Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-b5cpw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-13T20:36:00.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inconsistency in Classical Electrodynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mathias Frisch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I show that the standard approach to modeling phenomena involving microscopic classical electrodynamics is mathematically inconsistent. I argue that there is no conceptually unproblematic and consistent theory covering the same phenomena to which this inconsistent theory can be thought of as an approximation; and I propose a set of conditions for the acceptability of inconsistent theories.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 525 - 549
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank Arthur Fine, David Malament, Paul Teller, and Eric Winsberg, as well as the anonymous referees for this journal, for extremely helpful discussions, comments and criticisms.

References

Frisch, Mathias (2000), “(Dis-)Solving the Puzzle of the Arrow of Radiation”, (Dis-)Solving the Puzzle of the Arrow of Radiation 51:381–410.Google Scholar
Frisch, Mathias (forthcoming), Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and Non-locality: Philosophical Issues in Classical Electrodynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John David (1975), Classical Electrodynamics, 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc (2002), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Fields, Energy, and Mass. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Malament, David (1995), “Is Newtonian Cosmology Really Inconsistent?”, Is Newtonian Cosmology Really Inconsistent? 62:489–510.Google Scholar
Meheus, Joke (ed.) (2002), Inconsistency in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John D. (1987), “The Logical Inconsistency of the Old Quantum Theory of Black Body Radiation”, The Logical Inconsistency of the Old Quantum Theory of Black Body Radiation 54:327–350.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. (2002), “A Paradox in Newtonian Cosmolgy II”, in Meheus, Joke (ed.), Inconsistency in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Parrott, Stephen (1987), Relativistic Electrodynamics and Differential Geometry. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearle, Philip (1982), “Classical Electron Models”, in Teplitz, Doris (ed.), Electromagnetism: Paths to Research. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, Fritz (1988), “Pluralistic Ontology and Theory Reduction in the Physical Sciences”, Pluralistic Ontology and Theory Reduction in the Physical Sciences 39:295–312.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, Fritz (1990) Classical Charged Particles. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, Fritz, and Hardin, Larry (1983), “Established Theories”, Established Theories 50:603–617.Google Scholar
Smith, Joel M. (1988), “Inconsistency and Scienctific Reasoning”, Inconsistency and Scienctific Reasoning 19:429–445.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, John. A., and Feynman, Richard. P. (1945), “Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation”, Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation 17:157–181.Google Scholar