Element contents
Idealizations in Physics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 January 2023
Summary
This Element offers an opinionated and selective introduction to philosophical issues concerning idealizations in physics, including the concept of and reasons for introducing idealization, abstraction, and approximation, possible taxonomy and justification, and application to issues of mathematical Platonism, scientific realism, and scientific understanding.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108946742Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 26 January 2023
References
Aharonov, Y., & Bohm, D.. 1959. “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory.” Physical Review, 115: 485–491.Google Scholar
Ardourel, V. 2018. “The Infinite Limit As an Eliminable Approximation for Phase Transitions.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 62: 71–84.Google Scholar
Ardourel, V., & Jebeile., J. 2017. “On the Presumed Superiority of Analytical Solutions over Numerical Methods.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 7: 201–220.Google Scholar
Arovas, D. P., Schrieffer, J. R., & Wilczek., F. 1984. “Fractional Statistics and the Quantum Hall Effect.” Physical Review Letters, 53: 722–723.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. 2020. “The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/qm-decoherence.Google Scholar
Bain, J. 2013. “Emergence in Effective Field Theories.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3: 257–273.Google Scholar
Bain, J. 2016. “Emergence and Mechanism in the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 56: 27–38.Google Scholar
Baker, A. 2005. “Are There Genuine Mathematical Explanations of Physical Phenomena?” Mind, 114: 223–238.Google Scholar
Baker, A. 2009. “Mathematical Explanation in Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60: 611–633.Google Scholar
Ballesteros, M., & Weder, R.. 2009. “The Aharonov–Bohm Effect and Tonomura et al. Experiments: Rigorous Results.” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 50: 122108.Google Scholar
Ballesteros, M., & Weder, R.. 2011. “Aharonov–Bohm Effect and High-Velocity Estimates of Solutions to the Schrödinger Equation.” Communications in Mathematical Physics, 303(1): 175–211.Google Scholar
Bangu, S. 2019. “Discontinuities and Singularities, Data and Phenomena: For Referentialism.” Synthese, 196: 1919–1937.Google Scholar
Baron, S. 2016. “The Explanatory Dispensability of Idealizations.” Synthese, 193: 365–386.Google Scholar
Baron, S. 2019. “Infinite Lies and Explanatory Ties: Idealization in Phase Transitions.” Synthese, 196: 1939–1961.Google Scholar
Bartha, P. 2019. “Analogy and Analogical Reasoning.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/reasoning-analogy.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. 2002. The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. 2006. “Hydrodynamics versus Molecular dynamics: Intertheory relations in condensed matter physics. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 888–904.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. 2021. A Middle Way: A Non-fundamental Approach to Many-Body Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Batterman, R., & Rice, C.. 2014. “Minimal Model Explanations.” Philosophy of Science, 81(3): 349–376.Google Scholar
Baumberger, C. 2011. “Types of Understanding: Their Nature and Their Relation to Knowledge.” Conceptus, 40: 67–88.Google Scholar
Bocchieri, P., & Loinger., A. 1978. “Nonexistence of the Aharonov–Bohm Effect.” Nuovo Cimento, 47A: 475–482.Google Scholar
Bocchieri, P., & Loinger., A. 1981. “Charges in Multiply Connected Spaces.” Nuovo Cimento, 66: 164–172.Google Scholar
Bokulich, A. 2008. Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond Reductionism and Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borwein, J., & Crandall., R. 2013. “Closed Forms: What They Are and Why We Care.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 60(1): 50–65.Google Scholar
Boyer, T. H. 2000. “Does the Aharonov–Bohm Effect Exist?” Foundations of Physics, 30(6): 893–905.Google Scholar
Bueno, O., & French., S. 2018. Applying Mathematics: Immersion, Inference, Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2011. “Less Is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled.” Foundations of Physics, 41(6): 1065–1135.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2017. “Scientific Realism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/scientific-realism.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. 2006. “Strong and Weak Emergences.” In Clayton, P. & Davies, P. (eds.), The Re-emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion (pp. 244–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. G. 1960. “Shift of an Electron Interference Pattern by Enclosed Magnetic Flux.” Physical Review Letters, 5(1): 3–5.Google Scholar
Cheng, T.-P. 2013. Einstein’s Physics: Atoms, Quanta, and Relativity Derived, Explained, and Appraised. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M. (2001). The indispensability of mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darrigol, O. 2013. “For a Philosophy of Hydrodynamics.” In Batterman, R. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics (pp. 224–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davey, K. 2011. “Idealizations and Contextualism in Physics.” Philosophy of Science, 78: 16–38.Google Scholar
de Bianchi, S. 2016. “Which Explanatory Role for Mathematics in Scientific Models? Reply to ‘The Explanatory Dispensability of Idealizations.’” Synthese, 193: 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0795-0.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, C. R., & Pereira, M.. 2008. “Mathematical Justification of the Aharonov–Bohm Hamiltonian.” Journal of Statistical Physics, 133: 1175–1184.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, C. R., & Pereira, M.. 2010. “Scattering and Self-Adjoint Extensions of the Aharonov–Bohm Hamiltonian.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43: 1–29.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, C. R., & Pereira, M.. 2011. “Impenetrability of Aharonov–Bohm Solenoids: Proof of Norm Resolvent Convergence.” Letters in Mathematical Physics, 95: 41–51.Google Scholar
de Regt, H. W. 2017. Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diacu, F. 1996. “The Solution of the N-body Problem.” Mathematical Intelligencer, 18(3): 66–70.Google Scholar
Dougherty, J. 2021. “The Non-ideal Theory of the Aharonov–Bohm Effect.” Synthese, 198:12195–12221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02859-x.Google Scholar
Doyle, Y., Spencer, E., Noah, G., & Khalifa, K.. 2019. “Non-factive Understanding: A Statement and Defense.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 50: 345–365.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 2004. “Curie’s Principle and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(2–3): 173–198.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 2019. “The Role of Idealization in the Aharonov–Bohm Effect.” Synthese, 196: 1991–2019.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. 1926/1956. Investigations on the Theory of Brownian Movement. Fürth, R. & Cowper, A. D. (eds.). Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Elgin, C. 2017. “Exemplification in Understanding.” In Grimm, S. R., Baumberger, C., & Ammon, S. (eds.), Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 76–92). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Elgin, M., & Sober., E. 2002. “Cartwright on Explanation and Idealization.” Erkentniss, 57: 441–450.Google Scholar
Elliott-Graves, A., & Weisberg., M. 2014. “Idealization.” Philosophy Compass 9(3): 176–185.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. 1992. “Idealization in Science.” In Dilworth, C. (ed.), Idealization IV: Intelligibility in Science (pp. 265–282). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. F. 2020. “Emergence in Solid State Physics and Biology.” Foundations of Physics, 50(10): 1098–1139.Google Scholar
Fletcher, S., Palacios, P., Ruetsche, L., & Shech., E. 2019a. “Infinite Idealizations in Science: An Introduction.” Synthese, 196: 1657–1669.Google Scholar
Fletcher, S., Palacios, P., Ruetsche, L., & Shech., E. 2019b. Infinite Idealization in Science. Special issue of Synthese, 196(5).Google Scholar
French., S. 2020. There Are No Such Things As Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frigg, R. 2008. “A Field Guide to Recent Work on the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics.” In Rickles, Dean (ed.), Ashgate Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Physics (pp. 99–196). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S.. 2020. “Models in Science.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/models-science.Google Scholar
Frigg, R., & Nguyen, J.. 2020. “Scientific Representation.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/scientific-representation.Google Scholar
Gelfert, A. 2016. How to Do Science with Models: A Philosophical Primer. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Georgi, H. 1993. “Effective Field Theory.” Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 43(1): 209–252.Google Scholar
Gillett, C. 2016. Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2009. “Abstractions, Idealizations and Evolutionary Biology.” In Mapping the Future of Biology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 266 (pp. 47–56). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H., C. Poole, & Safko, J.. 2002. Classical Mechanics. Third Edition. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Gryb, S., Palacios, P., & Thébault., K. P. 2021. “On the Universality of Hawking Radiation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3): 809–837.Google Scholar
Guggenheim, E. A. 1945. “The Principle of Corresponding States.” Journal of Chemical Physics, 13(7): 253–261.Google Scholar
Harte, J. (1988) Consider A Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving. Sausalito, CA: University Science BooksGoogle Scholar
Healey, R. 1997. “Nonlocality and the Aharonov–Bohm Effect.” Philosophy of Science, 64: 18–41.Google Scholar
Healey, R. 1999. “Quantum Analogies: A Reply to Maudlin.” Philosophy of Science, 66: 440–447.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim., P. 1948 [1965]. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science, 15(2): 135–175. Reprinted in Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 245–290). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hilpinen, R. 1976. “Approximate Truth and Truthlikeness.” In Przełecki, M., Szaniawski, K., Wójcicki, R., & Malinowski, G. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Methodology of Empirical Sciences (pp. 19–42). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Homes, T. 2022. “Reckoning with Continuum Idealizations: Some Lessons from Soil Hydrology.” Philosophy of Science, 89: 319–336.Google Scholar
Huggett, N., & Weingard., R. 1995. “The Renormalization Group and Effective Field Theories.” Synthese, 102(1): 171–194.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. 2004. Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. 2002. “Idealizations in Physics.” In Ferrari, M. & Stamatescu, I.-O. (eds.), Symbolic and Physical Knowledge: On the Conceptual Structure of Physics (pp. 177–192). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jacquart, M., Shech, E., & Zach, M.. 2022. Representation, Idealization, and Explanation in Science. Special Issue of Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.09.003.Google Scholar
Jones, M. R. 2005. “Idealization and Abstraction: A Framework.” In Jones, M. & Cartwright, N. (eds.), Idealizations XII: Correcting the Model. Idealizations and Abstraction in the Sciences (pp. 173–217). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Jones, N. 2006. “Ineliminable Idealizations, Phase Transitions and Irreversibility.” PhD diss. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. 2008. “Idealization.” In Psillos, S. & Curd, M. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (pp. 358–366). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. 2018. “Scientific Realism Again.” Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 9(1): 99–107.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Ross., D. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalised. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Wiesner, K.. 2020. What Is a Complex System? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Landsman, N. P. 2016. “Quantization and Superselection Sectors III: Multiply Connected Spaces and Indistinguishable Particles.” Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 28: 1650019.Google Scholar
Le Bihan, S. 2017. “Enlightening Falsehoods: A Modal View of Scientific Understanding.” In Grimm, S. R., Baumberger, C., & Ammon, S. (eds.), Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 111–136). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leggett, A. J. 1992. “On the Nature of Research in Condensed-State Physics.” Foundations of Physics, 22(2): 221–233.Google Scholar
Levins, R. 1966. “The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology.” In Sober, E. (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. First Edition (pp. 18–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levy, A. 2018. “Idealization and Abstraction: Refining the Distinction.” Synthese, 1–18.Google Scholar
Levy, A. 2020. “Metaphor and Scientific Explanation.” In Godfrey-Smith, P. & Levy, A. (eds.), The Scientific Imagination (pp. 280–303). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, C. 2019. “Infinite Idealization and Contextual Realism.” Synthese, 196: 1885–1918.Google Scholar
Luu, T., & Meißner, U.-G.. 2019. “On the Topic of Emergence from an Effective Field Theory Perspective.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13770.Google Scholar
Kadanoff, L. P. 2000. Statistical Physics: Statics, Dynamics and Renormalization. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Khalifa, K. 2017. Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klitzing, K. V., Dorda, G., & Pepper., M. 1980. “New Method for High-Accuracy Determination of the Fine-Structure Constant Based on Quantized Hall Resistance.” Physical Review Letters, 45: 494–497.Google Scholar
Magni, C., & Valz-Gris, F.. 1995. “Can Elementary Quantum Mechanics Explain the Aharonov–Bohm Effect?” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(1): 177–186.Google Scholar
Mäki, U. 1994. “Isolation, Idealization and Truth in Economics.” In Hamminga, B. & de Marchi, N. B. (eds.), Idealization VI: Idealization in Economics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, Vol. 38 (pp. 147–168). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. 1998. “Healey on the Aharonov–Bohm Effect.” Philosophy of Science, 65: 361–368.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Price, G. R.. 1973. “The Logic of Animal Conflict.” Nature, 246: 15–18.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. 1985. “Galilean Idealization.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 16: 247–73.Google Scholar
Menon, T., & Callender, C.. 2013. “Turn and Face the Strange … Ch-ch-changes: Philosophical Questions Raised by Phase Transitions.” In Batterman, R. W. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics (pp. 189–223). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Möllenstedt, G., & Bayh, W.. 1962. “Kontinuierliche Phasenschiebung von Elektronenwellen im kraftfeldfreien Raum durch das magnetische Vektorpotential eines Solenoids.” Zeitschrift für Physik, 169: 299–305.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. 2012. “Emergent Physics and Micro-ontology.” Philosophy of Science, 79: 141–166.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. 2015. Reconstructing Reality: Models, Mathematics, and Simulations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A. 1981. “‘Unreal Assumptions’ in Economic Theory: The F-Twist Untwisted.” Kyklos, 34: 377–387.Google Scholar
Musielak, Z. E., & Quarles., E. 2014. “The Three-Body Problem.” Reports on Progress in Physics, 77: 065901.Google Scholar
Newman, M. P. 2017. “Theoretical Understanding in Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(2): 571–595.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2008. “The Dome: An Unexpectedly Simple Failure of Determinism.” Philosophy of Science, 75: 786–798.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2012. “Approximations and Idealizations: Why the Difference Matters.” Philosophy of Science, 79: 207–232.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2016. “The Impossible Process: Thermodynamic Reversibility.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B, 55: 43–61.Google Scholar
Nowak, L. 2000. “The Idealizational Approach to Science: A New Survey.” In Nowakowa, I. & Nowak, L. (eds.), Idealization X: The Richness of Idealization (pp. 109–185). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Oddie, G. 2016. “Truthlikeness.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/truthlikeness.Google Scholar
Olariu, S., & Popescu., I. 1985. “The Quantum Effects of Electromagnetic Fluxes.” Reviews of Modern Physics, 57(2): 339e449.Google Scholar
Palacios, P. 2019. “Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Intertheoretic Reduction?” Philosophy of Science, 86(4): 612–640.Google Scholar
Palacios, P. 2022. Emergence and Reduction in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palacios, P., & Valente, G.. 2021. “The Paradox of Infinite Limits: A Realist Response.” In Lyons, T. & Vickers, P. (eds.), Contemporary Scientific Realism (pp. 312–349). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pincock, C. 2012. Mathematics and Scientific Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pincock, C. 2020. “Concrete Scale Models, Essential Idealization, and Causal Explanation.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 73(2): 1–20.Google Scholar
Portides, D. 2018. “Idealization and Abstraction in Scientific Modeling.” Synthese, 1–23.Google Scholar
Potochnik, A. 2017. Idealization and the Aim of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. 2011. “Living with the Abstract: Realism and Models.” Synthese, 180: 3–17.Google Scholar
Reed, M., & Simon, B.. 1980. Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics (Vols. 1–4). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rice, C. 2021. Leveraging Distortions: Explanation, Idealizations, and Universality in Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ridderbos, T. M., & Redhead., M. L. G. 1998. “The Spin-Echo Experiments and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Foundations of Physics, 28: 1237–1270.Google Scholar
Rohwer, Y., & Rice., C. 2013. “Hypothetical Pattern Idealization and Explanatory Models.” Philosophy of Science, 80: 334–355.Google Scholar
Ruelle, D. 2004. Thermodynamic Formalism. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, L. 2011. Interpreting Quantum Theories: The Art of the Possible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saatsi, J. 2016. “Models, Idealisations, and Realism.” In Ippoliti, E., Sterpetti, F., & Nickles, T. (eds.), Models and Inferences in Science (pp. 173–189). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Shaffer, M. J. 2012. Counterfactuals and Scientific Realism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2013. “What Is the ‘Paradox of Phase Transitions?’” Philosophy of Science, 80: 1170–1181.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2015a. “Scientific Misrepresentation and Guides to Ontology: The Need for Representational Code and Contents.” Synthese, 192(11): 3463–3485.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2015b. “Two Approaches to Fractional Statistics in the Quantum Hall Effect: Idealizations and the Curious Case of the Anyon.” Foundations of Physics, 45(9): 1063–1110.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2016. “Fiction, Depiction, and the Complementarity Thesis in Art and Science.” The Monist, 99(3): 311–332.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2018a. “Infinite Idealizations in Physics.” Philosophy Compass, 13(9): e12514.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2018b. “Idealizations, Essential Self-Adjointness, and Minimal Model Explanation in the Aharonov-Bohm Effect.” Synthese, 195: 4839–4863.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2019a. “Philosophical Issues Concerning Phase Transitions and Anyons: Emergence, Reduction, and Explanatory Fictions.” Erkenntnis 84(3): 585–615.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2019b. “Infinitesimal Idealization, Easy Road Nominalism, and Fractional Quantum Statistics.” Synthese, 156(5): 1963–1990.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2019c. “Historical Inductions Meet the Material Theory.” Philosophy of Science, 86(5): 918–929.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2022a. “Scientific Understanding in the Aharonov–Bohm Effect.” Theoria. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12409.Google Scholar
Shech, E. 2022b. “Darwinian-Selectionist Explanation, Radical Theory Change, and the Observable-Unobservable Dichotomy.” International Studies in Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2092824.Google Scholar
Shech, E., & Gelfert, A.. 2019.“The Exploratory Role of Models and Idealizations.” Studia Metodologiczne – Dissertationes Methodologicae. ISSN 0039-324X Issue on Culture(s) of Modelling in Science(s) (39).Google Scholar
Shech, E., & McGivern, P.. 2021. “Fundamentality, Scale, and the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect.” Erkenntnis, 86: 1411–1430.Google Scholar
Shech, E., Zach, M., & Jacquart, M.. 2022. Idealization, Representation, and Explanation across the Sciences. Special issues in Studies in History & Philosophy of Science. www.sciencedirect.com/journal/studies-in-history-and-philosophy-of-science/special-issue/10X9K0G3H30.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. 2000. Theory and Truth: Philosophical Critique within Foundational Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, H. E. 1971. Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, A. 2008. “Anyons and the Quantum Hall Effect: A Pedagogical Review.” Annalen der Physik, 323: 204–249.Google Scholar
Stone, N. C., & Leigh., N. W. C. 2019. “A Statistical Solution to the Chaotic, Non-hierarchical Three-Body Problem.” Nature, 576(19/26): 406–410.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2008. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2013. “No Understanding without Explanation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44: 510–515.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2017. “How Idealizations Provide Understanding.” In Grimm, S. R., Baumberger, C., & Ammon, S. (eds.), Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 37–49). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strocchi, F., & Wightman, A. S.. 1974. Proof of the Charge Superselection Rule in Local Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 15: 2189–2224.Google Scholar
Stuart, M. T. 2018. “How Thought Experiments Increase Understanding.” in Stuart, M. T., Fehige, Y. J. H., & Brown, J. R. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments (pp. 526–544). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sullivan, E., & K. Khalifa., 2019. “Idealizations and Understanding: Much Ado about Nothing?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(4): 673–689.Google Scholar
Sundman, K. 1912. “Mèmoire sur le problème des trois corps.” Acta Mathematica, 36: 105–179.Google Scholar
Swoyer, C. 1991. “Structural Representation and Surrogative Reasoning.” Synthese, 87: 449–508.Google Scholar
Toon, A. 2012. Models As Make-Believe: Imagination, Fiction and Scientific Representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tonomura, A., Osakabe, N., Tsuyoshi, M. et al. 1986. “Evidence for Aharonov–Bohm Effect with Magnetic Field Completely Shielded from Electron Wave.” Physical Review Letter 56: 792–795.Google Scholar
Tsui, D. C., Stormer, H. L., & Gossard., A. C. 1982. “Two-Dimensional Magnetotransport in the Extreme Quantum Limit.” Physical Review Letters, 48(22): 1559–1562.Google Scholar
Valente, G. 2019. “On the Paradox of Reversible Processes in Thermodynamics.” Synthese, 196: 1761–1781.Google Scholar
Valtonen, M., & Karttunun., H. 2005. The Three-Body Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Q.-D. 1991. “The Global Solution of the n-Body Problem.” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamics Astronomy, 50: 73–88.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M. 2013. Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 2013. “What Is ‘Classical Mechanics’ Anyway?” In Batterman, Robert (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics (pp. 224–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winsberg, E. 2010. Science in the Age of Computer Simulation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, J. 2021. “Explaining Universality: Infinite Limit Systems in the Renormalization Group Method.” Synthese, 199: 14897–14930.Google Scholar