Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:00:47.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which Curie’s Principle?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Elena Castellani  and
Jenann Ismael
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is there more than one “Curie’s principle”? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful? This article is devoted to exploring these questions. We begin by discussing Curie’s original 1894 article. Then, we consider the way that the discussion of the principle took shape from early commentators to its modern form. We say why we think that the modern focus on the interstate version of the principle loses sight of some of the most significant applications of the principle. Finally, we address criticisms of the principle put forward by John Norton and Bryan Roberts.

Type
Curie’s Principle
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 1002 - 1013
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.)

Footnotes

†

Many thanks to our cosymposiasts John Norton and Bryan Roberts, as well as to Katherine Brading, for stimulating and helpful discussion. Thanks also to the anonymous referees for helpful comments.

References

Albert, David. 2000. Time and Chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Belot, Gordon. 2003. “Notes on Symmetries.” In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, ed. Brading, K. and Castellani, E., 393–412. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellani, Elena. 2003. “On the Meaning of Symmetry Breaking.” In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, ed. Brading, K. and Castellani, E., 321–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, Alan F. 1970. “Curie’s Principle.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21:133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curie, Pierre. 1894. “Sur la symétrie dans les phènomènes physiques: Symétrie d’un champ électrique et d’un champ magnétique.” Journal de Physique 3:393–415.Google Scholar
Earman, John. 2004. “Curie’s Principle and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18:173–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismael, Jenann. 1997. “Curie’s Principle.” Synthese 110:167–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John D. 2016. “Curie’s Truism.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Bryan W. 2013. “The Simple Failure of Curie’s Principle.” Philosophy of Science 80 (4): 579–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Bryan W. 2016. “Curie’s Hazard: From Electromagnetism to Symmetry Violation.” Erkenntnis 81:1011–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar