Abstract
Darrin Belousek has argued that the indistinguishability of quantum particles is conventional “in the Duhemian–Einsteinian sense,” in part by critially examining prior arguments given by Redhead and Teller. Belousek's discussion provides a useful occasion to clarify some of those arguments, acknowledge respects in which they were misleading, and comment on how they can be strengthened. We also comment briefly on the relevant sense of “conventional.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
D. Belousek, “Statistics, symmetry, and the conventionality of indistinguishability in quantum mechanics,” Found.Phys. 30, 1 (2000).
M. Redhead and P. Teller, “Particles, particle labels, and quanta: The toll of unacknowledged metaphysics,” Found.Phys. 21, 43–62 (1991).
M. Redhead and P. Teller, “Particle-labels and the theory of indistinguishable particles in quantum mechanics,” Brit.J.Phil.Sci. 43, 201–218 (1992).
P. Teller, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Princeton University Press, 1995).
S. French and M. Redhead, “Quantum physics and the identity of indiscernibles,” Brit.J.Phil.Sci. 39, 233–246 (1988).
B. van Fraassen, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991).
J. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony (University of Chicago Press, 1994).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teller, P., Redhead, M. Is Indistinguishability in Quantum Mechanics Conventional?. Foundations of Physics 30, 951–957 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003658709873
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003658709873