History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph)

  • PDF
    It is usual to identify initial conditions of classical dynamical systems with mathematical real numbers. However, almost all real numbers contain an infinite amount of information. Since a finite volume of space can't contain more than a finite amount of information, I argue that the mathematical real numbers are not physically real. Moreover, a better terminology for the so-called real numbers is "random numbers", as their series of bits are truly random. I propose an alternative classical mechanics that uses only finite-information numbers. This alternative classical mechanics is non-deterministic, despite the use of deterministic equations, in a way similar to quantum theory. Interestingly, both alternative classical mechanics and quantum theories can be supplemented by additional variables in such a way that the supplemented theory is deterministic. Most physicists straightforwardly supplement classical theory with real numbers to which they attribute physical existence, while most physicists reject Bohmian mechanics as supplemented quantum theory, arguing that Bohmian positions have no physical reality. I argue that it is more economical and natural to accept non-determinism with potentialities as a real mode of existence, both for classical and quantum physics.
  • PDF
    In this paper we have two aims: first, to draw attention to the close connexion between interpretation and scientific understanding; second, to give a detailed account of how theories without a spacetime can be interpreted, and so of how they can be understood. In order to do so, we of course need an account of what is meant by a theory `without a spacetime': which we also provide in this paper. We describe three tools, used by physicists, aimed at constructing interpretations which are adequate for the goal of understanding. We analyse examples from high-energy physics illustrating how physicists use these tools to construct interpretations and thereby attain understanding. The examples are: the 't Hooft approximation of gauge theories, random matrix models, causal sets, loop quantum gravity, and group field theory.
  • PDF
    Kepler's laws are derived from the inverse square law without the use of calculus and are simplified over previous such derivations.
  • PDF
    Independent of Maxwell, in 1867 the Danish physicist L. V. Lorenz proposed a theory in which he identified light with electrical oscillations propagating in a very poor conductor. Lorenz's electrodynamic theory of light, which formally was equivalent to Maxwell's theory but physically quite different from it, was published in well-known journals in German and English but soon fell into oblivion. In 1867 Lorenz also published a paper on his new theory in a semi-popular Danish journal which has generally been overlooked. This other paper is here translated into English and provided with the necessary annotations.

Recent comments

Christopher A. Fuchs May 15 2017 22:36 UTC

Dear Joel,

We are indeed "fielded questions like this a hundred times over." That's why I try to write some papers to allay it: It never works. Anyway, here's one example that's relevant for your queries: https://scirate.com/arxiv/1601.04360. My own view is that taking first-person elements

Joel Klassen May 15 2017 22:01 UTC

Dear Ruediger,

Thanks for your prompt and cordial response. I hope you'll forgive the absence of address and signoff in my previous comment, my excitement got the better of my internet etiquette.

I think I understand what you are saying. The notion is that by making a statement like "a rubidiu

Ruediger Schack May 15 2017 14:00 UTC

Dear Joel,

Thank you for this question about Fuchs's paper. As you suggest, if taken out of context, the tenet "My probabilities cannot tell nature what to do" is a little mystifying. No serious thinker should believe that *his* probabilities tell nature what to do. The actual content of the tene

Joel Klassen May 13 2017 19:20 UTC

At the end of page 19, section 2.2 you introduce the tenet

"My Probabilities Cannot Tell Nature What To Do"

Can you elaborate on why it is necessary to include this tenet in QBism? Or more precisely, in what way is QBism unique in having this tenet? Are there any serious thinkers that are pro

Christopher A. Fuchs May 12 2017 17:14 UTC

Dear Michel,

1. It was just a goofy thing that I thought would get the readers to smile. But Wolfgang Pauli did have quite a mystical interest in 137 precisely because of its connection to the fine structure constant. This is documented in quite a number of places; the book by Suzanne Gieser,

Planat May 11 2017 09:03 UTC

Dear Christopher,

1. Could you comment on the connection to the fine structure constant in footnote 15 in which you write "Implicit in it is the number 137!"?

2. Would the Qbism philosophy be destroyed by restricting to IC's instead of SICs as in https://scirate.com/arxiv/1704.02749#807?


Mohammad Bavarian Sep 08 2016 03:58 UTC

So beautifully written!

Māris Ozols Sep 07 2016 13:03 UTC

John also has an excellent series of 7 blog posts covering this material:

Joel Klassen Feb 07 2016 17:57 UTC

The conversation amongst philosophers about the notion of free will and its relationship to determinism has a rich and nuanced history. It's disappointing to see someone who should know better be so flippantly dismissive of that conversation.

Niel de Beaudrap Apr 03 2015 18:42 UTC

I put this on my reading list after the recent update, having a casual interest in foundations. While I don't have quite enough physics background to see if anything is being swept under the rug, I found it an interesting point of view, written clearly and without mysticism. In particular, I now un