Non-empirical robustness arguments in quantum gravity

Niels S. Linnemann
{"title":"Non-empirical robustness arguments in quantum gravity","authors":"Niels S. Linnemann","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the first part of the article, I illustrate and assess instances of non-empirical robustness analysis as they occur within and across different theories of quantum gravity. The endeavour is expected to offer insights into the actual role robustness analysis plays in non-empirical theory development where motivation and theory development are not reactions to straightforward empirical problems.</p><p>In the second part, I aim at making mileage in providing a web of principles for quantum gravity research — a systematic ordering and assessment of principles for quantum gravity research in terms of a graph structure as originally proposed by Crowther and Linnemann (2017): To achieve this, I first draw on the results of the presented case studies to identify theory-overarching relations between principles which can feature in the web. I then assess the epistemic power of the thus obtained web and its prospects as an aid in the context of discovery more generally. This part is hoped to be helpful to the working physicist actually pursuing a theory of quantum gravity — by providing both an overview on how specific principles relate to one another and a methodology of how to reliably relate them in the first place. This is not to say that this aspect is not of interest to the philosopher — especially the (normative) task of providing a methodology raises relevant questions on how to distinguish between what's pursuit-worthy, and what's not.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54442,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","volume":"72 ","pages":"Pages 70-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.06.001","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219820300939","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In the first part of the article, I illustrate and assess instances of non-empirical robustness analysis as they occur within and across different theories of quantum gravity. The endeavour is expected to offer insights into the actual role robustness analysis plays in non-empirical theory development where motivation and theory development are not reactions to straightforward empirical problems.

In the second part, I aim at making mileage in providing a web of principles for quantum gravity research — a systematic ordering and assessment of principles for quantum gravity research in terms of a graph structure as originally proposed by Crowther and Linnemann (2017): To achieve this, I first draw on the results of the presented case studies to identify theory-overarching relations between principles which can feature in the web. I then assess the epistemic power of the thus obtained web and its prospects as an aid in the context of discovery more generally. This part is hoped to be helpful to the working physicist actually pursuing a theory of quantum gravity — by providing both an overview on how specific principles relate to one another and a methodology of how to reliably relate them in the first place. This is not to say that this aspect is not of interest to the philosopher — especially the (normative) task of providing a methodology raises relevant questions on how to distinguish between what's pursuit-worthy, and what's not.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
量子引力中的非经验鲁棒性论证
在文章的第一部分中,我举例说明和评估了非经验鲁棒性分析的实例,因为它们发生在不同的量子引力理论内部和之间。该努力有望提供对鲁棒性分析在非经验理论发展中的实际作用的见解,其中动机和理论发展不是对直接经验问题的反应。在第二部分中,我的目标是为量子引力研究提供一个原理网络——根据Crowther和Linnemann(2017)最初提出的图形结构对量子引力研究原理进行系统排序和评估:为了实现这一目标,我首先借鉴所提出的案例研究的结果,以确定可以在网络中出现的原理之间的理论总体关系。然后,我评估了由此获得的网络的认知能力,以及它在更普遍的发现背景下作为辅助工具的前景。这一部分希望对实际追求量子引力理论的工作物理学家有所帮助——通过提供具体原理如何相互关联的概述,以及如何首先可靠地将它们联系起来的方法。这并不是说哲学家对这方面不感兴趣——尤其是提供一种方法论的(规范性)任务,提出了如何区分什么值得追求,什么不值得追求的相关问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 物理-科学史与科学哲学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics is devoted to all aspects of the history and philosophy of modern physics broadly understood, including physical aspects of astronomy, chemistry and other non-biological sciences. The primary focus is on physics from the mid/late-nineteenth century to the present, the period of emergence of the kind of theoretical physics that has come to dominate the exact sciences in the twentieth century. The journal is internationally oriented with contributions from a wide range of perspectives. In addition to purely historical or philosophical papers, the editors particularly encourage papers that combine these two disciplines. The editors are also keen to publish papers of interest to physicists, as well as specialists in history and philosophy of physics.
期刊最新文献
Information is Physical: Cross-Perspective Links in Relational Quantum Mechanics Preface Editorial Board Quantum reaxiomatisations and information-theoretic interpretations of quantum theory Jump ship, shift gears, or just keep on chugging: Assessing the responses to tensions between theory and evidence in contemporary cosmology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1