The action-reaction principle (AR) is examined in three contexts: (1) the inertial-gravitational interaction between a particle and space-time geometry, (2) protective observation of an extended wave function of a single particle, and (3) the causal-stochastic or Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. A new criterion of reality is formulated using the AR principle. This criterion implies that the wave function of a single particle is real and justifies in the Bohm interpretation the dual ontology of the particle and (...) its associated wave function. But it is concluded that the Bohm theory is not dynamically complete because the particle and its associated wave function do not satisfy the AR principle. (shrink)

Minkowski geometry is axiomatized in terms of the asymmetric binary relation of optical connectibility, using ten first-order axioms and the second-order continuity axiom. An axiom system in terms of the symmetric binary optical connection relation is also presented. The present development is much simpler than the corresponding work of Robb, upon which it is modeled.

Field propagation on fractal structures can generate a large scale symmetric space-time geometry. The significance of this fact and the nature of the resulting space-time are discussed.“Each contained all the others, but in this totality each was confused and comingled with all the others without order and system.”—Haïm Vital, 1543–1620 (Kabbalist of Safed); English translation taken from “Sabbatai Sevi” by G. Scholem (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1973), p. 36.

What is consciousness? Conventional approaches see it as an emergent property of complex interactions among individual neurons; however these approaches fail to address enigmatic features of consciousness. Accordingly, some philosophers have contended that "qualia," or an experiential medium from which consciousness is derived, exists as a fundamental component of reality. Whitehead, for example, described the universe as being composed of "occasions of experience." To examine this possibility scientifically, the very nature of physical reality must be re-examined. We must come to (...) terms with the physics of spacetime-as described by Einstein's general theory of relativity, and its relation to the fundamental theory of matter-as described by quantum theory. Roger Penrose has proposed a new physics of objective reduction: "OR," which appeals to a form of quantum gravity to provide a useful description of fundamental processes at the quantum/classical borderline.hz Within the OR scheme, we consider that consciousness occurs if an appropriately organized system is able to develop and maintain quantum coherent superposition until a specific "objective" criterion (a threshold related to quantum gravity) is reached; the coherent system then self-reduces (objective reduction: OR). We contend that this type of objective self-collapse introduces non-computability, an essential feature of consciousness which distinguishes our minds from classical computers. Each OR is taken as an instantaneous event-the climax of a self-organizing process in fundamental spacetime-and a candidate for a conscious Whitehead "occasion of experience." How could an OR process occur in the brain, be coupled to neural activities, and account for other features of consciousness? We nominate a quantum computational OR process with the requisite characteristics to be occurring in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain's neurons. In this model, quantum-superposed states develop in microtubule subunit proteins ("tubulins") within certain brain neurons, remain coherent, and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold (related to quantum gravity) is reached.. (shrink)

What if gravity satisfied the Klein-Gordon equation? Both particle physics from the 1920s-30s and the 1890s Neumann-Seeliger modification of Newtonian gravity with exponential decay suggest considering a "graviton mass term" for gravity, which is _algebraic_ in the potential. Unlike Nordström's "massless" theory, massive scalar gravity is strictly special relativistic in the sense of being invariant under the Poincaré group but not the 15-parameter Bateman-Cunningham conformal group. It therefore exhibits the whole of Minkowski space-time structure, albeit only indirectly concerning (...) volumes. Massive scalar gravity is plausible in terms of relativistic field theory, while violating most interesting versions of Einstein's principles of general covariance, general relativity, equivalence, and Mach. Geometry is a poor guide to understanding massive scalar gravity: matter sees a conformally flat metric due to universal coupling, but gravity also sees the rest of the flat metric in the mass term. What is the 'true' geometry, one might wonder, in line with Poincaré's modal conventionality argument? Infinitely many theories exhibit this bimetric 'geometry,' all with the total stress-energy's trace as source; thus geometry does not explain the field equations. The irrelevance of the Ehlers-Pirani-Schild construction to a critique of conventionalism becomes evident when multi-geometry theories are contemplated. Much as Seeliger envisaged, the smooth massless limit indicates underdetermination of theories by data between massless and massive scalar gravities---indeed an unconceived alternative. At least one version easily could have been developed before General Relativity; it then would have motivated thinking of Einstein's equations along the lines of Einstein's newly re-appreciated "physical strategy" and particle physics and would have suggested a rivalry from massive spin 2 variants of General Relativity. The Putnam-Grünbaum debate on conventionality is revisited with an emphasis on the broad modal scope of conventionalist views. Massive scalar gravity thus contributes to a historically plausible rational reconstruction of much of 20th-21st century space-time philosophy in the light of particle physics. An appendix reconsiders the Malament-Weatherall-Manchak conformal restriction of conventionality and constructs the 'universal force' influencing the causal structure. Subsequent works will discuss how massive gravity could have provided a template for a more Kant-friendly space-time theory that would have blocked Moritz Schlick's supposed refutation of synthetic _a priori_ knowledge, and how Einstein's false analogy between the Neumann-Seeliger-Einstein modification of Newtonian gravity and the cosmological constant \Lambda generated lasting confusion that obscured massive gravity as a conceptual possibility. (shrink)

A perverted space-time geodesy results from the idea of variable rods and clocks, whose length and rates are taken to be affected by the gravitational field. By contrast, what we might call a concrete geodesy relies on the idea of invariable unit-measuring rods and clocks. Indeed, this is a basic assumption of general relativity. Variable rods and clocks lead to a perverted geodesy, in the sense that a curved space-time may be seen as a result of (...) a departure from the Minkowskian space-time as an effect of the gravitational field on the rate of clocks and the length of rods. In the case of a concrete geodesy, we have a curved space-time “directly”, the curvature of which can be determined using (invariable) unit-measuring rods and clocks. In this paper, we will make the case for the plausibility of the claim that Einstein’s views on geometry in relation to general relativity are permeated by a perverted geodesy. (shrink)

Griinbaum's own article sets forth his views on the ontology of the curvature of empty space, especially in the geometrodynamics of Clifford and Wheeler. ...

1. Introduction: The problems of time and consciousness What is time? St. Augustine remarked that when no one asked him, he knew what time was; however when someone asked him, he did not. Is time a process which flows? Is time a dimension in which processes occur? Does time actually exist? The notion that time is a process which "flows" directionally may be illusory (the "myth of passage") for if time did flow (...) it would do so in some medium or vessel (e.g. minutes per what?) [1]. But if time is a dimension in which processes occurred, e.g. as one component of a 4 dimensional spacetime, then why would processes occur unidirectionally in time? Yet we perceive time as an orderly, unidirectional process. An alternative explanation is that time does not exist as either a process or dimension, but that reality is a collage of discrete, disconnected and haphazardly arranged configurations of the universe, e.g. as described in Julian Barbour's "The end of time" [2]. In this view our perception of a unidirectional flow of time occurs because each moment, or "Now" as Barbour terms them, involves memory of other conceptually relevant moments, and the orderly flow of time is an illusion. Barbour's deconstruction of time contrasts the Newtonian reality of objects moving deterministically through 4 dimensional spacetime. Newton's contemporary (and rival) Leibniz [3] viewed the world in a manner consistent with Barbour (and with Mach's principle that the spatiotemporal structure of the universe is dependent on the distribution of mass, a foundation of Einstein's general relativity). According to Leibniz the world is to be understood not as matter/mass moving in a framework of space and time, but of more fundamental snapshot-like entities that momentarily fuse space and matter into single possible arrangements or configurations of the entire universe. Such configurations, which can be fabulously rich and complex considering the vastness of the universe, are the ultimate "things" of reality, which Leibniz termed "monads".. (shrink)

Abstract Einstein intended the general theory of relativity to be a generalization of the relativity of motion and, therefore, a radical departure from previous spacetime theories. It has since become clear, however, that this intention was not fulfilled. I try to explain Einstein's misunderstanding on this point as a misunderstanding of the role that spacetime plays in physics. According to Einstein, earlier spacetime theories introduced spacetime as the unobservable cause of observable relative motions and, in particular, as the cause of (...) inertial effects of ?absolute? motion. I use a comparative analysis of Einstein and Newton to show that spacetime is not introduced as an explanation of observable effects, but rather is defined through those effects in arguments like Newton's ?water bucket? argument and Einstein's argument for special relativity. I then argue that to claim that a spacetime theory is true, or to claim that a spacetime structure is ?real?, is not to claim that a theoretical object explains the observable. Rather, it is to claim that the fundamental definitions that link spacetime structure to physical phenomena are empirically sound, i.e. that they can be successfully applied empirically. This leads to a new and clearer view of the empirical content of spacetime theories and of the meaning of ?realism? about spacetime. (shrink)

Une géodésie spatio-temporelle pervertie résulte des notions de règles et d’horloges variables, qui sont prises pour avoir leur longueur et leur rythme affectés par le champ gravitationnel. D’autre part ce que nous pourrions appeler une géodésie concrète repose sur les notions de règles et d’horloges invariables de mesure d’unité. En fait, il s’agit d’une hypothèse de base de la relativité générale. Les règles et les horloges variables conduisent à une géodésie pervertie dans le sens où un espace-temps courbe pourrait être (...) vu comme provenant du départ de l’espace-temps Minkowskien comme un effet du champ gravitationnel sur le rythme d’horloges et la longueur des règles. Dans le cas d’une géodésie concrète, nous avons « directement » un espace-temps courbe dont la courbure peut être déterminée en utilisant des règles et des horloges de mesure d’unité (invariables). Dans cet article, nous défendrons la plausibilité que le point de vue d’Einstein sur la géométrie par rapport à la relativité générale est imprégné par une géodésie pervertie. (shrink)

Hermann Weyl as a founding father of field theory in relativistic physics and quantum theory always stressed the internal logic of mathematical and physical theories. In line with his stance in the foundations of mathematics, Weyl advocated a constructivist approach in physics and geometry. An attempt is made here to present a unified picture of Weyl's conception of space-time theories from Riemann to Minkowski. The emphasis is on the mathematical foundations of physics and the foundational significance of (...) a constructivist philosophical point of view. I conclude with some remarks on Weyl's broader philosophical views. (shrink)

We review the relation between spacetime geometries with trace-torsion fields, the so-called Riemann–Cartan–Weyl (RCW) geometries, and their associated Brownian motions. In this setting, the drift vector field is the metric conjugate of the trace-torsion one-form, and the laplacian defined by the RCW connection is the differential generator of the Brownian motions. We extend this to the state-space of non-relativistic quantum mechanics and discuss the relation between a non-canonical quantum RCW geometry in state-space associated with the gradient of (...) the quantum-mechanical expectation value of a self-adjoint operator given by the generalized laplacian operator defined by a RCW geometry. We discuss the reduction of the wave function in terms of a RCW quantum geometry in state-space. We characterize the Schroedinger equation in terms of the RCW geometries and Brownian motions. Thus, in this work, the Schroedinger field is a torsion generating field, both for the linear and non-linear cases. We discuss the problem of the many times variables and the relation with dissipative processes, and the role of time as an active field, following Kozyrev and a recent experiment in non-relativistic quantum systems. We associate the Hodge dual of the drift vector field with a possible angular-momentum source for the phenomenae observed by Kozyrev. (shrink)

Space, Time, and Stuff is an attempt to show that physics is geometry: that the fundamental structure of the physical world is purely geometrical structure. Along the way, he examines some non-standard views about the structure of spacetime and its inhabitants, including the idea that space and time are pointless, the idea that quantum mechanics is a completely local theory, the idea that antiparticles are just particles travelling back in time, and the idea that (...) time has no structure whatsoever. The main thrust of the book, however, is that there are good reasons to believe that spaces other than spacetime exist, and that it is the existence of these additional spaces that allows one to reduce all of physics to geometry. Philosophy, and metaphysics in particular, plays an important role here: the assumption that the fundamental laws of physics are simple in terms of the fundamental physical properties and relations is pivotal."--P. [4] of cover. (shrink)

Earman and Norton argue that manifold realism leads to inequivalence of Leibniz-shifted space-time models, with undesirable consequences such as indeterminism. I respond that intrinsic axiomatization of space-time geometry shows the variant models to be isomorphic with respect to the physically meaningful geometric predicates, and therefore certainly physically equivalent because no theory can characterize its models more closely than this. The contrary philosophical arguments involve confusions about identity and representation of space-time points, fostered by (...) extrinsic coordinate formulations and irrelevant modal metaphysics. I conclude that neither the revived Einstein hole argument nor the original Leibniz indiscernibility argument have any force against manifold realism. (shrink)

Prompted by the "Panel Discussion of Grünbaum's Philosophy of Science" (Philosophy of Science 36, December, 1969) and other recent literature, this essay ranges over major issues in the philosophy of space, time and space-time as well as over problems in the logic of ascertaining the falsity of a scientific hypothesis. The author's philosophy of geometry has recently been challenged along three main distinct lines as follows: (i) The Panel article by G. J. Massey calls for (...) a more precise and more coherent account of the Riemannian conception of an intrinsic as opposed to an extrinsic metric, which the author has invoked as his basis for the distinction between non-conventional and convention-laden ascriptions of metrical equality and inequality; (ii) the latter distinction has been claimed to suffer from the liabilities of the so-called "standard conception" of scientific theories [36]; and (iii) pursuant to H. Putnam's "An Examination of Grünbaum's Philosophy of Geometry" [56], J. Earman [16, 17] and R. Swinburne [65] have contended that the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic metrics is scientifically unilluminating, and that the associated distinction between non-conventional and convention-laden metrical comparisons does not have the kind of relevance to extant scientific theories that the author has claimed for it. The essay consists of two installments. The present installment, comprising the Introduction and Part A, is devoted to the clarification, correction and further development of the author's prior writings on the philosophy of geometry. Its main objective is constructive elaboration rather than offering polemics. But rebuttals to Earman, [16, 17], Swinburne [65] and Demopoulos [13] are included, because their inclusion conduced to clarity in giving the new exposition. Part B is to appear in a subsequent issue and will be devoted to replies to critiques contained in the Panel Discussion and in other recent literature. It will range over issues in the philosophy of geometry and in the logic of ascertaining the falsity of a scientific hypothesis. By way of merely elliptical anticipation of much more precise statements given in Part A, section 3(ii), the Introduction dissociates the notion of convention-ladenness developed in Part A from the quite different notion integral to the so-called "standard conception" of scientific theories. Thereby, the Introduction prepares the ground for seeing, as a corollary to Part A, section 3(ii), that the notion advocated in the present essay has nothing to fear from the following fact, noted by C. G. Hempel ([36]; cf. also his 1970 Carus Lectures): "even though a sentence may originally be introduced as true by stipulation, it soon joins the club of all other member-statements of the theory and becomes subject to revision in response to further empirical findings and theoretical developments." Part A, which begins with a fairly detailed table of contents, endeavors to meet the aforementioned three-fold challenge to the author's philosophy of geometry. Massey's call for the provision of clear and detailed characterizations of intrinsic and extrinsic metrics is answered with the invaluable aid rendered personally by Massey himself. These characterizations are shown to permit a precise explication of the portions of Riemann's Inaugural Dissertation relevant to (1) Riemann's brilliant anticipation of Einstein's dynamical conception of physical geometry, and (2) the author's philosophical characterization of the metrics and geometries of space, time, and space-time {section 2(c)}. A byproduct of the analysis is to raise two major philosophical doubts concerning Clifford's sketch of a so-called "space-theory of matter" as elaborated in J. A. Wheeler's relativistic geometrodynamics. That theory's vision of understanding matter as a manifestation of empty curved space is questioned in regard to (1) the existence of an intra-geometrodynamic basis for individuating the metrically homogeneous world points of its space-time manifold {section 1(a)}, and (2) the compatibility of the theory with the Riemannian metrical philosophy apparently espoused by its proponents {section 2(c)(i)}. (shrink)

PREFACE: - BY his theory of relativity Albert Einstein has provoked a revolution of thought in physical science. The achievement consists essentially in this Einstein has succeeded in separating far more completely than hitherto the share of the observer and the share of external nature in the things we see happen. The perception of an object by an observer depends on his own situation and circumstances for example, distance will make it appear smaller and dimmer. We make allowance for this (...) almost unconsciously in interpreting what we see. But it now appears that the allowance made for the motion of the observer has hitherto been too crude a fact overlooked because in practice all observers share nearly the same motion, that of the earth. Physical space and time are found to be closely bound up with this motion of the observer and only an amorphous combination of the two is left inherent in the external world. When space and time are relegated to their proper source the observer the world of nature which remains appears strangely unfamiliar but it is in reality simplified, and the underlying unity of the principal phenomena is now clearly revealed. The deductions from this new outlook have, with one doubtful exception, been confirmed when tested by experiment. It is my aim to give an account of this work without intro ducing anything very technical in the way of mathematics, physics, or philosophy. The new view of space and time, so opposed to our habits of thought, must in any case demand unusual mental exercise. The results appear strange and the incongruity is not without a humorous side. For the first nine chapters the task is one of interpreting a clear-cut theory, accepted in all its essentials by a large and growing school of physicists although perhaps not everyone would accept the authors views of its meaning. Chapters x and xi deal with very recent advances, with regard to which opinion is more fluid. As for the last chapter, containing the authors specula tions on the meaning of nature, since it touches on the rudiments of a philosophical system, it is perhaps too sanguine to hope that it can ever be other than controversial. A non-mathematical presentation has necessary limitations and the reader who wishes to learn how certain exact result follow from Einsteins, or even Newtons, law of gravitation m bound to seek the reasons in a mathematical treatise. But thj limitation of range is perhaps less serious than the limitation of intrinsic truth. There is a relativity of truth, as there is a relativity of space. For is and IS-NOT though with Rule and Line And UP-AND-DOWK without, I could define, Alas It is not so simple. We abstract from the phenomena that which is peculiar to the position and motion of the observer but can we abstract that which is peculiar to the limited imagina tion of the human brain We think we can, but only in the symbolism of mathematics. As the language of a poet rings with a truth that eludes the clumsy explanations of his commentators, so the geometry of relativity in its perfect harmony expresses a truth of form and type in nature, which my bowdlerised version misses. But the mind is not content to leave scientific Truth in a dry husk of mathematical symbols, and demands that it shall be alloyed with familiar images. The mathematician, who handles x so lightly, may fairly be asked to state, not indeed the in scrutable meaning of a in nature, but the meaning which x conveys to him. Although primarily designed for readers without technical knowledge of the subject, it is hoped that the book may also appeal to those who have gone into the subject more deeply. A few notes have been added in the Appendix mainly to bridge the gap between this and more mathematical treatises, and to indicate the points of contact between the argument in the text and the parallel analytical investigation. It is impossible adequately to express my debt to con temporary literature and discussion... (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to discuss the relation between the observation basis and the theoretical principles of General Relativity. More specifically, this relation is analyzed with respect to constructive axiomatizations of the observation basis of space-time theories, on the one hand, and in attempts to complete them, on the other. The two approaches exclude one another so that a choice between them is necessary. I argue that the completeness approach is preferable for methodological reasons.

Already in 1835 Lobachevski entertained the possibility of multiple geometries of the same type playing a role. This idea of rival geometries has reappeared from time to time but had yet to become a key idea in space-time philosophy prior to Brown's _Physical Relativity_. Such ideas are emphasized towards the end of Brown's book, which I suggest as the interpretive key. A crucial difference between Brown's constructivist approach to space-time theory and orthodox "space- (...) class='Hi'>time realism" pertains to modal scope. Constructivism takes a broad modal scope in applying to all local classical field theories---modal cosmopolitanism, one might say, including theories with multiple geometries. By contrast the orthodox view is modally provincial in assuming that there exists a _unique_ geometry, as the familiar theories have. These theories serve as the "canon" for the orthodox view. Their historical roles also suggest a Whiggish story of inevitable progress. Physics literature after c. 1920 is relevant to orthodoxy primarily as commentary on the canon, which closed in the 1910s. The orthodox view explains the spatio-temporal behavior of matter in terms of the manifestation of the real geometry of space-time, an explanation works fairly well within the canon. The orthodox view, Whiggish history, and the canon have a symbiotic relationship. If one happens to philosophize about a theory outside the canon, space-time realism sheds little light on the spatio-temporal behavior of matter. Worse, it gives the _wrong_ answer when applied to an example arguably _within_ the canon, a sector of Special Relativity, namely, _massive_ scalar gravity with universal coupling. Which is the true geometry---the flat metric from the Poincare' symmetry group, the conformally flat metric exhibited by material rods and clocks, or both---or is the question faulty? How does space-time realism explain the fact that all matter fields see the same curved geometry, when so many ways to mix and match exist? Constructivist attention to dynamical details is vindicated; geometrical shortcuts can disappoint. The more exhaustive exploration of relativistic field theories in particle physics, especially massive theories, is a largely untapped resource for space-time philosophy. (shrink)

The history and philosophy of science are destined to play a fundamental role in an epoch marked by a major scientific revolution. This ongoing revolution, principally affecting mathematics and physics, entails a profound upheaval of our conception of space, space–time, and, consequently, of natural laws themselves. Briefly, this revolution can be summarized by the following two trends: by the search for a unified theory of the four fundamental forces of nature, which are known, as of now, as (...) gravity, electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear forces; by the search for new mathematical concepts capable of elucidating and therefore explaining such a relationship. In fact, the first search is essentially dependent on the second; that is to say, that in order for a new theory of physics to come to light, the development of a deeper geometric theory capable of explaining the structure of space–time on a quantum scale appears to be necessary. On careful consideration, we notice that both of these developments converge in the direction of a unitary and fundamental tendency of modern science—which is the geometrization of theoretical physics and of natural sciences. This new emergent situation carries within it a profound conceptual change, affecting the way in which relations are conceived of, first and foremost, between mathematics and physics. This new paradigm can be summed up by the intimately interdependent points: the immense variety of physical phenomena and of natural forms follows from the equally infinite variety of geometric and topological objects that can be made out in space and from which space is made up; the second point, which ensues from the former one and which is of great historical and epistemological significance, is that mathematics is involved in rather than applied to phenomena. In other words, phenomena are effects that emerge from the geometrical structure of space–time. There is no doubt that this new conception of the relationship between the universe of mathematical ideas and objects and the world of natural phenomena is the true scientific revolution of our century, of great conceptual importance, and consequently, capable of changing our view of science and of nature at one and the same time. It is all at once of a scientific, philosophical and aesthetic order. (shrink)

In connection with the "Philosophy of Science" research program conducted by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft a colloquium was held in Munich from 18th to 20th May 1919. This covered basic structures of physical theories, the main emphasis being on the interrelation of space, time and mechanics. The present volume contains contributions and the results of the discussions. The papers are given here in the same order of presentation as at the meeting. The development of these "basic structures of physical (...) theories" involved diverging trends arising from different starting points in philosophy and physics. In order to obtain a clear comparison between these schools of thought, it was appropriate to concentrate discussion on geometry and chronology as the common foundation of classical and quantum mechanics. As a rather simple and "Tell prepared field of study, geochronometry seemed suited to analysing these mutually exclusive positions. vii D. Mayr and G. Sussmann (eds.), Space, Time, and Mechanics, vii. Copyright © 1983 by D. Reidel Publishing Company. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The editors gratefully appreciate the sponsorship of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the cooperation of the authors and publisher. It is also a pleasure to thank Frau M.-L. Grohmann and Frau I. Thies for their organisational and especially Frau B. Grund for typing and clerical work. D. MAYR G. SUSSMANN 1982 University of Munich viii INTRODUCTION The distinct positions present at the symposium may be roughly divided into three schools that differ in their philosophical interpretation of physics and their meta-... ~. (shrink)

In "The Epistemology of Geometry" Glymour proposed a necessary structural condition for the synonymy of two space-time theories. David Zaret has recently challenged this proposal, by arguing that Newtonian gravitational theory with a flat, non-dynamic connection (FNGT) is intuitively synonymous with versions of the theory using a curved dynamical connection (CNGT), even though these two theories fail to satisfy Glymour's proposed necessary condition for synonymy. Zaret allowed that if FNGT and CNGT were not equally well (bootstrap) tested (...) by the relevant phenomena, the two theories would in fact not be synonymous. He argued, however, that when electrodynamic phenomena are considered, the two theories are equally well tested. We show that it is not FNGT and CNGT which are equally well tested when the electrodynamic phenomena are considered, but only suitable extensions of FNGT and CNGT. Thus, there is good reason to consider FNGT and CNGT to be non-synonymous. We further show that the two extensions of FNGT and CNGT which are equally well tested when electrodynamic phenomena are considered (and which could be considered intuitively synonymous) not only satisfy Glymour's original proposed necessary condition for the synonymy of space-time theories, they satisfy a plausible stronger condition as well. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Non‐Euclidean Geometry The General Theory Superluminal Constraints and the GTR Lorentz Invariance and the GTR Quantum Theories in Non‐Minkowski Space‐times The GTR to the Rescue?

Special relativity is most naturally formulated as a theory of spacetime geometry, but within the spacetime framework probability appears to be a purely epistemic notion. It is possible that progress can be made with rather different approaches - covariant stochastic equations, in particular - but the results to date are not encouraging. However, it seems a non-epistemic notion of probability can be made out in Minkowski space on Everett's terms. I shall work throughout with the consistent histories formalism. (...) I shall start with a conservative interpretation, and then go on to Everett's. (shrink)

The physicist's conception of space-time underwent two major upheavals thanks to the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Both theories play a fundamental role in describing the same natural world, although at different scales. However, the inconsistency between them emerged clearly as the limitation of twentieth-century physics, so a more complete description of nature must encompass general relativity and quantum mechanics as well. The problem is a theorists' problem par excellence. Experiment provide little guide, and the inconsistency (...) mentioned above is an important problem which clearly illustrates the intermingling of philosophical, mathematical, and physical thought. In fact, in order to unify general relativity with quantum field theory, it seems necessary to invent a new mathematical framework which will generalise Riemannian geometry and therefore our present conception of space and space-time. Contemporary developments in theoretical physics suggest that another revolution may be in progress, through which a new kind of geometry may enter physics, and space-time itself can be reinterpreted as an approximate, derived concept. The main purpose of this article is to show the great significance of space-time geometry in predetermining the laws which are supposed to govern the behaviour of matter, and further to support the thesis that matter itself can be built from geometry, in the sense that particles of matter as well as the other forces of nature emerges in the same way that gravity emerges from geometry. Scientific research is not a process of steady accumulation of absolute truths, which has culminated in present theories, but rather a much more dynamic kind of process in which there are no final theoretical concepts valid in unlimited domains. (David Bohm). (shrink)

Alfred A. Robb. THEOREM 54 If P1 and P2 be a pair of parallel inertia planes while an inertia plane Q1 has parallel general lines a and b in common with P1 and P2 respectively and if Q2 be an inertia plane parallel to Q1 through some ...

This article documents the general tendency of seventeenth-century natural philosophers, irrespective of whether they were atomists or anti-atomists, to regard space, time and matter as magnitudes having the same internal composition. It examines the way in which authors such as Fromondus, Basson, Sennert, Arriaga, Galileo, Magnen, Descartes, Gassendi, Charleton as well as the young Newton motivated their belief in the isomorphism of space, time and matter, and how this belief reflected on their views concerning the relation (...) between geometry and physics. Special attention is paid to the fact that most of the authors mentioned above regarded rarefaction and condensation, on the one hand, and acceleration and deceleration, on the other hand, as analogous phenomena, which consequently had to be explained in similar terms. (shrink)

The role of CPT invariance and consequences for bipartite entanglement of neutral (K) mesons are discussed. A relaxation of CPT leads to a modification of the entanglement which is known as the ω effect. The relaxation of assumptions required to prove the CPT theorem are examined within the context of models of space-time foam. It is shown that the evasion of the EPR type entanglement implied by CPT (which is connected with spin statistics) is rather elusive. Relaxation of (...) locality (through non-commutative geometry) or the introduction of an environment do not by themselves lead to a destruction of the entanglement. One model of the environment, which is based on non-critical strings and D-particle capture and recoil, leads to a specific momentum dependent stochastic contribution to the space-time metric and consequent change in the neutral meson bipartite entanglement. Although the class of models producing the omega effect is non-empty, the lack of an omega effect is demonstrated for a wide class of models based on thermal like baths which are often considered as generic models appropriate for the study of space-time foam. (shrink)

Facial information is a powerful channel for human-to-human communication. Characteristically, faces can be defined as biological objects that are four-dimensional (4D) patterns, whereby they have concurrently a spatial structure as well as temporal dynamics. The spatial characteristics of facial objects possess three dimensions (3D), namely breadth, height and importantly, depth. The temporal properties of facial objects are defined by how a 3D facial structure evolves dynamically over time; where time is referred to as the fourth dimension (4D). Our (...) entire perspective of another’s face, whether it be social, affective or cognitive perceptions, is therefore built on a combination of 3D and 4D visual cues. Counterintuitively, over the past few decades of experimental research in psychology, facial stimuli have largely been presented to participants as a spatial pattern that has been flattened into two dimensions (2D), while remaining largely static. The following review aims to advance and update facial researchers, on the recent revolution in computer-generated, realistic 4D facial models produced from real-life human subjects. We delve in-depth to summarize recent studies which have utilized facial stimuli that possess 3D structural cues (geometry and depth) and 4D temporal cues (3D structure + dynamic viewpoint and movement). In sum, we have found that higher-order perceptions such as identity, gender, ethnicity, emotion and personality, are critically influenced by the 4D characteristics embedded within natural human faces. In future, it is recommended that facial stimuli incorporate the 4D space-time perspective with the proposed time-resolved methods. (shrink)

Grünbaum's three chief fields of research were space-time philosophy, the methodological credentials of psychoanalysis, and reasons given in favor of the existence of God. Grünbaum defended the so-called conventionality thesis of physical geometry. He partially followed Hans Reichenbach in this respect but developed a new ontological argument for the conventionality claim in addition. In addressing the physical basis of the direction of time, Grünbaum advocated that there is a physical basis for the distinction between the past (...) and the future, but no such basis for the idea of a ‘present’ moving through time. His main claim in scrutinizing Freud’s theory methodologically was that supporting the causal claims Freud made would have required data that go beyond the clinical setting. Finally, Grünbaum worked on the philosophy of religion and set out to undermine arguments for the existence of God. (shrink)

Kantian philosophy of space, time and gravity is significantly affected in three ways by particle physics. First, particle physics deflects Schlick’s General Relativity-based critique of synthetic a priori knowledge. Schlick argued that since geometry was not synthetic a priori, nothing was—a key step toward logical empiricism. Particle physics suggests a Kant-friendlier theory of space-time and gravity presumably approximating General Relativity arbitrarily well, massive spin-2 gravity, while retaining a flat space-time geometry that is (...) indirectly observable at large distances. The theory’s roots include Seeliger and Neumann in the 1890s and Einstein in 1917 as well as 1920s–1930s physics. Such theories have seen renewed scientific attention since 2000 and especially since 2010 due to breakthroughs addressing early 1970s technical difficulties. Second, particle physics casts additional doubt on Friedman’s constitutive a priori role for the principle of equivalence. Massive spin-2 gravity presumably should have nearly the same empirical content as General Relativity while differing radically on foundational issues. Empirical content even in General Relativity resides in partial differential equations, not in an additional principle identifying gravity and inertia. Third, Kant’s apparent claim that Newton’s results could be known a priori is undermined by an alternate gravitational equation. The modified theory has a smaller symmetry group than does Newton’s. What Kant wanted from Newton’s gravity is impossible due its large symmetry group, but is closer to achievable given the alternative theory. (shrink)

In his logical papers, Leo Esakia studied corresponding ordered topological spaces and order-preserving mappings. Similar spaces and mappings appear in many other application areas such the analysis of causality in space-time. It is known that under reasonable conditions, both the topology and the original order relation $${\preccurlyeq}$$ can be uniquely reconstructed if we know the “interior” $${\prec}$$ of the order relation. It is also known that in some cases, we can uniquely reconstruct $${\prec}$$ (and hence, topology) from $${\preccurlyeq}$$. (...) In this paper, we show that, in general, under reasonable conditions, the open order $${\prec}$$ (and hence, the corresponding topology) can be uniquely determined from its closure $${\preccurlyeq}$$. (shrink)

Mathematically, the fusion of space and time may be explained as follows. In pre-relativity physics, space was envisaged as a three-dimensional Euclidean continuum. Such a continuum is homogeneous and isotropic, and its metrical character can be specified by the definition of the distance between any two points in the continuum: s2 = 2 + 2 + 2. Now, while it is possible to speak of a four-dimensional continuum in pre-relativity physics by adding the time-coordinate to the (...) three space-coordinates, there is no way, corresponding to the definition of s, to define the spatio-temporal "separation" or "interval" between any two points in this new four-dimensional continuum. Thus, while it makes sense from the classical point of view to ask for the distance between two points in space, it does not make sense to ask for the spatio-temporal interval between two events occurring in different places at different times. The spatio-temporal interval between non-simultaneous, spatially separated events is simply not defined in pre-relativity physics. Another way of putting it is that in classical physics space and time are measured in entirely disparate units and no method is provided for making these units comparable with one another. In relativity physics, on the other hand, light--or rather the velocity of light--provides the means for making the results of spatial and temporal measurement comparable quantities: one simply multiplies the time-like intervals by c, the fixed velocity of light, in order to obtain space-like intervals. The interval between any two events is defined as: s2 = 2 + 2 + 2 - c22. Interval, so defined, is an invariant, whereas spatial and temporal "separation" are now relative to the state of motion of the observer. The geometry of the four-dimensional continuum characterized by this formula is called "semi-Euclidean". (shrink)

The Riemannian manifold structure of the classical (i.e., Einsteinian) space-time is derived from the structure of an abstract infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space S. For this S is first realized as a Hilbert space H of functions of abstract parameters. The space H is associated with the space of states of a macroscopic test-particle in the universe. The spatial localization of state of the particle through its interaction with the environment is associated with the selection (...) of a submanifold M of realization H. The submanifold M is then identified with the classical space (i.e., a space–like hypersurface in space-time). The mathematical formalism is developed which allows recovering of the usual Riemannian geometry on the classical space and, more generally, on space and time from the Hilbert structure on S. The specific functional realizations of S are capable of generating spacetimes of different geometry and topology. Variation of the length-type action functional on S is shown to produce both the equation of geodesics on M for macroscopic particles and the Schrödinger equation for microscopic particles. (shrink)

The relation of the conformal group to various earlier proposed relativistic quantum mechanical dynamical groups (and other related groups) is studied in the framework of projective geometry, by explicitly constructing the contractions of the six-dimensional coordinate transformations. Five-dimensional realizations are then derived. An attempt is made to improve our physical insight through geometry.

The “origins” of (geometric) space is examined from the perspective of the so-called “conceptual space” or “semantic space”. Semantic space is characterized by its fundamental “locality” that generates an “implicit” mode of geometrizing. This view is examined from within three perspectives. First, the role that various diagrammatic entities play in the everyday life and pragmatic activities of selected ethnic groups is illustrated. Secondly, it is shown how conceptual spaces are fundamentally linked to the meaning effects of (...) particular natural languages and these are very different from the global and universal aspects of Euclidean spaces. Thirdly, it is contended that these modes of creating body and culture-based spatial frameworks and related cosmogonies and cosmologies can be described as forms of “latent geometry” that initially appear unexplainable in any rational way. Nonetheless, and thanks to the deep mathematical reflections provided by René Thom, it is illustrated how the various ways of generating space can be further analyzed as distortions of mainstream spatialization furnished by Euclidean geometry that established the dominant universality of the ideas of space (and time). (shrink)

This paper investigates the behavior of conformal fluctuations of space-time geometry that are admissible under the quantized version of Einstein's general relativity. The approach to quantum gravity is via path integrals. It is shown that considerable simplification results when only the conformal degrees of freedom are considered under this scheme, so much so that it is possible to write down a formal kernel in the most general case where the space-time contains arbitrary distributions of particles (...) with no other interaction except gravity. The behavior of this kernel near the classical space-time singularity then shows that quantum fluctuations inevitably diverge near the singularity. It is shown further that the root cause of this divergence lies in the fact that the Green's function for the conformally invariant scalar wave equation diverges at the singularity. The limitations on the validity of classical general relativity near the space-time singularity are discussed and it is argued that the notion of singularity itself needs to be radically modified once the quantum effects are taken into account. (shrink)

This book reconstructs, both from the historical and theoretical points of view, Leibniz's geometrical studies, focusing in particular on the research Leibniz ...