The present thesis considers, in the light of Heisenberg's interpretation of the uncertainty formulas, the conditions necessary for the derivation of the quantitative statement or law of momentum conservation. The result of such considerations is a contradiction between the formalism of quantum physics and the asserted consequences of Heisenberg's interpretation. This contradiction decides against Heisenberg's interpretation of the uncertainty formulas on upholding that the formalism of quantum physics is both consistent and complete, at least insofar as the statement (...) of momentum conservation can be proved within this formalism. A few comments are also included on Bohr's “complementarity interpretation” of the formalism of quantum physics. A suggestion, based on a statistical mode of empirical testing of the “uncertainty” formulas, does not give rise to any such contradiction. (shrink)

We discuss the question of linear momentum conservation when an atom coupled to a laser field enters into a state which is not an eigenstate of the linear momentum. Such a situation happens in the recently demonstrated laser cooling of atoms by velocity selective coherent population trapping. We show that this process can be understood as a filtering of the atomic state by the laser field taken as a classical measuring apparatus. In a different approach, the laser (...) field can be taken as a quantized system; then the filtering process leads to an “entangled state” of the atom and the field. (shrink)

We consider several subtle aspects of the theory of neutrino oscillations which have been under discussion recently. We show that the S-matrix formalism of quantum field theory can adequately describe neutrino oscillations if correct physics conditions are imposed. This includes space-time localization of the neutrino production and detection processes. Space-time diagrams are introduced, which characterize this localization and illustrate the coherence issues of neutrino oscillations. We discuss two approaches to calculations of the transition amplitudes, which allow different physics interpretations: (i) (...) using configuration-space wave packets for the involved particles, which leads to approximate conservation laws for their mean energies and momenta; (ii) calculating first a plane-wave amplitude of the process, which exhibits exact energy-momentum conservation, and then convoluting it with the momentum-space wave packets of the involved particles. We show that these two approaches are equivalent. Kinematic entanglement (which is invoked to ensure exact energy-momentum conservation in neutrino oscillations) and subsequent disentanglement of the neutrinos and recoiling states are in fact irrelevant when the wave packets are considered. We demonstrate that the contribution of the recoil particle to the oscillation phase is negligible provided that the coherence conditions for neutrino production and detection are satisfied. Unlike in the previous situation, the phases of both neutrinos from Z 0 decay are important, leading to a realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. (shrink)

Cross-term conservation relationships for electromagnetic energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum are derived and discussed here. When two or more sources of electromagnetic fields are present, these relationships connect the cross terms that appear in the traditional expressions for the electromagnetic (1) energy, (2) linear momentum, and (3) angular momentum, over to, respectively, (1) the sum of the rates of work, (2) the sum of the forces, and (3) the sum of the torques, that are (...) due to the fields of each charge or current source acting upon the other charge and current sources. These relationships, although not new, appear to be rarely recognized and used in the physics literature. As shown here, they can be extremely helpful for solving and gaining a deeper physical understanding into a rather diverse range of interesting problems in electrodynamics, including (1) aspects of Poynting's theorem when applied to charged point particles, (2) the detailed physical basis of electrostatic analysis, (3) understanding the connection between different techniques used in the past for solving Casimir force problems, and (4) reconciling the invalidity of Newton's third law in electrodynamics. (shrink)

The conservation laws do not establish the central premise within the argument from causal overdetermination – the causal completeness of the physical domain. Contrary to David Papineau, this is true even if there is no non-physical energy. The combination of the conservation laws with the claim that there is no non-physical energy would establish the causal completeness principle only if, at the very least, two further causal claims were accepted. First, the claim that the only way that something (...) non-physical could affect a physical system is by affecting the amount of energy or momentum within it, or redistributing the energy and momentum within it. Second, the claim that redistribution of energy and momentum cannot be brought about without supplying energy or momentum. Both of these claims, however, are exceedingly difficult to defend in the context of the argument. (shrink)

Automatic conservation of energy-momentum and angular momentum is guaranteed in a gravitational theory if, via the field equations, the conservation laws for the material currents are reduced to the contracted Bianchi identities. We first execute an irreducible decomposition of the Bianchi identities in a Riemann-Cartan space-time. Then, starting from a Riemannian space-time with or without torsion, we determine those gravitational theories which have automatic conservation: general relativity and the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory, both with cosmological constant, and (...) the nonviable pseudoscalar model. The Poincaré gauge theory of gravity, like gauge theories of internal groups, has no automatic conservation in the sense defined above. This does not lead to any difficulties in principle. Analogies to 3-dimensional continuum mechanics are stressed throughout the article. (shrink)

The energy-momentum tensor for a particular matter component summarises its local energy-momentum distribution in terms of densities and current densities. We re-investigate under what conditions these local distributions can be integrated to meaningful global quantities. This leads us directly to a classic theorem by Max von Laue concerning integrals of components of the energy-momentum tensor, whose statement and proof we recall. In the first half of this paper we do this within the realm of Special Relativity and (...) in the traditional mathematical language using components with respect to affine charts, thereby focusing on the intended physical content and interpretation. In the second half we show how to do all this in a proper differential-geometric fashion and on arbitrary space-time manifolds, this time focusing on the group-theoretic and geometric hypotheses underlying these results. Based on this we give a proper geometric statement and proof of Laue's theorem, which is shown to generalise from Minkowski space to space-times with significantly less symmetries. This result, which seems to be new, not only generalises but also clarifies the geometric content and hypotheses of Laue's theorem. A series of three appendices lists our conventions and notation and summarises some of the conceptual and mathematical background needed in the main text. (shrink)

The topics of gravitational field energy and energy-momentum conservation in General Relativity theory have been unjustly neglected by philosophers. If the gravitational field in space free of ordinary matter, as represented by the metric g ab itself, can be said to carry genuine energy and momentum, this is a powerful argument for adopting the substantivalist view of spacetime.This paper explores the standard textbook account of gravitational field energy and argues that (a) so-called stress-energy of the gravitational field (...) is well-defined neither locally nor globally; and (b) there is no general principle of energy-momentum conservation to be found in General Relativity. I discuss the nature and justification of the zero-divergence law for ordinary stress-energy, and its possible connection with the failure of General Relativity to realise Mach's principle. (shrink)

The notions of ``motion'' and ``conserved quantities'', if applied to extended objects, are already quite non-trivial in Special Relativity. This contribution is meant to remind us on all the relevant mathematical structures and constructions that underlie these concepts, which we will review in some detail. Next to the prerequisites from Special Relativity, like Minkowski space and its automorphism group, this will include the notion of a body in Minkowski space, the momentum map, a characterisation of the habitat of globally (...) conserved quantities associated with Poincare symmetry -- so called Poincare charges --, the frame-dependent decomposition of global angular momentum into Spin and an orbital part, and, last not least, the likewise frame-dependent notion of centre of mass together with a geometric description of the Moeller Radius, of which we also list some typical values. (shrink)

By means of a Clebsch representation which differs from that previously applied to electromagnetic field theory it is shown that Maxwell's equations are derivable from a variational principle. In contrast to the standard approach, the Hamiltonian complex associated with this principle is identical with the generally accepted energy-momentum tensor of the fields. In addition, the Clebsch representation of a contravariant vector field makes it possible to consistently construct a field theory based upon a direction-dependent Lagrangian density (it is this (...) kind of Lagrangian density that may arise when developing the Finslerian extension of general relativity). The corresponding field equations are proved to be independent of any gauge of Clebsch potentials. The law of energy-momentum conservation of the field appears to be covariant and integrable in a rather wide class of direction-dependent Lagrangian densities. (shrink)

Since Leibniz's time, Cartesian mental causation has been criticized for violating the conservation of energy and momentum. Many dualist responses clearly fail. But conservation laws have important neglected features generally undermining the objection. Conservation is _local_, holding first not for the universe, but for everywhere separately. The energy in any volume changes only due to what flows through the boundaries. Constant total energy holds if the global summing-up of local conservation laws converges; it probably doesn't (...) in reality. Energy conservation holds if there is symmetry, the sameness of the laws over time. Thus, if there are time-places where symmetries fail due to nonphysical influence, conservation laws fail there and then, while holding elsewhere, such as refrigerators and stars. Noether's converse first theorem shows that conservation laws imply symmetries. Thus conservation trivially nearly entails the causal closure of the physical. But expecting conservation to hold in the brain simply assumes the falsehood of Cartesianism. Hence Leibniz's objection begs the question. Empirical neuroscience is another matter. So is Einstein's General Relativity: far from providing a loophole, General Relativity makes mental causation _harder_. (shrink)

two dimensions, quantum radiation production is incompatible with a conserved and traceless T„,. We therefore resolve an ambiguity in our expression for Tr„, regularized by a geodesic point-separation procedure.

As Harvey Brown emphasizes in his book Physical Relativity, inertial motion in general relativity is best understood as a theorem, and not a postulate. Here I discuss the status of the "conservation condition", which states that the energy-momentum tensor associated with non-interacting matter is covariantly divergence-free, in connection with such theorems. I argue that the conservation condition is best understood as a consequence of the differential equations governing the evolution of matter in general relativity and many other (...) theories. I conclude by discussing what it means to posit a certain spacetime geometry and the relationship between that geometry and the dynamical properties of matter. (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)

In 1924, Bohr, Kramers and Slater tried to introduce into microphysics conservation principles that hold only on the average. This attempt was abandoned in the light of the Compton-Simon experiment. Since that time, except for a moment of doubt in 1936, it has been thought that the classical conservation laws hold in quantum theory for each individual interaction, in a way that yields the classical exchange-and-balance of momentum familiar from the laws of elastic collisions. It has been (...) thought, that is, that in each individual “collision” what one part of the total system loses in linear momentum another part gains, so as to maintain the same total amount afterwards as before. To those familiar with discussions of the interpretation of quantum theory, however, it will be apparent that the very concepts needed to express this idea of an elastic collision are generally not admitted in the theory. For one needs the idea that both before and after collision the total system has a well-defined value for the conserved quantity and, moreover, that the various component parts of the system have well-defined values for those quantities out of which the conserved one is composed. But in the case of spin, for example, it is customary to say that although total spin may be conserved in certain interactions one cannot attribute values to the separate components of spin because the associated operators do not commute. Moreover, one does not generally refer to the values of quantities except in eigenstates. Hence, in general, one would not refer to the value of the conserved quantity before and after interaction, except for interactions initiated in eigenstates. (shrink)

It is shown that any hidden variable model that reproduces quantum mechanics for a single particle must either be nonlocal or violate conservation of momentum. This is established by deriving an inequality which must hold in any local, momentum-conserving hidden variable model for a modified form of the double-slit experiment. It is then shown that any hidden variable model that reproduces quantum mechanics must violate the inequality. The inconsistency between the classical and quantum views of the world (...) is therefore demonstrated in a new way. (shrink)

Stochastic dynamical reduction for the case of spin-z measurement of a spin-1/2 particle describes a random walk on the spin-z axis. The measurement’s result depends on which of the two points: spin-z=±ħ/2 is reached first. Born’s rule is recovered as long as the expected step size in spin-z is independent of proximity to endpoints. Here, we address the questions raised by this description: (1) When is collapse triggered, and what triggers it? (2) Why is the expected step size in spin-z (...) (as opposed to polar angle) independent of proximity to endpoints? (3) Why does spin “lock” in the vertical directions? The difficulties associated with (1) are rooted, as is Bell’s theorem, in the time-asymmetric assumption that the present distribution over hidden variables is independent of future settings. We believe, a priori of any of the experiments of modern physics, that such a time-asymmetric assumption is dubious when probing the microscopic scale. As for (2) and (3), they are simultaneously resolved by abandoning the fundamental distinction drawn between spin and spatial angular momentum, and by appealing to very tiny (in both magnitude and spatial extent) but numerous patches of magnetic noise in the Stern-Gerlach’s field. (shrink)

The electric field of an orbiting charge or electron observed in the rotating frame takes on a circular trajectory with a maximum radius of \. The resultant extended electromagnetic structure is used to derive the spin–orbit energy of the orbiting electron. A surprising result of the derived expression is that the orbital velocity has a specific value ) in close agreement ) with the experimentally determined value for the fine structure constant ). Furthermore, the derived spin–orbit expression does not include (...) a g-factor ) which means that the Larmor and Thomas precessions are equal and opposite, resulting in zero net precession in the lab frame. These results suggest that the quantised fine structure constant and by extension Planck’s constant, are a natural extension of classical electromagnetism and conservation of energy in a rotating frame. (shrink)

A part of relativistic dynamics is axiomatized by simple and purely geometrical axioms formulated within first-order logic. A geometrical proof of the formula connecting relativistic and rest masses of bodies is presented, leading up to a geometric explanation of Einstein's famous E = mc² . The connection of our geometrical axioms and the usual axioms on the conservation of mass, momentum and four-momentum is also investigated.

Many have thought that symmetries of a Lagrangian explain the standard laws of energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation in a rather straightforward way. In this paper, I argue that the explanation of conservation laws via symmetries of Lagrangians involves complications that have not been adequately noted in the philosophical literature and some of the physics literature on the subject. In fact, such complications show that the principles that are commonly appealed to to drive explanations of (...) conservation laws are not generally correct without caveats. I hope here to give a clearer picture of the relationship between symmetries and conservation laws in Lagrangian mechanics via an examination of the bearing that results in the inverse problem in the calculus of variations have on this topic. (shrink)

It is emphasized that the collapse postulate of standard quantum theory can violate conservation of energy-momentum and there is no indication from where the energy-momentum comes or to where it goes. Likewise, in the Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) dynamical collapse model, particles gain energy on average. In CSL, the usual Schrödinger dynamics is altered so that a randomly fluctuating classical field interacts with quantized particles to cause wavefunction collapse. In this paper it is shown how to define (...) energy for the classical field so that the average value of the energy of the field plus the quantum system is conserved for the ensemble of collapsing wavefunctions. While conservation of just the first moment of energy is, of course, much less than complete conservation of energy, this does support the idea that the field could provide the conservation law balance when events occur. (shrink)

The energy-momentum relationship is obtained in para-Lorentzian dynamics. It is shown that the well-known correspondence rule for the operators energy and momentum holds in any inertial system if it is assumed to hold in the preferred reference frame. The new Dirac equation is obtained. Some qualitative features of the new theory are given; one of then is the spontaneous appearance of conserved-vector and nonconserved-axial weak currents. Finally one evaluates the convenience of further developments of the present theory in (...) view of the excellent agreement of QED with experiment. (shrink)

A part of relativistic dynamics is axiomatized by simple and purely geometrical axioms formulated within first-order logic. A geometrical proof of the formula connecting relativistic and rest masses of bodies is presented, leading up to a geometric explanation of Einstein’s famous E = mc 2. The connection of our geometrical axioms and the usual axioms on the conservation of mass, momentum and four-momentum is also investigated.

This paper is motivated by the desire to formulate a relativistically covariant hidden-variable particle trajectory interpretation of the quantum theory of the vector field that is formulated in such a way as to allow the inclusion of gravity. We present a methodology for calculating the flows of rest energy and a conserved density for the massive vector field using the time-like eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Such flows may be used to define particle trajectories which follow the (...) flow. This work extends our previous work which used a similar procedure for the scalar field. The massive, spin-one, complex vector field is discussed in detail and the flows of energy-momentum are illustrated in a simple example of standing waves in a plane. (shrink)

The conservation of energy and momentum have been viewed as undermining Cartesian mental causation since the 1690s. Modern discussions of the topic tend to use mid-nineteenth century physics, neglecting both locality and Noether’s theorem and its converse. The relevance of General Relativity has rarely been considered. But a few authors have proposed that the non-localizability of gravitational energy and consequent lack of physically meaningful local conservation laws answers the conservation objection to mental causation: conservation already (...) fails in GR, so there is nothing for minds to violate. This paper is motivated by two ideas. First, one might take seriously the fact that GR formally has an infinity of rigid symmetries of the action and hence, by Noether’s first theorem, an infinity of conserved energies-momenta. Second, Sean Carroll has asked how one should modify the Dirac–Maxwell–Einstein equations to describe mental causation. This paper uses the generalized Bianchi identities to show that General Relativity tends to exclude, not facilitate, such Cartesian mental causation. In the simplest case, Cartesian mental influence must be spatio-temporally constant, and hence 0. The difficulty may diminish for more complicated models. Its persuasiveness is also affected by larger world-view considerations. The new general relativistic objection provides some support for realism about gravitational energy-momentum in GR. Such realism also might help to answer an objection to theories of causation involving conserved quantities, because energies-momenta would be conserved even in GR. (shrink)

P. Busch has formulated a particular measurement process in order to show that predictable position measurements are impossible in general. Here we apply his formulation to studying the characteristics of various quantum measurements under the limitations which are imposed by the universal conservation laws and prove some theorems related to Busch's theorem. A simple approximate model measuring momentum is analyzed to investigate the roles of energy and momentum conservation. The results reveal the importance of the role (...) of Galilei's principle of relativity. (shrink)

Recent work on the history of General Relativity by Renn, Sauer, Janssen et al. shows that Einstein found his field equations partly by a physical strategy including the Newtonian limit, the electromagnetic analogy, and energy conservation. Such themes are similar to those later used by particle physicists. How do Einstein's physical strategy and the particle physics derivations compare? What energy-momentum complex did he use and why? Did Einstein tie conservation to symmetries, and if so, to which? How (...) did his work relate to emerging knowledge of the canonical energy-momentum tensor and its translation-induced conservation? After initially using energy-momentum tensors hand-crafted from the gravitational field equations, Einstein used an identity from his assumed linear coordinate covariance x'=Mx to relate it to the canonical tensor. Usually he avoided using matter Euler-Lagrange equations and so was not well positioned to use or reinvent the Herglotz-Mie-Born understanding that the canonical tensor was conserved due to translation symmetries, a result with roots in Lagrange, Hamilton and Jacobi. Whereas Mie and Born were concerned about the canonical tensor's asymmetry, Einstein did not need to worry because his Entwurf Lagrangian is modeled not so much on Maxwell's theory as on a scalar theory. Einstein's theory thus has a symmetric canonical energy-momentum tensor. But as a result, it also has 3 negative-energy field degrees of freedom. Thus the Entwurf theory fails a 1920s-30s a priori particle physics stability test with antecedents in Lagrange's and Dirichlet's stability work; one might anticipate possible gravitational instability. This critique of the Entwurf theory can be compared with Einstein's 1915 critique of his Entwurf theory for not admitting rotating coordinates and not getting Mercury's perihelion right. One can live with absolute rotation but cannot live with instability. Particle physics also can be useful in the historiography of gravity and space-time, both in assessing the growth of objective knowledge and in suggesting novel lines of inquiry to see whether and how Einstein faced the substantially mathematical issues later encountered in particle physics. This topic can be a useful case study in the history of science on recently reconsidered questions of presentism, whiggism and the like. Future work will show how the history of General Relativity, especially Noether's work, sheds light on particle physics. (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 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 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 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)

Global efforts for biodiversity conservation have gained considerable momentum in recent years. Yet much remains to be learned from the minds of the ancient past regarding perspectives on relations between society and the environment. Zhuangzi is one such figure whose works may be of high relevance to contemporary conservation. While many philosophical ideals underpinning conservation stem from a mostly westernized ethos, strategies can be expanded by non-western principles such as Zhuangzi’s. In light of IPBES’ “nature’s contributions (...) to people” concept, a globally reaching framework for conservation, I explore the applicability of one of Zhuangzi’s central teachings; the usefulness of uselessness. (shrink)

One of the most serious challenges (if not the most serious challenge) for interactive psycho-physical dualism (henceforth interactive dualism or ID) is the so-called ‘interaction problem’. It has two facets, one of which this article focuses on, namely the apparent tension between interactions of non-physical minds in the physical world and physical laws of nature. One family of approaches to alleviate or even dissolve this tension is based on a collapse solution (‘consciousness collapse/CC) of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (...) (QM). The idea is that the mind brings about the collapse of a superposed wave function onto one of its eigenstates. Thus, it is claimed, can the mind change the course of things without violating any law figuring in physical theory. I will first show that this hope is premature because energy and momentum are probably not conserved in collapse processes, and that even if this can be dealt with, the violations are either severe or produce further ontological problems. Second, I point out several conceptual difficulties for interactionist CC. I will also present solutions for those problems, but it will become clear that those solutions come at a high cost. Third, I shall briefly list some empirical problems which make life even harder for interactionist CC. I conclude with remarks about why no- collapse interpretations of QM don’t help either and what the present study has shown is the real issue for ID: namely to find a plausible integrative view of dualistic mental causation and laws of nature. (shrink)

An analysis is done of a relativistic paradox posed in the Feynman Lectures of Physics involving two interacting charges. The physical system presented is compared with similar systems that also lead to relativistic paradoxes. The momentum conservation problem for these systems is presented. The relation between the presented analysis and the ongoing debates on momentum conservation in the Aharonov-Bohm problem is discussed.

In the recent literature, it has been shown that the wave function in the de Broglie–Bohm theory can be regarded as a new kind of field, i.e., a "multi-field", in three-dimensional space. In this paper, I argue that the natural framework for the multi-field is the original second-order Bohm’s theory. In this context, it is possible: i) to construe the multi-field as a real-valued scalar field; ii) to explain the physical interaction between the multi-field and the Bohmian particles; and iii) (...) to clarify the status of the energy-momentum conservation and the dynamics of the theory. (shrink)

A Zenonian supertask involving an infinite number of colliding balls is considered, under the restriction that the total mass of all the balls is finite. Classical mechanics leads to the conclusion that momentum, but not necessarily energy, must be conserved. Relativistic mechanics, on the other hand, implies that energy and momentum conservation are always violated. Quantum mechanics, however, seems to rule out the Zeno configuration as an inconsistent system.

The assumption that a classical gravitational field interacts with a quantum system is shown to lead to violations of either momentum conservation or the uncertainty principle, or to result in transmission of signals faster thanc. A similar argument holds for the electromagnetic field.

A Zenonian supertask involving an infinite number of colliding balls is considered, under the restriction that the total mass of all the balls is finite. Classical mechanics leads to the conclusion that momentum, but not necessarily energy, must be conserved. Relativistic mechanics, on the other hand, implies that energy and momentum conservation are always violated. Quantum mechanics, however, seems to rule out the Zeno configuration as an inconsistent system.

. A typical textbook explanation of a rocket’s motion when its engine is fired appeals to momentum conservation: the rocket accelerates forward because its exhaust accelerates rearward and the system’s momentum must be conserved. This paper examines how this explanation works, considering three challenges it faces. First, the explanation does not proceed by describing the forces causing the rocket’s motion. Second, the rocket’s motion has a causal-mechanical explanation involving those forces. Third, if momentum conservation and (...) the rearward motion of the rocket’s exhaust explain why the rocket accelerates forward, then presumably momentum conservation and the rocket’s forward motion likewise explain why the rocket emits exhaust rearward. Explanatory circularity threatens to follow from this pair of explanations. This paper examines how the conservation-law explanation works and how it is compatible with the causal-mechanical explanation. The paper argues that these two explanations do not explain precisely the same fact relative to the same contrast class. The paper interprets the two conservation-law explanations as non-causal and argues that they yield no explanatory circularity. (shrink)

Afshar et al. claim that their experiment shows a violation of the complementarity inequality. In this work, we study their claim using a modified Mach-Zehnder setup that represents a simpler version of the Afshar experiment. We find that our results are consistent with Afshar et al. experimental findings. However, we show that within standard quantum mechanics the results of the Afshar experiment do not lead to a violation of the complementarity inequality. We show that their claim originates from a particular (...) technique they use to analyze their results. In their analysis, they assume a classical concept, that particles have a definite trajectory before detection, thus, they obtain which-way information by particle detection plus path extrapolation by applying momentum conservation. This analysis technique is standard in experimental particle physics. Important discoveries such as the detection of vector bosons have been made through the application of this technique. We note that particle detection plus path extrapolation is a suitable technique within de Broglie-Bohm theory of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

A supertask is a process in which an infinite number of individuated actions are performed in a finite time. A Newtonian supertask is one that obeys Newton's laws of motion. Such supertasks can violate energy and momentum conservation and can exhibit indeterministic behavior. Perez Laraudogoitia, who proposed several Newtonian supertasks, uses a local, i.e., particle-by-particle, analysis to obtain these and other paradoxical properties of Newtonian supertasks. Alper and Bridger use a global analysis, embedding the system of particles in (...) a Banach space, to determine the origin of the strange behavior. This paper provides a common framework for the discussion of both the local and global methods of analysis. Using this single framework, the areas of disagreement and agreement are made explicit. Further examples of supertasks are proposed to illuminate various aspects of the discussion. (shrink)

A supertask is a process in which an infinite number of individuated actions are performed in a finite time. A Newtonian supertask is one that obeys Newton''s laws of motion. Such supertasks can violate energy and momentum conservation and can exhibit indeterministic behavior. Perez Laraudogoitia, who proposed several Newtonian supertasks, uses a local, i.e., particle-by-particle, analysis to obtain these and other paradoxical properties of Newtonian supertasks. Alper and Bridger use a global analysis, embedding the system of particles in (...) a Banach space, to determine the origin of the strange behavior. This paper provides a common framework for the discussion of both the local and global methods of analysis. Using this single framework, the areas of disagreement and agreement are made explicit. Further examples of supertasks are proposed to illuminate various aspects of the discussion. (shrink)

General relativity has a geometric and a field interpretation. If angular momentum conservation is invoked in the geometric interpretation to explain experiments, the causality principle is violated. The field interpretation avoids this problem by allowing faster-than-light propagation of gravity in forward time. All existing experiments are in agreement with that interpretation. This implies the existence of real superluminal propagation and communication of particles and fields, free of causality problems. The introduction of real physical faster-than-light propagation into gravitation, electrodynamics (...) and quantum theory has important consequences for physics. (shrink)

Mental causation, idea that it is us – via our minds – who cause bodily actions is as commonsensical as it is indispensable for our understanding of ourselves as rational agents. Somewhat less uncontroversial, but nonetheless widespread (at least among ordinary people) is the idea that the mind is non-physical, following the intuition that what is physical can neither act nor think nor judge morally. Taken together, and cast into a metaphysical thesis, the two intuitions yield interactive dualism: the view (...) that human persons and their minds are non-physical but can nonetheless interact with their bodies, most notably through their brains. This thesis has two main objectives: first, to defend interactive dualism against objections, and second, to show how it can blend in with a physical world in which laws of nature hold. The first part (chapter 1) consists in a brief motivation of interactive dualism as opposed to non-interactive dualism. I argue that non-interactive, epiphenomenalist dualism sacrifices so many crucial aspects of our human existence that interactive dualism is highly to be preferred to it, barring even stronger counterarguments against the latter. It is those putative counterarguments I address in parts II and III. Part II takes on the philosophical objections from the causal closure of the physical and from causal heterogeneity. The former takes the success of physics and physiology as basis for the doctrine of the causal closure of the physical (CCP). I argue against this that there is not only no convincing argument for CCP, but also that any science-based belief in CCP cannot be epistemically justified. As regards the causal heterogeneity objection, it is ‘weighed and found wanting’, because it relies on unwarranted assumptions about causation. In part III, I examine the objection from energy conservation. It roughly says that if interactive dualism were true, then energy would not be conserved, which physics taught us cannot be the case. My reply is that the underlying conception of energy (and momentum) conservation is wrong-headed and not the one that actual physicists use. Instead of being categorical and global, conservation laws are conditional and local, thereby making natural room for mental interaction. Some dualists, however, have sought to make interactive dualism conservation-friendly, notably by invoking quantum physics; I show that these attempts are unnecessary and create more problems than they solve. Finally, in chapter 9, I turn the tables on non-interactionists by investigating current neurophysiological literature on volitional actions, which, though not addressing the question directly, still encourages the interactive dualist picture more than a non-interactionist one. Part IV is about the interplay between interactive dualism and the laws of nature. The ultimate goal is, if possible, to come up with a theory of the laws of nature that explains the lawlike behavior of nature and at the same time makes room for interaction. I begin by pointing out that the laws of nature are or at least should be what physicalists worry about (chapter 10). I then proceed with a historical survey on the development of the notion of laws of nature (chapter 11) that sheds light on its theistic origin. This is followed by an inquiry into the question how a law of nature could possibly be broken (chapter 12) and a survey of the extant metaphysical theories of the laws of nature with special regard to their receptivity to interaction (chapter 13). Finally, in chapter 14 I develop a theory of the laws of nature both faithful to their divine origin and the possibility of mental interaction: dispositionalist divine decretalism, a synthesis of dispositionalism and Jeffrey Koperski’s divine decretalism. (shrink)

We emphasize that the pressure related work appearing in a general relativistic first law of thermodynamics should involve proper volume element rather than coordinate volume element. This point is highlighted by considering both local energy momentum conservation equation as well as particle number conservation equation. It is also emphasized that we are considering here a non-singular fluid governed by purely classical general relativity. Therefore, we are not considering here any semi-classical or quantum gravity which apparently suggests thermodynamical (...) properties even for a (singular) black hole. Having made such a clarification, we formulate a global first law of thermodynamics for an adiabatically evolving spherical perfect fluid. It may be verified that such a global first law of thermodynamics, for a non-singular fluid, has not been formulated earlier. (shrink)