A Retrocausal Interpretation of Classical Collision Between Rigid Bodies

Foundations of Science 25 (3):559-571 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

When two bodies collide with each other, they change their motion. Many physics textbooks explain that the change in motion is caused by the force or impulse exerted on the body during the collision. This is not the whole story, I argue, in case the bodies are rigid. In this case, the change in motion cannot be causally explained solely by how the bodies are configured before and during the collision but instead should be explained partly by what happens after the collision. That is, the collision between rigid bodies should better be interpreted as a case of retrocausation where the future causally affects the past or present. This retrocausal interpretation of the collision does not suffer a general problem raised against retrocausation, known as the bilking argument. And how the influence of the cause propagates backward in time to the effect in the collision is no more mysterious than how a body moves continuously in classical mechanics or how the future affects the past in proposed retrocausal models for the EPR thought experiment in quantum mechanics.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,682

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Rigid Body Motion in Special Relativity.Jerrold Franklin - 2013 - Foundations of Physics 43 (12):1489-1501.
Retrocausality and Quantum Measurement.David T. Pegg - 2008 - Foundations of Physics 38 (7):648-658.
Leibniz's Collision Rules for Inertialess Bodies Indifferent to Motion.R. S. Woolhouse - 2000 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 17 (2):143 - 157.
Retrocausal Models for EPR.Richard Corry - 2015 - Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 49:1-9.
Indeterminism, classical gravitation and non-collision singularities.Jon Pérez Laraudogoitia - 2001 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (3):269 – 274.
Atomic Collision and Non-Collision.Payton Spence - 1880 - Journal of Speculative Philosophy 14:286.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-05

Downloads
16 (#925,932)

6 months
3 (#1,026,267)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Chunghyoung Lee
Pohang University of Science and Technology

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Science and necessity.John Bigelow & Robert Pargetter - 1990 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Robert Pargetter.
Science and Necessity.John Bigelow & Robert Pargetter - 1990 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Robert Pargetter.
Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time.Huw Price - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):135-159.
Causation as folk science.John D. Norton - 2003 - In Huw Price & Richard Corry (eds.), Philosophers' Imprint. Oxford University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references