Suchergebnisse

AbstractElay Shech and John Earman have recently argued that the common topological interpretation of the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect is unsatisfactory because it fails to justify idealizations that it presupposes. In particular, they argue that an adequate account of the AB effect must address the role of boundary conditions in certain ideal cases of the effect. In this paper I defend the topological interpretation against their criticisms. I consider three types of idealization that might arise in treatments of the effect. First, Shech takes the AB effect to involve an idealization in the form of a singular limit, analogous to the thermodynamic limit in statistical mechanics. But, I argue, the AB effect itself features no singular limits, so it doesn't involve idealizations in this sense. Second, I argue that Shech and Earman's emphasis on the role of boundary conditions in the AB effect is misplaced. The idealizations that are useful in connecting the theoretical description of the AB effect to experiment do interact with facts about boundary conditions, but none of these idealizations are presupposed by the topological interpretation of the effect. Indeed, the boundary conditions for which Shech and demands justification are incompatible with some instances of the AB effect, so the topological interpretation ought not justify them. Finally, I address the role of the non-relativistic approximation usually presumed in discussions of the AB effect. This approximation is essential if—as the topological interpretation supposes—the AB effect constrains and justifies a relativistic theory of the electromagnetic interaction. In this case the ends justify the means. So the topological view presupposes no unjustified idealizations.

His son, Joseph Dougherty, denies the charges and will not "be a tatler"; thanks Partridge for the manner in which he has handled Joseph's foibles. ; Transcription by Diana Weggler. Transcriptions may be subject to error.

This dissertation examines the politics of federal Indian law and the changing economic and environmental landscape of the postwar Pacific Northwest. In particular, it contends that the changing legal status of Native lands and resources was instrumental in both the massive industrial expansion, and subsequent environmental transformation, of the postwar Pacific Northwest. It traces the relations between economic and environmental changes and their connections to the dramatic policy shift in Indian affairs from the early 1950s, when the federal government unilaterally terminated tribal status of 109 Native communities, most of them in the Pacific Northwest, to the Native sovereignty movement, which precipitated new national policies of self-determination in the 1970s. Not only does the dissertation illuminate how Native communities in the Pacific Northwest were inequitably burdened by the region's environmental and economic transformations in the second half of the 20th century, it also demonstrates how these transformations fueled the national economy in the postwar years as well as the emergence of Native activism, and how Native communities actively navigated and influenced seminal directions in federal Indian policy. Lastly, it illustrates how Native communities in the Pacific Northwest responded to the economic and environmental struggles of the early sovereignty era. This dissertation remaps the field of Native American history, by foregrounding its critical intersections with 20th-century environmental and economic histories. It relies heavily on materials from the National Archives & Records Administration Regional Office in Seattle, Washington, and agency archives from the Bonneville Power Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, all in Portland, Oregon. In addition, the dissertation utilizes a variety of additional evidentiary support, and records from tribes in the Pacific Northwest.

"Serial no. 99-B." ; "September 1985." ; At head of title: Committee print. ; Title on added t.p.: A matter of interpretation, changes under chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act. ; CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 85 H342-11 ; Bibliography: p. 221-224. ; Microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.