do they represent a world with absolute physical magnitudes, or are they merely magnitude ratios in disguise? Would we notice a difference if all the distances or charges in the world suddenly doubled? These central questions of this Element are illustrated by imagining how one would convey the meaning of a kilogram to aliens if one were only allowed to communicate via Morse code.
Get access

Keywords

physical magnitudesphysical quantitiesscaling symmetriesmetaphysics of quantitiesmass
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Physics
Online ISBN: 9781009233705
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 04 April 2024

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

Alexander, H., editor. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956/1717. Originally written by G. W. Leibniz and S. Clarke in 1715–16 and published by S. Clarke in 1717.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D.. A Theory of Universals: Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D.. Are quantities relations? A reply to Bigelow and Pargetter. Philosophical Studies, 54:305–16, 1988.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, F.. Space, Time, & Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. J.. Some consequences of physics for the comparative metaphysics of quantity. Manuscript, May 2013, later uploaded to http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12674/.Google Scholar
Baker, D. J.. Comparativism with mixed relations. Manuscript, June 2013.Google Scholar
Bigelow, J. and Pargetter, R.. Science and Necessity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Bigelow, J., Pargetter, R. and Armstrong, D.. Quantities. Philosophical Studies, 54:287–304, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, S.. Absolutism vs comparativism about quantity. In Bennett, K. and Zimmerman, D. W., editors, Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, volume 8, pages 105–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S.. Inexpressible ignorance. Philosophical Review, 124(4):441–80, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, S.. Symmetry as an epistemic notion (twice over). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67(3):837–78, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, S.. How to be a relationalist. In Bennett, K. and Zimmerman, D. W., editors, Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, volume 12, pages 113–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192893314.003.0005.Google Scholar
Dees, M.. Physical magnitudes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 99(4):817–41, 2018. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/papq.12223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, N.. Sophistication about symmetries. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(2):485–521, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, N.. On absolute units. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2020. DOI: 10.1086/715236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddon, M.. Quantitative properties. Philosophy Compass, 8(7):633–45, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B.. Basic Concepts of Measurement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Field, H. H.. Science without Numbers: A Defence of Nominalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.Google Scholar
Funkhouser, E.. The determinable-determinate relation. Noûs, 40(3):548–69, 2006. ISSN 00294624, 14680068. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M.. The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Asymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc, 2005 (third edition), 1964/1990. Revised and retitled in 1990.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C.. Gauge and explanation: Can gauge-dependent quantities be explanatory? Master’s thesis, University of Oxford, 2019.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C.. Symmetries as a Guide to the Structure of Physical Quantities. PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 2021.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C.. Comparativist theories or conspiracy theories? The no miracles argument against comparativism. PhilSci Archive, Philosophy of Science Association, University of Pittsburgh, 2023a. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21948/1/cosmic%20conspiracies.pdf.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C.. The nature of a constant of nature: The case of G. Philosophy of Science, 90(4):797–816, 2023b. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalloh, M.. The Π-theorem as a guide to quantity symmetries and the argument against absolutism. PhilSci Archive, Philosophy of Science Association, University of Pittsburgh, 2022. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/20743/.Google Scholar
Jammer, M.. Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, A. and Richarz, F.. Eine neue Methode zur Bestimmung der Gravitationsconstante. Annalen der Physik, 260(4):664–68, 1885. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.18852600409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, D., Luce, R., Suppes, P. and Tversky, A.. Foundations of Measurement, Volume 1. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J.. On the identity and diversity of objects in a structure. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 81:23–43, 2007. ISSN 03097013, 14678349. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20619100.Google Scholar
Lewis, D.. Philosophical Papers, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Martens, N. C. M.. Against Comparativism about Mass in Newtonian Gravity: A Case Study in the Metaphysics of Scale. PhD thesis, 2017a. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:3f98e412-2cf7-4810-8a3a-0041f9c1c5df.Google Scholar
Martens, N. C. M.. Regularity comparativism about mass in Newtonian gravity. Philosophy of Science, 84(5):1226–38, 2017b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, N. C. M.. Against Laplacian reduction of Newtonian mass to spatiotemporal quantities. Foundations of Physics, 48:591–609, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-018-0149-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, N. C. M.. The (un)detectability of absolute Newtonian masses. Synthese, 198:2511–50, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02229-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, N. C. M.. Machian comparativism about mass. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 73(2):325–49, 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, N. C. M. and Read, J.. Sophistry about symmetries? Synthese, 199:315–44, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T.. Buckets of water and waves of space: Why spacetime is probably a substance. Philosophy of Science, 60:183–203, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller-Nielsen, T.. Invariance, interpretation, and motivation. Philosophy of Science, 84(5):1253–64, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1086/694087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B.. The metaphysics of quantity. Philosophical Studies, 51(1):29–54, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E.. Measurement. Erkenntnis II, pages 313–33, 1932. Reprinted in Danto, A. and Morgenbesser, S., editors, Philosophy of Science, pages 121–140. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Nerlich, G.. How Euclidean geometry has misled metaphysics. Journal of Philosophy, 88(4):169–89, 1991. ISSN 0022362X. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacocke, C.. The Primacy of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Z. R.. Properly extensive quantities. Philosophy of Science, 82(5):833–44, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1086/683323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Z. R.. Physical Quantities: Mereology and Dynamics. PhD thesis, 2016.Google Scholar
Perry, Z. R.. On mereology and metricality. Philosophers’ Imprint, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Quine, W.. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Read, J. and Møller-Nielsen, T.. Redundant epistemic symmetries. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 70:88–97, 2020. ISSN 1355-2198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.03.002. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219819301649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F.. Measurement Theory, volume 7 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1979.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. T.. A case for comparativism about physical quantities. Paper presented to the second annual conference of the Society for the Metaphysics of Science, Geneva, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/28548115/A_Case_for_Comparativism_about_Physical_Quantities_–_SMS_2016_Geneva.Google Scholar
Russell, B.. The Principles of Mathematics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1903.Google Scholar
Saunders, S.. Mirroring as an a priori symmetry. Philosophy of Science, 74:452–80, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J.. What not to multiply without necessity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93(4): 644–64, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2014.992447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebens, C. T.. Electron charge density: A clue from quantum chemistry for quantum foundations. Foundations of Physics, 51(75), 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00480-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D.. Observability, Redundancy, and Modality for Dynamical Symmetry Transformations. In Read, J. and Teh, N. J., editors, The Philosophy and Physics of Noether’s Theorems: A Centenary Volume, 322–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108665445.014.Google Scholar
Weyl, H.. Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.. Fundamental determinables. Philosopher’s Imprint, 12(4):1–17, 2012.Google Scholar
Wolff, J.. The Metaphysics of Quantities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Philosophy of Physical Magnitudes
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Philosophy of Physical Magnitudes
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Philosophy of Physical Magnitudes
Available formats
×