One can (for the most part) formulate a model of a classical system in either the Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian framework. Though it is often thought that those two formulations are equivalent in all important ways, this is not true: the underlying geometrical structures one uses to formulate each theory are not isomorphic. This raises the question of whether one of the two is a more natural framework for the representation of classical systems. In the event, the answer (...) is yes: I state and sketch proofs of two technical results—inspired by simple physical arguments about the generic properties of classical systems—to the effect that, in a precise sense, classical systems evince exactly the geometric structure Lagrangian mechanics provides for the representation of systems, and none provided by Hamiltonian. The argument not only clarifies the conceptual structure of the two systems of mechanics, but also their relations to each other and their respective mechanisms for representing physical systems. It also shows why naïvely structural approaches to the representational content of physical theories cannot work. [Lagrange] grasped that he had gained a method of stating dynamical truths in a way, which is perfectly indifferent to the particular methods of measurement employed in fixing the positions of the various parts of the system. Accordingly, he went on to deduce equations of motion, which are equally applicable whatever quantitative measurements have been made, provided that they are adequate to fix positions. The beauty and almost divine simplicity of these equations is such that these formulae are worthy to rank with those mysterious symbols which in ancient times were held directly to indicate the Supreme Reason at the base of all things. (Whitehead [1948], p. 63)1. Introduction2.Classical Systems3. The Possible Interactions of a Classical System and the Structure of Its Space of States4. Classical Systems Are Lagrangian5. Classical Systems Are Not Hamiltonian6. How Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics Represent Classical Systems7. The Conceptual Structure of Classical Mechanics. (shrink)

One can (for the most part) formulate a model of a classical system in either the Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian framework. Though it is often thought that those two formulations are equivalent in all important ways, this is not true: the underlying geometrical structures one uses to formulate each theory are not isomorphic. This raises the question whether one of the two is a more natural framework for the representation of classical systems. In the event, the answer is (...) yes: I state and prove two technical results, inspired by simple physical arguments about the generic properties of classical systems, to the effect that, in a precise sense, classical systems evince exactly the geometric structure Lagrangian mechanics provides for the representation of systems, and none that Hamiltonian mechanics does. The argument not only clarifies the conceptual structure of the two systems of mechanics, their relations to each other, and their respective mechanisms for representing physical systems. It also provides a decisive counter-example to the semantical view of physical theories, and one, moreover, that shows its crucial deficiency: a theory must be, or at least be founded on, more than its collection of models (in the sense of Tarski), for a complete semantics requires that one take account of global structures defined by relations among the individual models. The example also shows why naively structural accounts of theory cannot work: simple isomorphism of theoretical and empirical structures is not rich enough a relation to ground a semantics. (shrink)

The contemporary scientific and technological progress builds on the accomplishments of classical mechanics from the 19th century when the so-called ‘European scientific method and values’ were accepted practically by the whole educated world. Most scientific results and conclusions were reached based on the causal ontological approach proposed in principle already by Plato’s Socrates and developed further by Aristotle. Despite the late-modern paradigm shift in science, the topicality of the ontological approach proposed by Aristotle remains. On the other hand, (...) 19th and 20th century philosophers, mainly positivists such as Mach and Avenarius but also Schlick and Carnap, attempted to change this approach to unify scientific knowledge in accordance with an ideological, i.e. positivist outlook on reality. The authors place a special emphasis on the contribution of Rudolf Carnap and his interaction with Martin Heidegger. Three very different theories are applied to physical reality in the present: classical mechanics in the standard macroscopic realm, Copenhagen quantum mechanics in the microscopic realm, and special theory of reality in both realms in the case of systems consisting of objects having higher velocity values. Any explanation or description of transitions between different realms and theories had not been provided until now. Our paper describes the corresponding evolution in the modern period and identifies the underlying false philosophical assumptions and statements existing in today’s scientific systems. We will then demonstrate that one common theory for all realms of reality may exist; one that will be based fully on Hamilton equations. Only time change of particle impulse is to be determined by a corresponding force. All necessary characteristics of physical reality may be derived in such a case. Direct correlations of such physical approach to philosophy will be drawn. (shrink)

The standard view is that the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics are theoretically equivalent. Jill North, however, argues that they are not. In particular, she argues that the state-space of Hamiltonian mechanics has less structure than the state-space of Lagrangian mechanics. I will isolate two arguments that North puts forward for this conclusion and argue that neither yet succeeds. 1 Introduction2 Hamiltonian State-space Has less Structure than Lagrangian State-space2.1 Lagrangian state-space is metrical2.2 Hamiltonian state-space (...) is symplectic2.3 Metric > symplectic3 Hamiltonian State-space Does Not Have Less Structure than Lagrangian State-space3.1 Lagrangian state-space has less than metric structure3.1.1 A potential worry3.1.2 General Lagrangians3.2 Hamiltonian state-space has more than symplectic structure3.2.1 A dual structure on the Hamiltonian state-space3.2.2 Simple Hamiltonians3.3 Comparing Lagrangian and Hamiltonian structures3.3.1 Counting mathematical structure3.3.2 Symplectic and metric structure are incomparable4 An Alternative Argument for LS4.1 The argument for P3*4.2 Symplectic manifold vs. tangent bundle structure4.3 Trying to patch up the argument for P3*5 Interpreting Mathematical Structure5.1 State-space realism5.2 Model isomorphism and theoretical equivalence6 Conclusion. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore whether elementary classical mechanics adheres to the Principle of Composition of Causes as Mill claimed and as certain contemporary authors still seem to believe. Among other things, I provide a proof that if one reads Mill’s description of the principle literally, it does not hold in any general sense. In addition, I explore a separate notion of Composition of Causes and note that it too does not hold in elementary classical mechanics. (...) Among the major morals is that there is no utility to describing classical mechanics in terms of Composition of Causes. This is both because the stated principles do not hold and because when one describes what actually does hold in classical mechanics in terms of the Composition of Causes, one introduces misleading associations that can generate errors just as claimed by Russell. (shrink)

It is argued on the basis of certain mathematical characteristics that classical mechanics is not constitutionally suited to accommodate consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics is. These mathematical characteristics pertain to the nature of the information represented in the state of the brain, and the way this information enters into the dynamics.

This paper expounds the modern theory of symplectic reduction in finite-dimensional Hamiltonian mechanics. This theory generalizes the well-known connection between continuous symmetries and conserved quantities, i.e. Noether's theorem. It also illustrates one of mechanics' grand themes: exploiting a symmetry so as to reduce the number of variables needed to treat a problem. The exposition emphasises how the theory provides insights about the rotation group and the rigid body. The theory's device of quotienting a state space also casts light (...) on philosophical issues about whether two apparently distinct but utterly indiscernible possibilities should be ruled to be one and the same. These issues are illustrated using ``relationist'' mechanics. (shrink)

As a prolegomenon to understanding the sense in which dualities are theoretical equivalences, we investigate the intuitive `equivalence' of hyper-regular Lagrangian and Hamiltonian classical mechanics. We show that the symplectification of these theories provides a sense in which they are isomorphic, and mutually and canonically definable through an analog of `common definitional extension'.

We show that in classical mechanics the momentum may depend only on the coordinates and can thus be considered as a field. We formulate a special Lagrangian formalism as a result of which the momenta satisfy differential equations which depend only on the coordinates. The solutions correspond to all possible trajectories. As a bonus the Hamilton-Jacobi equation results in a very simple way.

The analysis of interacting relativistic many-particle systems provides a theoretical basis for further work in many diverse fields of physics. After a discussion of the nonrelativisticN-particle systems we describe two approaches for obtaining the canonical equations of the corresponding relativistic forms. A further aspect of our approach is the consideration of the constants of the motion.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes the existence of the classical deterministic Newtonian world. We argue that in fact the Newton determinism in classical world does not hold and in the classical mechanics there is fundamental and irreducible randomness. The classical Newtonian trajectory does not have a direct physical meaning since arbitrary real numbers are not observable. There are classical uncertainty relations: Δq>0 and Δp>0, i.e. the uncertainty (errors of observation) in the (...) determination of coordinate and momentum is always positive (non zero).A “functional” formulation of classical mechanics was suggested. The fundamental equation of the microscopic dynamics in the functional approach is not the Newton equation but the Liouville equation for the distribution function of the single particle. Solutions of the Liouville equation have the property of delocalization which accounts for irreversibility. The Newton equation in this approach appears as an approximate equation describing the dynamics of the average values of the position and momenta for not too long time intervals. Corrections to the Newton trajectories are computed. An interpretation of quantum mechanics is attempted in which both classical and quantum mechanics contain fundamental randomness. Instead of an ensemble of events one introduces an ensemble of observers. (shrink)

This paper presents three interesting consequences that follow from admitting an ontology of rigid bodies in classical mechanics. First, it shows that some of the most characteristic properties of supertasks based on binary collisions between particles, such as the possibility of indeterminism or the non-conservation of energy, persist in the presence of gravitational interaction. This makes them gravitational supertasks radically different from those that have appeared in the literature to date. Second, Sect. 6 proves that the role of (...) gravitation in supertasks of this kind may be highly non-trivial. Third,, the gravitational supertasks found in the first part enable us to show that indeterminism of classical mechanics with gravitation is much more general than has been supposed until now. This result is especially interesting from the philosophical viewpoint, as it links the scope of indeterminism in a theory like classical mechanics directly with the nature of its ontological hypotheses. (shrink)

One of the foremost goals of research in physics is to find the most basic and universal theories that describe our universe. Many theories assume the presence of absolute space and time in which the physical objects are located and physical processes take place. However, it is more fundamental to understand time as relative to the motion of another object, e.g., the number of swings of a pendulum, and the position of an object primarily relative to other objects. This paper (...) aims to explain how using the principle of relationalism, classical mechanics can be formulated on a most elementary space, which is freed from absolute entities: shape space. In shape space, only the relative orientation and length of subsystems are taken into account. A sufficient requirement for the validity of the principle of relationalism is that by changing a system’s scale variable, all the theory’s parameters that depend on the length, get changed accordingly. In particular, a direct implementation of the principle of relationalism introduces a proper transformation of the coupling constants of the interaction potentials in classical physics. This change leads consequently to a transformation in Planck’s measuring units, which enables us to derive a metric on shape space in a unique way. In order to find out the classical equations of motion on shape space, the method of “symplectic reduction of Hamiltonian systems” is extended to include scale transformations. In particular, we will give the derivation of the reduced Hamiltonian and symplectic form on shape space, and in this way, the reduction of a classical system with respect to the entire similarity group is achieved. (shrink)

This work considers the Lagrangian in classical mechanics and in special relativity in a setting of arithmetic, algebra, and topology provided by observer’s mathematics. Certain results and communications pertaining to solutions of these problems are provided. In particular, we show that the standard expressions for Lagrangian take place with probabilities \1.

Various formalisms for recasting quantum mechanics in the framework of classical mechanics on phase space are reviewed and compared. Recent results in stochastic quantum mechanics are shown to avoid the difficulties encountered by the earlier approach of Wigner, as well as to avoid the well-known incompatibilities of relativity and ordinary quantum theory. Specific mappings among the various formalisms are given.

The implications for the substantivalist–relationalist controversy of Barbour and Bertotti's successful implementation of a Machian approach to dynamics are investigated. It is argued that in the context of Newtonian mechanics, the Machian framework provides a genuinely relational interpretation of dynamics and that it is more explanatory than the conventional, substantival interpretation. In a companion paper (Pooley [2002a]), the viability of the Machian framework as an interpretation of relativistic physics is explored. 1 Introduction 2 Newton versus Leibniz 3 Absolute space (...) versus an affine connection 4 Anti-relationalist arguments 5 Rehabilitating relationalism 6 Dynamics on the relative configuration space 7 Intrinsic particle dynamics 8 Conclusion. (shrink)

Galilean space-time plays the same role in nonrelativistic physics that Minkowski space-time does in relativistic physics. In this paper, the fundamental concepts (velocity, momentum, kinetic energy, etc.) and principles (laws of motion and conservation laws) of classical physics are formulated in the language of Galilean space-time. Much of the development closely parallels the development of similar concepts and principles in the theory of special relativity.

The notions of conservation and relativity lie at the heart of classical mechanics, and were critical to its early development. However, in Newton’s theory of mechanics, these symmetry principles were eclipsed by domain-specific laws. In view of the importance of symmetry principles in elucidating the structure of physical theories, it is natural to ask to what extent conservation and relativity determine the structure of mechanics. In this paper, we address this question by deriving classical (...) class='Hi'>mechanics—both nonrelativistic and relativistic—using relativity and conservation as the primary guiding principles. The derivation proceeds in three distinct steps. First, conservation and relativity are used to derive the asymptotically conserved quantities of motion. Second, in order that energy and momentum be continuously conserved, the mechanical system is embedded in a larger energetic framework containing a massless component that is capable of bearing energy. Imposition of conservation and relativity then results, in the nonrelativistic case, in the conservation of mass and in the frame-invariance of massless energy; and, in the relativistic case, in the rules for transforming massless energy and momentum between frames. Third, a force framework for handling continuously interacting particles is established, wherein Newton’s second law is derived on the basis of relativity and a staccato model of motion-change. Finally, in light of the derivation, we elucidate the structure of mechanics by classifying the principles and assumptions that have been employed according to their explanatory role, distinguishing between symmetry principles and other types of principles that are needed to build up the theoretical edifice. (shrink)

The problem of relation between statistical mechanics (SM) and classical mechanics (CM), especially the question whether SM can be founded on CM, has been a subject of controversies since the rise of classical statistical mechanics (CSM) at the end of 19th century. The first views rejecting explicitly the possibility of laying the foundations of CSM in CM were triggered by the "Wiederkehr-" and "Umkehreinwand" arguments. These arguments played an important role in the debate about Boltzmann's (...) original H-theorem and led to the so called statistical H-theorem proposed by Boltzmann himself. (For the history of these early debates we refer to Brush's monograph (Brush 1976).) After CSM had been brought to "canonical form" by the Ehrenfests, (Ehrenfest and Ehrenfest 1959) the physicists turned away from the foundational problem leaving it to mathematicians to worry about in the form of what has become called the ergodic theory. In retrospect, the physicists' general mood seems to have been the hope that ergodic theory establishes rigorously what is needed to found CSM on CM and which had been expressed essentially by Boltzmann already (Wightman 1985). However, very few physicists followed closely the developments in the mathematical theory of dynamic systems. One of those who did was the Russian physicist N.S. Krylov. (For a brief description of Krylov's personal life we refer to the papers in (Krylov 1979).). (shrink)

In this article, I firstly show that, following Poincaré, it turns out that the very foundation of classical mechanics implicates that all just can’t be explained. Next, I discuss principles of mechanics as they are viewed by Poincaré. This will reveal the particularity of the principle of relativity in its form of “pseudo-universal” argument.

This paper argues against a standard view that all deterministic and conservative classical mechanical systems are time-reversible, by asking how the temporal evolution of a system modulates parametric imprecision (either ontological or epistemic). It notes that well-behaved systems (e.g. inertial motion) can possess a dynamics which is unstable enough to fail at reversing uncertainties—even though exact values are reliably reversed. A limited (but significant) source of irreversibility is thus displayed in classical mechanics, closely analogous the lack of (...) predictability revealed by unstable chaotic systems. (shrink)

Pérez Laraudogoitia (1996) presented an isolated system of infinitely many particles with infinite total mass whose total classical energy and momentum are not necessarily conserved in some particular inertial frame of reference. With a more generalized model Atkinson (2007) proved that a system of infinitely many balls with finite total mass may evolve so that its total classical energy and total relativistic energy and momentum are not conserved in any inertial frame of reference, and yet concluded that its (...) total classical momentum is necessarily conserved. Contrary to this conclusion of Atkinson, I show that Atkinson's model has a solution in which the total momentum fails to be conserved in every inertial frame of reference. This result, combined with Atkinson's, demonstrates that both classical and relativistic mechanics allow the energy and momentum of a system of infinitely many components to fail to be conserved in every inertial frame of reference. (shrink)

The purpose of this note is to examine a recent axiomatization of classical particle mechanics, and its relation to an alternative axiomatization I had earlier proposed. A comparison of the two proposals casts some interesting light on the problems of operationalism in classical celestial mechanics.1. Comparison of the Two Axiomatizations. The basic differences between the two proposals arise from the nature of the undefined terms. Both systems take the set of particles, time, and position as primitive (...) notions. Both systems assume that there exists a set of particles having continuous, twice-differentiable paths over some time interval. In addition, CPM takes mass and force as primitive notions, and assumes that with each particle there is associated a mass and a set of forces such that Newton's Second Law is satisfied. A system with these properties is called in CPM “a system of particle mechanics.” If, in addition, the set of forces in the system satisfies Newton's Third Law, the system is called in CPM “Newtonian.”. (shrink)

The notions of conservation and relativity lie at the heart of classical mechanics, and were critical to its early development. However, in Newton’s theory of mechanics, these symmetry principles were eclipsed by domain-specific laws. In view of the importance of symmetry principles in elucidating the structure of physical theories, it is natural to ask to what extent conservation and relativity determine the structure of mechanics. In this paper, we address this question by deriving classical (...) class='Hi'>mechanics—both nonrelativistic and relativistic—using relativity and conservation as the primary guiding principles. The derivation proceeds in three distinct steps. First, conservation and relativity are used to derive the asymptotically conserved quantities of motion. Second, in order that energy and momentum be continuously conserved, the mechanical system is embedded in a larger energetic framework containing a massless component that is capable of bearing energy. Imposition of conservation and relativity then results, in the nonrelativistic case, in the conservation of mass and in the frame-invariance of massless energy; and, in the relativistic case, in the rules for transforming massless energy and momentum between frames. Third, a force framework for handling continuously interacting particles is established, wherein Newton’s second law is derived on the basis of relativity and a staccato model of motion-change. Finally, in light of the derivation, we elucidate the structure of mechanics by classifying the principles and assumptions that have been employed according to their explanatory role, distinguishing between symmetry principles and other types of principles that are needed to build up the theoretical edifice. (shrink)

This paper expounds the relations between continuous symmetries and conserved quantities, i.e. Noether's ``first theorem'', in both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian frameworks for classical mechanics. This illustrates one of mechanics' grand themes: exploiting a symmetry so as to reduce the number of variables needed to treat a problem. I emphasise that, for both frameworks, the theorem is underpinned by the idea of cyclic coordinates; and that the Hamiltonian theorem is more powerful. The Lagrangian theorem's main ``ingredient'', apart (...) from cyclic coordinates, is the rectification of vector fields afforded by the local existence and uniqueness of solutions to ordinary differential equations. For the Hamiltonian theorem, the main extra ingredients are the asymmetry of the Poisson bracket, and the fact that a vector field generates canonical transformations iff it is Hamiltonian. (shrink)

In this paper, an example is presented for a dynamic system analysable in the framework of the mechanics of rigid bodies. Interest in the model lies in three fundamental features. First, it leads to a paradox in classical mechanics which does not seem to be explainable with the conceptual resources currently available. Second, it is possible to find a solution to it by extending in a natural way the idea of global interaction in the context of what (...) is called interaction by impenetrability. Third, the solution presented throws light on a problem posed and discussed in the recent literature in connection with the mass conservation principle. (shrink)

Using the mathematical notion of an entity to represent states in quantum and classical mechanics, we show that, in a strict sense, proper superpositions are possible in classical mechanics.

Currently there are at least four sizeable projects going on to establish the gravitational acceleration of massive antiparticles on earth. While general relativity and modern quantum theories strictly forbid any repulsive gravity, it has not yet been established experimentally that gravity is attraction only. With that in mind, the Elementary Process Theory (EPT) is a rather abstract theory that has been developed from the hypothesis that massive antiparticles are repulsed by the gravitational field of a body of ordinary matter: the (...) EPT essentially describes the elementary processes by which the smallest massive systems have to interact with their environments for repulsive gravity to exist. In this paper we model a nonrelativistic, one-component massive system that evolves in time by the processes as described by the EPT in an environment described by classical fields: the main result is a semi-classical model of a process at Planck scale by which a non-relativistic onecomponent system interacts with its environment, such that the interaction has both gravitational and electromagnetic aspects. Some worked-out examples are provided, among which the repulsion of an antineutron by the gravitational field of the earth. The general conclusion is that the semi-classical model of the EPT corresponds to non-relativistic classical mechanics. Further research is aimed at demonstrating that the EPT has a model that reproduces the successful predictions of general relativity. (shrink)

We clarify Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics by demonstrating the central role played by his thesis that quantum theory is a rational generalization of classical mechanics. This thesis is essential for an adequate understanding of his insistence on the indispensability of classical concepts, his account of how the quantum formalism gets its meaning, and his belief that hidden variable interpretations are impossible.

It is shown that, at the time of Euler and Lagrange, a belief led to an assumption. The assumption is applied to derive the principle of least action from the vis viva. The assumption is also applied to derive Hamilton's principles from the vis viva. It is shown that Hamilton, in his 1834 paper, countered the assumption of the earlier mathematicians. Finally, Hamilton's law, completely independent of the principle of least action and Hamilton's principles, is obtained to verify the foregoing (...) assertions. The unifying laws of classical mechanics, contained within Hamilton's 1834 paper, are identified. (shrink)

The imprints left by quantum mechanics in classical (Hamiltonian) mechanics are much more numerous than is usually believed. We show that the Schrödinger equation for a nonrelativistic spinless particle is a classical equation which is equivalent to Hamilton’s equations. Our discussion is quite general, and incorporates time-dependent systems. This gives us the opportunity of discussing the group of Hamiltonian canonical transformations which is a non-linear variant of the usual symplectic group.

In a previous paper, a statistical method of constructing quantum models of classical properties has been described. The present paper concludes the description by turning to classical mechanics. The quantum states that maximize entropy for given averages and variances of coordinates and momenta are called ME packets. They generalize the Gaussian wave packets. A non-trivial extension of the partition-function method of probability calculus to quantum mechanics is given. Non-commutativity of quantum variables limits its usefulness. Still, the (...) general form of the state operators of ME packets is obtained with its help. The diagonal representation of the operators is found. A general way of calculating averages that can replace the partition function method is described. Classical mechanics is reinterpreted as a statistical theory. Classical trajectories are replaced by classical ME packets. Quantum states approximate classical ones if the product of the coordinate and momentum variances is much larger than Planck constant. Thus, ME packets with large variances follow their classical counterparts better than Gaussian wave packets. (shrink)

In this article, I examine whether or not the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of classical mechanics are equivalent theories. I do so by applying a standard for equivalence that was recently introduced into philosophy of science by Halvorson and Weatherall. This case study yields three general philosophical payoffs. The first concerns what a theory is, while the second and third concern how we should interpret what our physical theories say about the world. 1Introduction 2When Are Two Theories Equivalent? (...) 3Preliminaries on Classical Mechanics 3.1Hamiltonian mechanics 3.2Lagrangian mechanics 4Are Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Mechanics Equivalent Theories? 4.1Tangent bundle versus cotangent bundle 4.2Tangent bundle versus symplectic manifold 4.3Lagrangian vector field versus Hamiltonian vector field 5Conclusion Appendix. (shrink)

Do scientific theories limit human knowledge? In other words, are there physical variables hidden by essence forever? We argue for negative answers and illustrate our point on chaotic classical dynamical systems. We emphasize parallels with quantum theory and conclude that the common real numbers are, de facto, the hidden variables of classical physics. Consequently, real numbers should not be considered as ``physically real" and classical mechanics, like quantum physics, is indeterministic.

In spite of its popularity, it has not been possible to vindicate the conventional wisdom that classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. The purpose of the present paper is to offer an alternative formulation of mechanics which provides a continuous transition between quantum and classical mechanics via environment-induced decoherence.

What grounds the standard claim that classical mechanics is time-reversal invariant? Hutchison (1993, 1995) challenges the conventional reasoning underlying the belief that classical mechanics is time reversal invariant and argues that it is not in any well-defined sense. I find a defensible criterion that will exclude his cases, thereby rescuing a sense in which we can say that classical mechanics is time reversal invariant.

Mechanism is a conception of the world according to which all can be explained by mechanics expressed by its fundamental concepts and principles. I’ll firstly show that, following Poincaré’s discussion on mechanical explanation, the very foundation of classical mechanics implicates that all just can’t be explained. Next, I’ll discuss the principles of mechanics as they are viewed by Poincaré, especially the principle of relativity that has a particularity in its form of “pseudo-universal”argument, as well as in (...) its fundamental role for experiences. It will be finally revealed that, the mechanism can be used as a convention, because, by the principle of relativity, we can have only local experiments but never on the universe, and consequently, non of our experiences would never lead us to any phenomenon irreducible to mechanics. Nevertheless, it doesn’t exclude the contrary possibility: experiences can reveal that it is not to commode as it used to be, without disapproving it. (shrink)

I argue that the logical difference between classical and quantum mechanics that Stapp (1995) claims shows quantum mechanics is more amenable to an account of consciousness than is classical mechanics is irrelevant to the problem.

This paper develops and defends three related forms of relationism about spacetime against attacks by contemporary substantivalists. It clarifies Newton's globes argument to show that it does not bear on relations that fail to determine geodesic motions, since the inertial effects on which Newton relies are not simply correlated with affine structure, but must be understood in dynamical terms. It develops remarks by Sklar and van Fraassen into relational versions of Newtonian mechanics, and argues that Earman does not show (...) them to trivialize the debate. (shrink)

A motivation is given for expressing classical mechanics in terms of diagonal projection matrices and diagonal density matrices. Then quantum mechanics is seen to be a simple generalization in which one replaces the diagonal real matrices with suitable Hermitian matrices.

The goal of this paper is to introduce the notion of a four-dimensional time in classical mechanics and in quantum mechanics as a natural concept related with the angular momentum. The four-dimensional time is a consequence of the geometrical relation in the particle in a given plane defined by the angular momentum. A quaternion is the mathematical entity that gives the correct direction to the four-dimensional time.Taking into account the four-dimensional time as a vectorial quaternionic idea, we (...) develop a set of generalizations and conclusions over the mechanics.In quantum mechanics, the four-dimensional time appears as an observable. (shrink)

By means of the examples of classical and Bohmian quantum mechanics, we illustrate the well-known ideas of Boltzmann as to how one gets from laws defined for the universe as a whole to dynamical relations describing the evolution of subsystems. We explain how probabilities enter into this process, what quantum and classical probabilities have in common and where exactly their difference lies.

The aim of the paper is to examine the changes, which occurred in the epistemological structure of classical mechanics during its development from Newton to Poincaré. The analysis is based on the reconstruction of the language form. Attention is paid to such aspects of the language of classical mechanics as the notion of pace or the description of action . Even though these notions do not have direct denotation, they, nevertheless, constitute the general framework, on which (...) the relation between the denotative descriptions of the language of classical mechanics and the reality is based. (shrink)