Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:54:55.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Malament on Time Reversal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Stephen Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

David Malament has recently responded to David Albert's argument that classical electrodynamics is not time-reversal invariant by introducing a novel conception of time reversal, which supports the conventional view that under time reversal the magnetic field changes sign but the electric field remains unchanged. I will argue here that Malament's transformation has both passive and active versions. I will claim that the passive version is not relevant to Albert's argument, and the active version does not lead to the conventional transformation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 448 - 458
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

‡

This article grew out of comments on a very interesting paper by Jill North, presented at the Pacific APA meetings in March 2006. I would like to thank Jill for getting me interested in the subject in the first place and for helpful discussions thereafter.

References

Albert, David (2000), Time and Chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Malament, David (2004), “On the Time Reversal Invariance of Classical Electromagnetic Theory,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35:295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar