Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 393–417 | Cite as

Maxwell–Boltzmann Statistics And The Metaphysics Of Modality

  • Bruce L. Gordon
Article

Abstract

Two arguments have recently been advanced that Maxwell-Boltzmann particles areindistinguishable just like Bose–Einstein and Fermi–Dirac particles. Bringing modalmetaphysics to bear on these arguments shows that ontological indistinguishabilityfor classical (MB) particles does not follow. The first argument, resting on symmetryin the occupation representation for all three cases, fails since peculiar correlationsexist in the quantum (BE and FD) context as harbingers of ontic indistinguishability,while the indistinguishability of classical particles remains purely epistemic. The secondargument, deriving from the classical limits of quantum statistical partition functions,embodies a conceptual confusion. After clarifying the doctrine of haecceitism, a thirdargument is considered that attempts to deflate metaphysical concerns altogether byshowing that the phase-space and distribution-space representations of MB-statisticshave contrary haecceitistic import. Careful analysis shows this argument to fail as well,leaving de re modality unproblematically grounding particle identity in the classicalcontext while genuine puzzlement about the underlying ontology remains for quantumstatistics.

Keywords

Partition Function Careful Analysis Classical Limit Classical Particle Particle Identity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, R.: 1979, ‘Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity’, Journal of Philosophy 76, 5–26.Google Scholar
  2. Castellani, E. (ed.): 1998, Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  3. Costantini, D.: 1979, ‘The Relevance Quotient’, Erkenntnis 14, 149–157.Google Scholar
  4. Costantini, D.: 1987, ‘Symmetry and the Indistinguishability of Classical Particles’, Physics Letters A 123, 433–436.Google Scholar
  5. Costantini, D., Galavotti, M. C., and Rosa, R.: 1982, ‘A Rational Reconstruction of Elementary Particle Statistics’, Scientia 117, 151–159.Google Scholar
  6. Costantini, D., Galavotti, M. C., and Rosa, R.: 1983, ‘A Set of “Ground Hypotheses” for Elementary-Particle Statistics’, Il Nuovo Cimento 74B, 151–158.Google Scholar
  7. Costantini, D. and Garibaldi, U.: 1988, ‘Elementary Particle Statistics Reconsidered’, Physics Letters A 134, 161–164.Google Scholar
  8. Costantini, D. and Garibaldi, U.: 1989, ‘Classical and Quantum Statistics as Finite Random Processes’, Foundations of Physics 19, 743–755.Google Scholar
  9. Fujita, S.: 1991, ‘On the Indistinguishability of Classical Particles’, Foundations of Physics 21, 439–457.Google Scholar
  10. Huggett, N.: 1999, ‘Atomic Metaphysics’, Journal of Philosophy XCVI, 5–24.Google Scholar
  11. Jeffrey, R.: 1983, The Logic of Decision (2nd edition), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Jeffrey, R.: 1988, ‘Conditioning, Kinematics, and Exchangeability’, in B. Skyrms and W. Harper (eds), Causation, Chance, and Credence, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 221–255.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, D.: 1975, ‘How to Russell a Frege-Church’, Journal of Philosophy 72, 716-729.Google Scholar
  14. Kripke, S.: 1972, Naming and Necessity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. K.: 1986, On the Plurality of Worlds, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Parry, W. E. (ed.): 1984, Theoretical Physics, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Plantinga, A.: 1974, The Nature of Necessity, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Plantinga, A.: 1978, ‘The Boethian Compromise’, American Philosophical Quarterly 15, 129–138.Google Scholar
  19. Putnam, H.: 1977a, ‘Is Semantics Possible?’ in S. Schwartz (ed.), Naming, Necessity and Natural Kinds, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 102–118.Google Scholar
  20. Putnam, H.: 1977b, ‘Meaning and Reference’, in S. Schwartz (ed.), Naming, Necessity and Natural Kinds, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 119–132.Google Scholar
  21. van Fraassen, B. C.:1991, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. van Kampen, N. G.: 1984, ‘The Gibbs Paradox’, in Parry (1984), 303–312.Google Scholar
  23. Zabell, S.: 1988, Symmetry and Its Discontents', in B. Skyrms and W. Harper (eds), Causation, Chance, and Credence, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 155–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce L. Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.History and Philosophy of Physics Baylor UniversityBaylor UniversityWacoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations