Skip to main content

Geometry and Physical Space

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Space, Time and the Limits of Human Understanding

Part of the book series: The Frontiers Collection ((FRONTCOLL))

  • 2727 Accesses

Abstract

What is the status of geometry as a theory of physical space? Traditionally it was assumed that the axioms of Euclidean geometry were known a priori to be true of physical points and straight lines.  With the development of non-Euclidean geometries the conceivability of the falsehood of the parallel axiom was conceded, but it was still widely held that physical space was Euclidean. Contemporary physics offers a non-Euclidean account of the geometry of physical space, and in light of this it may be thought that the question of the correct geometry of physical space is an empirical one. However, an alternative approach was prominent in the early twentieth century, according to which the question concerning which is the ‘correct’ geometry of physical space is a matter of conventional choice rather than objective fact. This chapter examines the view that the status of geometry is conventional.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kline, M. (1990). Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times  (Vol. 3). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Scanlan, M. J. (1988). Beltrami’s model and the independence of the parallel postulate. History and Philosophy of Logic, 9, 13–34.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. van Fraassen, ‘B. (2006). Weyl’s paradox: The distance between structure and perspective. In C. Suhm, A. Berg-Hildebrand (Eds.) Bas C. van Fraassen: The Fortunes of Empiricism. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kennefick, D. (2009). Testing relativity from the 1919 eclipse—a question of bias Physics Today 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Poincaré, H. (1905). Science and hypothesis. London: Walter Scott Publishing Ltd.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Quine, W. V. (1961) The two Dogmas of empiricism. In From a Logical Point of View (2nd revised edn.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres. Reprinted in W.V. Quine.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Quine, W. V. (1976). Carnap and logical truth. Reprinted in Ways of Paradox and Other Essays (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Leng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leng, M. (2017). Geometry and Physical Space. In: Wuppuluri, S., Ghirardi, G. (eds) Space, Time and the Limits of Human Understanding. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44418-5_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics