Why Quantize Gravity (or Any Other Field for That Matter)?

Philosophy of Science 68 (S3):S382-S394 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The quantum gravity program seeks a theory that handles quantum matter fields and gravity consistently. But is such a theory really required and must it involve quantizing the gravitational field? We give reasons for a positive answer to the first question, but dispute a widespread contention that it is inconsistent for the gravitational field to be classical while matter is quantum. In particular, we show how a popular argument falls short of a no-go theorem, and discuss possible counterexamples. Important issues in the foundations of physics are shown to bear crucially on all these considerations.

Other Versions

original Huggett, Nick; Callender, Craig (2001) "Why quantize gravity (or any other field for that matter)?". Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001(3):S382-

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,060

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
55 (#390,253)

6 months
9 (#471,468)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Nick Huggett
University of Illinois, Chicago
Craig Callender
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

Inter-theory Relations in Quantum Gravity: Correspondence, Reduction and Emergence.Karen Crowther - 2018 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 63:74-85.
Betting on Future Physics.Mike D. Schneider - 2022 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (1):161-183.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Aristotelian Society Series.Tim Maudlin & Lawrence Sklar - 1994 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (3):933-934.
The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of a Controversy.Gordon Belot, John Earman & Laura Ruetsche - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):189-229.

Add more references