I show how Sir William Rowan Hamilton’s philosophical commitments led him to a causal interpretation of classical mechanics. I argue that Hamilton’s metaphysics of causation was injected into his dynamics by way of a causal interpretation of force. I then detail how forces are indispensable to both Hamilton’s formulation of classical mechanics and what we now call Hamiltonian mechanics (i.e., the modern formulation). On this point, my efforts primarily consist of showing that the contemporary orthodox interpretation of potential energy (...) is the interpretation found in Hamilton’s work. Hamilton called the potential energy function the “force-function” because he believed that it represents forces at work in the world. Various non-historical arguments for this orthodox interpretation of potential energy are provided, and matters are concluded by showing that in classical Hamiltonian mechanics, facts about the potential energies of systems are grounded in facts about forces. Thus, if one can tolerate the view that forces are causes of motion, then Hamilton provides one with a road map for transporting causation into one of the most mathematically sophisticated formulations of classical mechanics, viz., Hamiltonian mechanics. (shrink)

We argue that Hamiltonian mechanics is more fundamental than Lagrangian mechanics. Our argument provides a non-metaphysical strategy for privileging one formulation of a theory over another: ceteris paribus, a more general formulation is more fundamental. We illustrate this criterion through a novel interpretation of classical mechanics, based on three physical conditions. Two of these conditions suffice for recovering Hamiltonian mechanics. A third condition is necessary for Lagrangian mechanics. Hence, Lagrangian systems are a proper subset of Hamiltonian systems. (...) Finally, we provide a geometric interpretation of the principle of stationary action and rebut arguments for privileging Lagrangian mechanics. (shrink)

Dissipative systems are described by a Hamiltonian, combined with a “dynamical matrix” which generalizes the simplectic form of the equations of motion. Criteria for dissipation are given and the examples of a particle with friction and of the Lotka-Volterra model are presented. Quantization is first introduced by translating generalized Poisson brackets into commutators and anticommutators. Then a generalized Schrödinger equation expressed by a dynamical matrix is constructed and discussed.

The analysis of the Helmholtz equation is shown to lead to an exact Hamiltonian system describing in terms of ray trajectories, for a stationary refractive medium, a very wide family of wave-like phenomena (including diffraction and interference) going much beyond the limits of the geometrical optics (“eikonal”) approximation, which is contained as a simple limiting case. Due to the fact, moreover, that the time independent Schrödinger equation is itself a Helmholtz-like equation, the same mathematics holding for a classical optical (...) beam turns out to apply to a quantum particle beam moving in a stationary force field, and leads to a system of Hamiltonian equations providing exact and deterministic particle trajectories and dynamical laws, and containing the laws of Classical Mechanics in the eikonal limit. (shrink)

With many Hamiltonians one can naturally associate a |Ψ|2-distributed Markov process. For nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, this process is in fact deterministic, and is known as Bohmian mechanics. For the Hamiltonian of a quantum field theory, it is typically a jump process on the configuration space of a variable number of particles. We define these processes for regularized quantum field theories, thereby generalizing previous work of John S. Bell [3] and of ourselves [11]. We introduce a formula expressing the jump (...) rates in terms of the interaction Hamiltonian, and establish a condition for finiteness of the rates. (shrink)

Hamilton’s Rule, named after the evolutionary biologist Bill Hamilton, and the related concepts of inclusive fitness and kin selection, have been the bedrock of the study of social evolution for the past half century. In ’The Philosophy of Social Evolution’, Jonathan Birch provides a comprehensive introduction to the conceptual foundations of the Hamiltonian view of social evolution, and a passionate defence of its enduring value in face of the recent high profile criticism. In this review essay, I first outline (...) the version of Hamilton’s Rule defended by Birch, dubbed Hamilton’s Rule General, and its derivation. With this in place, I then navigate through the fierce disagreements that Hamilton’s Rule generates among social evolution researchers and evaluate Birch’s central argument of the book that HRG serves as an organizing framework for social evolution research under which we can compare and interpret more detailed causal models. I then spend the remainder of the review discussing what I take to be three of the most exciting implications of Hamilton’s thinking raised by Birch: the extension of Hamilton’s Rule to mobile genetic elements, maximization of inclusive fitness models and the idea of adaptation as organism design, and the relationship between Hamilton’s approaches to social behaviour and the gene’s-eye view of evolution. (shrink)

The connection between quantum mechanics and classical statistical mechanics has motivated in the past the representation of the Schrödinger quantum-wave equation in terms of “projections” onto the quantum configuration space of suitable phase-space asymptotic kinetic models. This feature has suggested the search of a possible exact super-dimensional classical dynamical system, denoted as Schrödinger CDS, which uniquely determines the time-evolution of the underlying quantum state describing a set of N like and mutually interacting quantum particles. In this paper the realization of (...) the same CDS in terms of a coupled set of Hamiltonian systems is established. These are respectively associated with a quantum-hydrodynamic CDS advancing in time the quantum fluid velocity and a further one the RD-CDS, describing the relative dynamics with respect to the quantum fluid. (shrink)

The Hamiltonian for the Einstein equations is constructed on an outgoing null cone with the help of the usual null tetrad used in the study of the asymptotical gravitational radiation field.

We consider a quadratic Lagrangian, in both curvature and torsion, with the aim of exploring the possibility that torsion and curvature behave as conjugate variables satisfying the commutation relations. For that proposal we first show that torsion represents a quantum correction to the classical equations of motion. We then observe that we have to introduce the spin in the Einstein theory with two spaces: a real space-time where we describe the curvature with tensors; and a complex space-time, where we describe (...) torsion with spinors. This is not satisfactory, and to overcome this contradiction we describe both mass and spin in a unique manifold, the real space-time, with the use of geometric algebra and geometric product. In that manner we are able to introduce a torsion trivector and curvature trivector that satisfy the commutation relations, opening the road for a quantum description of gravity theory. (shrink)

This paper undertakes a re-examination of Sir William Hamilton’s doctrine of the quantification of the predicate . Hamilton’s doctrine comprises two theses. First, the predicates of traditional syllogistic sentence-forms contain implicit existential quantifiers, so that, for example, All p is q is to be understood as All p is some q . Second, these implicit quantifiers can be meaningfully dualized to yield novel sentence-forms, such as, for example, All p is all q . Hamilton attempted to provide a deductive system (...) for his language, along the lines of the classical syllogisms. We show, using techniques unavailable to Hamilton, that such a system does exist, though with qualifications that distinguish it from its classical counterpart. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to introduce a new member of the family of the modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. In this modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, the Hamiltonian of the quantum system plays a decisive role in the property-ascription rule that selects the definite-valued observables whose possible values become actual. We show that this interpretation is effective for solving the measurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions, and we argue for the physical relevance of the property-ascription (...) rule by applying it to well-known physical situations. Moreover, we explain how this interpretation supplies a description of the elemental categories of the ontology referred to by the theory, where quantum systems turn out to be bundles of possible properties. (shrink)

Representation of quantum states by statistical ensembles on the quantum phase space in the Hamiltonian form of quantum mechanics is analyzed. Various mathematical properties and some physical interpretations of the equivalence classes of ensembles representing a mixed quantum state in the Hamiltonian formulation are examined. In particular, non-uniqueness of the quantum phase space probability density associated with the quantum mixed state, Liouville dynamics of the probability densities and the possibility to represent the reduced states of bipartite systems by (...) marginal distributions are discussed in detail. These considerations are used to study ensembles of hybrid quantum-classical systems. In particular, nonlinear evolution of a single hybrid system in a pure state and unequal evolutions of initially equivalent ensembles are discussed in the context of coupled hybrid systems. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to introduce a new member of the family of the modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. In this modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, the Hamiltonian of the quantum system plays a decisive role in the property-ascription rule that selects the definite-valued observables whose possible values become actual. We show that this interpretation is effective for solving the measurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions, and we argue for the physical relevance of the property-ascription (...) rule by applying it to well-known physical situations. Moreover, we explain how this interpretation supplies a description of the elemental categories of the ontology referred to by the theory, where quantum systems turn out to be bundles of possible properties. (shrink)

In General Relativity in Hamiltonian form, change has seemed to be missing, defined only asymptotically, or otherwise obscured at best, because the Hamiltonian is a sum of first-class constraints and a boundary term and thus supposedly generates gauge transformations. Attention to the gauge generator G of Rosenfeld, Anderson, Bergmann, Castellani et al., a specially _tuned sum_ of first-class constraints, facilitates seeing that a solitary first-class constraint in fact generates not a gauge transformation, but a bad physical change in (...) electromagnetism or General Relativity. The change spoils the Lagrangian constraints, Gauss's law or the Gauss-Codazzi relations describing embedding of space into space-time, in terms of the physically relevant velocities rather than auxiliary canonical momenta. But the resemblance between the gauge generator G and the Hamiltonian H leaves still unclear where objective change is in GR. Insistence on Hamiltonian-Lagrangian equivalence, a theme emphasized by Castellani, Sugano, Pons, Salisbury, Shepley and Sundermeyer among others, holds the key. Taking objective change to be ineliminable time dependence, one recalls that there is change in vacuum GR just in case there is no time-like vector field xi^a satisfying Killing's equation L_xi g_mn=0, because then there exists no coordinate system such that everything is independent of time. Throwing away the spatial dependence of GR for convenience, one finds explicitly that the time evolution from Hamilton's equations is real change just when there is no time-like Killing vector. The inclusion of a massive scalar field is simple. No obstruction is expected in including spatial dependence and coupling more general matter fields. Hence change is real and local even in the Hamiltonian formalism. The considerations here resolve the Earman-Maudlin standoff over change in Hamiltonian General Relativity: the Hamiltonian formalism is helpful, and, suitably reformed, it does not have absurd consequences for change and observables. Hence the classical problem of time is resolved. The Lagrangian-equivalent Hamiltonian analysis of change in General Relativity is compared to Belot and Earman's treatment. The more serious quantum problem of time, however, is not automatically resolved due to issues of quantum constraint imposition. (shrink)

The construction of the quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian by canonical quantization is examined. The results are used to enlighten examples taken from slow nuclear collective motion. Hamiltonians, obtained by a thoroughly quantal method (generator-coordinate method) and by the canonical quantization of the semiclassical Hamiltonian, are compared. The resulting simplicity in the physics of a system constrained to lie in a curved space by the introduction of local Riemannian coordinates is emphasized. In conclusion, a parallel is established between the result for (...) various coordinates and a proposed procedure for quantizing the semiclassical Hamiltonian for a single coordinate. (shrink)

Hamiltonian light-front dynamics of quantum fields may provide a useful approach to systematic nonperturbative approximations to quantum field theories. We investigate inequivalent Hilbert-space representations of the light-front field algebra in which the stability group of the light front is implemented by unitary transformations. The Hilbert space representation of states is generated by the operator algebra from the vacuum state. There is a large class of vacuum states besides the Fock vacuum which meet all the invariance requirements. The light-front (...) class='Hi'>Hamiltonian must annihilate the vacuum and have a positive spectrum. We exhibit relations of the Hamiltonian to the nontrivial vacuum structure. (shrink)

It has been shown that the orbits of motion for a wide class of non-relativistic Hamiltonian systems can be described as geodesic flows on a manifold and an associated dual by means of a conformal map. This method can be applied to a four dimensional manifold of orbits in spacetime associated with a relativistic system. We show that a relativistic Hamiltonian which generates Einstein geodesics, with the addition of a world scalar field, can be put into correspondence in (...) this way with another Hamiltonian with conformally modified metric. Such a construction could account for part of the requirements of Bekenstein for achieving the MOND theory of Milgrom in the post-Newtonian limit. The constraints on the MOND theory imposed by the galactic rotation curves, through this correspondence, would then imply constraints on the structure of the world scalar field. We then use the fact that a Hamiltonian with vector gauge fields results, through such a conformal map, in a Kaluza-Klein type theory, and indicate how the TeVeS structure of Bekenstein and Saunders can be put into this framework. We exhibit a class of infinitesimal gauge transformations on the gauge fields ${\mathcal{U}}_{\mu}(x)$ which preserve the Bekenstein-Sanders condition ${\mathcal{U}}_{\mu}{\mathcal{U}}^{\mu}=-1$ . The underlying quantum structure giving rise to these gauge fields is a Hilbert bundle, and the gauge transformations induce a non-commutative behavior to the fields, i.e. they become of Yang-Mills type. Working in the infinitesimal gauge neighborhood of the initial Abelian theory we show that in the Abelian limit the Yang-Mills field equations provide residual nonlinear terms which may avoid the caustic singularity found by Contaldi et al. (shrink)

Change and local spatial variation are missing in canonical General Relativity's observables as usually defined, an aspect of the problem of time. Definitions can be tested using equivalent formulations of a theory, non-gauge and gauge, because they must have equivalent observables and everything is observable in the non-gauge formulation. Taking an observable from the non-gauge formulation and finding the equivalent in the gauge formulation, one requires that the equivalent be an observable, thus constraining definitions. For massive photons, the de Broglie-Proca (...) non-gauge formulation observable A_{\mu} is equivalent to the Stueckelberg-Utiyama gauge formulation quantity A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu} \phi, which must therefore be an observable. To achieve that result, observables must have 0 Poisson bracket not with each first-class constraint, but with the Rosenfeld-Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints, in accord with the Pons-Salisbury-Sundermeyer definition of observables. The definition for external gauge symmetries can be tested using massive gravity, where one can install gauge freedom by parametrization with clock fields X^A. The non-gauge observable g^{\mu\nu} has the gauge equivalent X^A,_{\mu} g^{\mu\nu} X^B,_{\nu}. The Poisson bracket of X^A,_{\mu} g^{\mu\nu} X^B,_{\nu} with G turns out to be not 0 but a Lie derivative. This non-zero Poisson bracket refines and systematizes Kuchař's proposal to relax the 0 Poisson bracket condition with the Hamiltonian constraint. Thus observables need covariance, not invariance, in relation to external gauge symmetries. The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian for massive gravity are those of General Relativity + \Lambda + 4 scalars, so the same definition of observables applies to General Relativity. Local fields such as g_{\mu\nu} are observables. Thus observables change. Requiring equivalent observables for equivalent theories also recovers Hamiltonian-Lagrangian equivalence. (shrink)

Is change missing in Hamiltonian Einstein–Maxwell theory? Given the most common definition of observables, observables are constants of the motion and nonlocal. Unfortunately this definition also implies that the observables for massive electromagnetism with gauge freedom are inequivalent to those of massive electromagnetism without gauge freedom. The alternative Pons–Salisbury–Sundermeyer definition of observables, aiming for Hamiltonian–Lagrangian equivalence, uses the gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints, rather than each first-class constraint separately, and implies equivalent observables for equivalent (...) massive electromagnetisms. For General Relativity, G generates 4-dimensional Lie derivatives for solutions. The Lie derivative compares different space-time points with the same coordinate value in different coordinate systems, like 1 a.m. summer time versus 1 a.m. standard time, so a vanishing Lie derivative implies constancy rather than covariance. Requiring equivalent observables for equivalent formulations of massive gravity confirms that G must generate the 4-dimensional Lie derivative for observables. These separate results indicate that observables are invariant under internal gauge symmetries but covariant under external gauge symmetries, but can this bifurcated definition work for mixed theories such as Einstein–Maxwell theory? Pons, Salisbury and Shepley have studied G for Einstein–Yang–Mills. For Einstein–Maxwell, both \ and \ are invariant under electromagnetic gauge transformations and covariant under 4-dimensional coordinate transformations. Using the bifurcated definition, these quantities count as observables, as one would expect on non-Hamiltonian grounds. (shrink)

It was recently suggested that the cosmological constant problem as viewed in a non-perturbative framework is intimately connected to the choice of time and a physical Hamiltonian. We develop this idea further by calculating the non-perturbative vacuum energy density as a function of the cosmological constant with multiple choices of time. We also include a spatial curvature of the universe and generalize this calculation beyond cosmology at a classical level. We show that vacuum energy density depends on the choice (...) of time, and in almost all time gauges, is a non-linear function of the cosmological constant. This non-linear relation is a calculation for the vacuum energy density given some arbitrary value of the cosmological constant. Hence, in this non-perturbative framework, certain conventional aspects of the cosmological constant problem do not arise. We also discuss why the conventional cosmological constant problem is not well-posed, and formulate and answer the question: “Does vacuum gravitate?”. (shrink)

Change and local spatial variation are missing in Hamiltonian general relativity according to the most common definition of observables as having 0 Poisson bracket with all first-class constraints. But other definitions of observables have been proposed. In pursuit of Hamiltonian–Lagrangian equivalence, Pons, Salisbury and Sundermeyer use the Anderson–Bergmann–Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints. Kuchař waived the 0 Poisson bracket condition for the Hamiltonian constraint to achieve changing observables. A systematic combination of the two (...) reforms might use the gauge generator but permit non-zero Lie derivative Poisson brackets for the external gauge symmetry of General Relativity. Fortunately one can test definitions of observables by calculation using two formulations of a theory, one without gauge freedom and one with gauge freedom. The formulations, being empirically equivalent, must have equivalent observables. For de Broglie-Proca non-gauge massive electromagnetism, all constraints are second-class, so everything is observable. Demanding equivalent observables from gauge Stueckelberg–Utiyama electromagnetism, one finds that the usual definition fails while the Pons–Salisbury–Sundermeyer definition with G succeeds. This definition does not readily yield change in GR, however. Should GR’s external gauge freedom of general relativity share with internal gauge symmetries the 0 Poisson bracket, or is covariance sufficient? A graviton mass breaks the gauge symmetry, but it can be restored by parametrization with clock fields. By requiring equivalent observables, one can test whether observables should have 0 or the Lie derivative as the Poisson bracket with the gauge generator G. The latter definition is vindicated by calculation. While this conclusion has been reported previously, here the calculation is given in some detail. (shrink)

In General Relativity in Hamiltonian form, change has seemed to be missing, defined only asymptotically, or otherwise obscured at best, because the Hamiltonian is a sum of first-class constraints and a boundary term and thus supposedly generates gauge transformations. By construing change as essential time dependence, one can find change locally in vacuum GR in the Hamiltonian formulation just where it should be. But what if spinors are present? This paper is motivated by the tendency in space-time (...) philosophy tends to slight fermionic/spinorial matter, the tendency in Hamiltonian GR to misplace changes of time coordinate, and the tendency in treatments of the Einstein-Dirac equation to include a gratuitous local Lorentz gauge symmetry along with the physically significant coordinate freedom. Spatial dependence is dropped in most of the paper, both restricting the physical situation and largely fixing the spatial coordinates. In the interest of including all and only the coordinate freedom, the Einstein-Dirac equation is investigated using the Schwinger time gauge and Kibble-Deser symmetric triad condition are employed as a \ version of the DeWitt-Ogievetsky-Polubarinov nonlinear group realization formalism that dispenses with a tetrad and local Lorentz gauge freedom. Change is the lack of a time-like stronger-than-Killing field for which the Lie derivative of the metric-spinor complex vanishes. An appropriate \-friendly form of the Rosenfeld-Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first class-constraints, is shown to change the canonical Lagrangian by a total derivative, implying the preservation of Hamilton’s equations. Given the essential presence of second-class constraints with spinors and their lack of resemblance to a gauge theory, it is useful to have an explicit physically interesting example. This gauge generator implements changes of time coordinate for solutions of the equations of motion, showing that the gauge generator makes sense even with spinors. (shrink)

Energy is a crucial concept within classical and quantum physics. An essential tool to quantify energy is the Hamiltonian. Here, we consider how to define a Hamiltonian in general probabilistic theories—a framework in which quantum theory is a special case. We list desiderata which the definition should meet. For 3-dimensional systems, we provide a fully-defined recipe which satisfies these desiderata. We discuss the higher dimensional case where some freedom of choice is left remaining. We apply the definition to (...) example toy theories, and discuss how the quantum notion of time evolution as a phase between energy eigenstates generalises to other theories. (shrink)

Like moths attracted to a bright light, philosophers are drawn to glitz. So in discussing the notions of ‘gauge’, ‘gauge freedom’, and ‘gauge theories’, they have tended to focus on examples such as Yang–Mills theories and on the mathematical apparatus of fibre bundles. But while Yang–Mills theories are crucial to modern elementary particle physics, they are only a special case of a much broader class of gauge theories. And while the fibre bundle apparatus turned out, in retrospect, to be the (...) right formalism to illuminate the structure of Yang–Mills theories, the strength of this apparatus is also its weakness: the fibre bundle formalism is very flexible and general, and, as such, fibre bundles can be seen lurking under, over, and around every bush. What is needed is an explanation of what the relevant bundle structure is and how it arises, especially for theories that are not initially formulated in fibre bundle language. Here I will describe an approach that grows out of the conviction that, at least for theories that can be written in Lagrangian/Hamiltonian form, gauge freedom arises precisely when there are Lagrangian/Hamiltonian constraints of an appropriate character. This conviction is shared, if only tacitly, by that segment of the physics community that works on constrained Hamiltonian systems. (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 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)

The Gibbs states of binary lattice systems can be characterized by their stability with respect to certain microscopic transitions which have a simple physical interpretation. A detailed analysis is provided for the case of a one-dimensional lattice gas with nearest-neighbor interactions.

This is a substantially expanded version of a chapter-contribution to "The Springer Handbook of Spacetime", edited by Abhay Ashtekar and Vesselin Petkov, published by Springer Verlag in 2014. This contribution introduces the reader to the reformulation of Einstein's field equations of General Relativity as a constrained evolutionary system of Hamiltonian type and discusses some of its uses,together with some technical and conceptual aspects. Attempts were made to keep the presentation self contained and accessible to first-year graduate students. This implies (...) a certain degree of explicitness and occasional reviews of background material. (shrink)

The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation belongs to the modal family of interpretations of quantum mechanics. By endowing the Hamiltonian with the role of selecting the subset of the definite-valued observables of the system, it accounts for ideal and non-ideal measurements, and also supplies a criterion to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable measurements in the non-ideal case. It can be reformulated in an explicitly invariant form, in terms of the Casimir operators of the Galilean group, and the compatibility of the MHI (...) with the theory of decoherence has been proved. Nevertheless, perhaps its main advantage in the eyes of a scientist is given by its several applications to well-known physical situations, leading to results compatible with experimental evidence. The purpose of this paper is to add a new application to the list: the case of optical isomerism, which is a central issue for the philosophy of physics and of chemistry since it points to the core of the problem of the relationship between physics and chemistry. Here it will be shown that the MHI supplies a direct and physically natural solution to the problem, a solution that does not require putting classical assumptions in “by hand.”. (shrink)

Change seems missing in Hamiltonian General Relativity's observables. The typical definition takes observables to have $0$ Poisson bracket with \emph{each} first-class constraint. Another definition aims to recover Lagrangian-equivalence: observables have $0$ Poisson bracket with the gauge generator $G$, a \emph{tuned sum} of first-class constraints. Empirically equivalent theories have equivalent observables. That platitude provides a test of definitions using de Broglie's massive electromagnetism. The non-gauge ``Proca'' formulation has no first-class constraints, so everything is observable. The gauge ``Stueckelberg'' formulation has first-class (...) constraints, so observables vary with the definition. Which satisfies the platitude? The team definition does; the individual definition does not. Subsequent work using the gravitational analog has shown that observables have not a 0 Poisson bracket, but a Lie derivative for the Poisson bracket with the gauge generator $G$. The same should hold for General Relativity, so observables change locally and correspond to 4-dimensional tensor calculus. Thus requiring equivalent observables for empirically equivalent formulations helps to address the problem of time. (shrink)

Various processes are often classified as both deterministic and random or chaotic. The main difficulty in analysing the randomness of such processes is the apparent tension between the notions of randomness and determinism: what type of randomness could exist in a deterministic process? Ergodic theory seems to offer a particularly promising theoretical tool for tackling this problem by positing a hierarchy, the so-called ‘ergodic hierarchy’, which is commonly assumed to provide a hierarchy of increasing degrees of randomness. However, that notion (...) of randomness requires clarification. The mathematical definition of EH does not make explicit appeal to randomness; nor does the usual way of presenting EH involve a specification of the notion of randomness that is supposed to underlie the hierarchy. In this paper we argue that EH is best understood as a hierarchy of random behaviour if randomness is explicated in terms of unpredictability. We then show that, contrary to common wisdom, EH is useful in characterising the behaviour of Hamiltonian dynamical systems. (shrink)

It is shown that a fundamental question of revealed preference theory, namely whether the weak axiom of revealed preference (WARP) implies the strong axiom of revealed preference (SARP), can be reduced to a Hamiltonian cycle problem: A set of bundles allows a preference cycle of irreducible length if and only if the convex monotonic hull of these bundles admits a Hamiltonian cycle. This leads to a new proof to show that preference cycles can be of arbitrary length for (...) more than two but not for two commodities. For this, it is shown that a set of bundles satisfying the given condition exists if and only if the dimension of the commodity space is at least three. Preference cycles can be constructed by embedding a cyclic $(L-1)$ -polytope into a facet of a convex monotonic hull in $L$ -space, because cyclic polytopes always admit Hamiltonian cycles. An immediate corollary is that WARP only implies SARP for two commodities. The proof is intuitively appealing as this gives a geometric interpretation of preference cycles. (shrink)

The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian properties of classical electrodynamics models and their associated Dirac quantizations are studied. Using the vacuum field theory approach developed in (Prykarpatsky et al. Theor. Math. Phys. 160(2): 1079–1095, 2009 and The field structure of a vacuum, Maxwell equations and relativity theory aspects. Preprint ICTP) consistent canonical Hamiltonian reformulations of some alternative classical electrodynamics models are devised, and these formulations include the Lorentz condition in a natural way. The Dirac quantization procedure corresponding to the (...) class='Hi'>Hamiltonian formulations is developed. The crucial importance of the rest reference systems, with respect to which the dynamics of charged point particles is framed, is explained and emphasized. A concise expression for the Lorentz force is derived by suitably taking into account the duality of electromagnetic field and charged particle interactions. Finally, a physical explanation of the vacuum field medium and its relativistic properties fitting the mathematical framework developed is formulated and discussed. (shrink)

Hamiltonian constraints feature in the canonical formulation of general relativity. Unlike typical constraints they cannot be associated with a reduction procedure leading to a non-trivial reduced phase space and this means the physical interpretation of their quantum analogues is ambiguous. In particular, can we assume that “quantisation commutes with reduction” and treat the promotion of these constraints to operators annihilating the wave function, according to a Dirac type procedure, as leading to a Hilbert space equivalent to that reached by (...) quantisation of the problematic reduced space? If not, how should we interpret Hamiltonian constraints quantum mechanically? And on what basis do we assert that quantisation and reduction commute anyway? These questions will be refined and explored in the context of modern approaches to the quantisation of canonical general relativity. (shrink)

MaxEnt inference algorithm and information theory are relevant for the time evolution of macroscopic systems considered as problem of incomplete information. Two different MaxEnt approaches are introduced in this work, both applied to prediction of time evolution for closed Hamiltonian systems. The first one is based on Liouville equation for the conditional probability distribution, introduced as a strict microscopic constraint on time evolution in phase space. The conditional probability distribution is defined for the set of microstates associated with the (...) set of phase space paths determined by solutions of Hamilton’s equations. The MaxEnt inference algorithm with Shannon’s concept of the conditional information entropy is then applied to prediction, consistently with this strict microscopic constraint on time evolution in phase space. The second approach is based on the same concepts, with a difference that Liouville equation for the conditional probability distribution is introduced as a macroscopic constraint given by a phase space average. We consider the incomplete nature of our information about microscopic dynamics in a rational way that is consistent with Jaynes’ formulation of predictive statistical mechanics, and the concept of macroscopic reproducibility for time dependent processes. Maximization of the conditional information entropy subject to this macroscopic constraint leads to a loss of correlation between the initial phase space paths and final microstates. Information entropy is the theoretic upper bound on the conditional information entropy, with the upper bound attained only in case of the complete loss of correlation. In this alternative approach to prediction of macroscopic time evolution, maximization of the conditional information entropy is equivalent to the loss of statistical correlation, and leads to corresponding loss of information. In accordance with the original idea of Jaynes, irreversibility appears as a consequence of gradual loss of information about possible microstates of the system. (shrink)

We are implementing a new Rabinovich hyperchaotic structure with complex variables in this research. This modern system is a real, autonomous hyperchaotic, and 8-dimensional continuous structure. Some of the characteristics of this system, as well as for invariance, dissipation, balance, and stability, are technically analyzed. Some other properties are also studied numerically, such as Lyapunov exponents, Lyapunov dimension, bifurcation diagrams, and chaotic actions. Hamiltonian energy is being studied and applying by using the innovative method. Via active control method, we (...) inhibit our system’s hyperchaotic behavior. The new system’s hyperchaotic solutions are transformed into its unstable, trivial fixed point. The validity of the findings obtained is illustrated by an example of numerics and reenactment. Numerical results are plotted to display the variables of the state after and before the control to demonstrate that the control is being achieved. (shrink)

Given the impressive success of environment-induced decoherence, nowadays no interpretation of quantum mechanics can ignore its results. The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation has proved to be effective for solving several interpretative problems, but since its actualization rule applies to closed systems, it seems to stand at odds with EID. The purpose of this article is to show that this is not the case: the states einselected by the interaction with the environment according to EID are the eigenvectors of an actual-valued observable (...) belonging to the preferred context selected by the MHI. (shrink)

In the literature on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, not many works attempt to adopt a proactive perspective aimed at seeing how different interpretations can enrich each other through a productive dialogue. In particular, few proposals have been devised to show that different approaches can be clarified by comparing them, and can even complement each other, improving or leading to a more fertile overall approach. The purpose of this paper is framed within this perspective of complementation and mutual enrichment. In (...) particular, the Relational Quantum Mechanics and the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation are compared, highlighting their differences and points of contact. The final purpose is to show that, in spite of their disagreements, they are not contradictory but, on the contrary, they can be made compatible from an overarching perspective and can even complement each other in a fruitful way. (shrink)

Fundamental analytic, algebraic, and geometric properties of generalized Hamiltonian (Birkhoffian) theory are compared with the properties of a covering unitary phase-space formulation based on complex variables of the form (p+iq). Technical advantages in the unitary phase-space formulation are illustrated by a detailed discussion of the one-dimensional extended damped harmonic oscillator. One advantage is the ability to fully describe nonconservative constraint forces within a globally conservative system. Another advantage is that wider classes of gauge transformations are available to simplify the (...) construction of smooth solution manifolds. (shrink)