Who let the demon out? Laplace and Boscovich on determinism

In this paper, I compare Pierre-Simon Laplace's celebrated formulation of the principle of determinism in his 1814 Essai philosophique sur les probabilités with the formulation of the same principle offered by Roger Joseph Boscovich in his Theoria philosophiae naturalis, published 56 years earlier. This comparison discloses a striking general similarity between the two formulations of determinism as well as certain important differences. Regarding their similarities, both Boscovich's and Laplace's conceptions of determinism involve two mutually interdependent components—ontological and epistemic—and they are both intimately linked with the principles of causality and continuity. Regarding their differences, however, Boscovich's formulation of the principle of determinism turns out not only to be temporally prior to Laplace's but also—being founded on fewer metaphysical principles and more rooted in and elaborated by physical assumptions—to be more precise, complete and comprehensive than Laplace's somewhat parenthetical statement of the doctrine. A detailed analysis of these similarities and differences, so far missing in the literature on the history and philosophy of the concept of determinism, is the main goal of the present paper.     

Theoretical construction in physics – The role of Leibniz for Weyl's ‘Philosophie der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft’

This paper aims at closing a gap in recent Weyl research by investigating the role played by Leibniz for the development and consolidation of Weyl's notion of theoretical (symbolic) construction. For Weyl, just as for Leibniz, mathematics was not simply an accompanying tool when doing physics—for him it meant the ability to engage in well-guided speculations about a general framework of reality and experience. The paper first introduces some of the background of Weyl's notion of theoretical construction and then discusses particular Leibnizian inheritances in Weyl's ‘Philosophie der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft’, such as the general appreciation of the principles of sufficient reason and of continuity. Afterwards the paper focuses on three themes: first, Leibniz's primary quality phenomenalism, which according to Weyl marked the decisive step in realizing that physical qualities are never apprehended directly; second, the conceptual relation between continuity and freedom; and third, Leibniz's notion of ‘expression’, which allows for a certain type of (surrogative) reasoning by structural analogy and which gave rise to Weyl's optimism regarding the scope of theoretical construction.     

“Continuity and change”: representing mass conservation in fluid mechanics

The evolution of the equation of mass conservation in fluid mechanics is studied. Following early hydraulic approximations, and progress by Daniel and Johann Bernoulli, its first expression as a partial differential equation was achieved by d’Alembert, and soon given definitive form by Euler. Later reworkings by Lagrange, Laplace, Poisson and others advanced the subject, but all based their derivations on the conserved mass of a moving fluid particle. Later, Duhamel and Thomson gave a simpler derivation, by considering mass flow into and out of a fixed portion of space. The later propagation of these derivations in nineteenth-century British textbooks and treatises is also examined, including Maxwell’s on the kinetic theory of gases.     

Physics from Fisher information

B. R. Frieden uses a single procedure, called extreme physical information, with the aim of deriving ‘most known physics, from statistical mechanics and thermodynamics to quantum mechanics, the Einstein field equations and quantum gravity’. His method, which is based on Fisher information, is given a detailed exposition in this book, and we attempt to assess the extent to which he succeeds in his task.     

The coming-to-be of Hansen’s method

This article by Curtis Wilson is an account of the origin of Hansen’s powerful systematic method for finding contributions of higher order perturbations in celestial mechanics. Hansen’s method was developed in the course of improving on Laplace’s treatment of the mutual perturbations of Jupiter and Saturn. This method, an entirely new way of doing celestial mechanics when it first appeared, later made possible the successful treatment of the complicated motions of our moon (see Wilson 2010). In this paper Wilson gives a brief historical introduction followed by an account of relevant technical details of the Laplacian background, an account illustrating technical details in Hansen’s initial development in his Disquisitions of 1829, and a treatment illustrating details contributing to the achievement of Hansen’s more refined development in his Untersuchung of 1831. These details include conditional equations Hansen provides for checking the accuracy of calculations. Wilson also includes a detailed assessment showing the extraordinary improvement in empirical accuracy of Hansen’s treatment over the best earlier treatment of the Jupiter-Saturn  interactions.     

Deducing Newton’s second law from relativity principles: A forgotten history

In French mechanical treatises of the nineteenth century, Newton’s second law of motion was frequently derived from a relativity principle. The origin of this trend is found in ingenious arguments by Huygens and Laplace, with intermediate contributions by Euler and d’Alembert. The derivations initially relied on Galilean relativity and impulsive forces. After Bélanger’s Cours de mécanique of 1847, they employed continuous forces and a stronger relativity with respect to any commonly impressed motion. The name “principle of relative motions” and the very idea of using this principle as a constructive tool were born in this context. The consequences of Poincaré’s and Einstein’s awareness of this approach are analyzed. Lastly, the legitimacy and significance of a relativity-based derivation of Newton’s second law are briefly discussed in a more philosophical vein.

     

Quantum dissidents: Research on the foundations of quantum theory circa 1970

This paper makes a collective biographical profile of a sample of physicists who were protagonists in the research on the foundations of quantum physics circa 1970. We study the cases of Zeh, Bell, Clauser, Shimony, Wigner, Rosenfeld, d’Espagnat, Selleri, and DeWitt, analyzing their training and early career, achievements, qualms with quantum mechanics, motivations for such research, professional obstacles, attitude towards the Copenhagen interpretation, and success and failures. Except for Rosenfeld, they were all dissidents, fighting against the dominant attitude among physicists at the time according to which foundational issues had already been solved by the founding fathers of the discipline. Theirs is a story of success as the foundations of quantum mechanics finally entered the physics mainstream despite the fact that their expectations of breaking down quantum mechanics were not fulfilled.     

Emergent evolutionism,determinism and unpredictability

The fact that there exist in nature thoroughly deterministic systems whose future behavior cannot be predicted, no matter how advanced or fined-tune our cognitive and technical abilities turn out to be, has been well established over the last decades or so, essentially in the light of two different theoretical frameworks, namely chaos theory and (some deterministic interpretation of) quantum mechanics. The prime objective of this paper is to show that there actually exists an alternative strategy to ground the divorce between determinism and predictability, a way that is older than—and conceptually independent from—chaos theory and quantum mechanics, and which has not received much attention in the recent philosophical literature about determinism. This forgotten strategy—embedded in the doctrine called “emergent evolutionism”—is nonetheless far from being a mere historical curiosity that should only draw the attention of philosophers out of their concern for comprehensiveness. It has been indeed recently revived in the works of respected scientists.     

Popper’s response to Dingle on special relativity and the problem of the observer

Dingle contended that Einstein’s special theory of relativity was physically impossible for the simple reason that it required clocks to be simultaneously faster and slower than each other. McCrea refuted Dingle using an operationalist argument. An operational response did not satisfy Popper, who wrote an unpublished essay to counter Dingle’s claim. Popper developed an analysis that avoided operationalism by using a system of coinciding clocks, contending that this system showed that special relativity withstood Dingle’s criticism that it was not a symmetrical and consistent physical theory. However, Popper mistakenly included an asymmetric calculation in his analysis. Once this is corrected, the amended result supports Dingle’s position. Popper went on to argue that to avoid determinism, special relativity had to be reconciled with absolute time; this too supports Dingle. Popper’s failure to refute Dingle calls into question his claim that ‘the observer’ is superfluous to special relativity.     

A place for pragmatism in the dynamics of reason?

In Dynamics of Reason Michael Friedman proposes a kind of synthesis between the neokantianism of Ernst Cassirer, the logical empiricism of Rudolf Carnap, and the historicism of Thomas Kuhn. Cassirer and Carnap are to take care of the Kantian legacy of modern philosophy of science, encapsulated in the concept of the relativized a priori and the globally rational or continuous evolution of scientific knowledge, while Kuhn’s role is to ensure that the historicist character of scientific knowledge is taken seriously. More precisely, Carnapian linguistic frameworks, guarantee that the evolution of science proceeds in a rational manner locally, while Cassirer’s concept of an internally defined conceptual convergence of empirical theories provides the means to maintain the global continuity of scientific reason. In this paper it is argued that Friedman’s Neokantian account of scientific reason based on the concept of the relativized a priori underestimates the pragmatic aspects of the dynamics of scientific reason. To overcome this shortcoming, I propose to reconsider C.I. Lewis’s account of a pragmatic priori, recently modernized and elaborated by Hasok Chang. This may be considered as a first step to a dynamics of an embodied reason, less theoretical and more concrete than Friedman’s Neokantian proposal.     

Pluralism and anarchism in quantum physics: Paul Feyerabend's writings on quantum physics in relation to his general philosophy of science

This paper aims to show that the development of Feyerabend's philosophical ideas in the 1950s and 1960s largely took place in the context of debates on quantum mechanics.In particular, he developed his influential arguments for pluralism in science in discussions with the quantum physicist David Bohm, who had developed an alternative approach to quantum physics which (in Feyerabend's perception) was met with a dogmatic dismissal by some of the leading quantum physicists. I argue that Feyerabend's arguments for theoretical pluralism and for challenging established theories were connected to his objections to the dogmatism and conservatism he observed in quantum physics.However, as Feyerabend gained insight into the physical details and historical complexities which led to the development of quantum mechanics, he gradually became more modest in his criticisms. His writings on quantum mechanics especially engaged with Niels Bohr; initially, he was critical of Bohr's work in quantum mechanics, but in the late 1960s, he completely withdrew his criticism and even praised Bohr as a model scientist. He became convinced that however puzzling quantum mechanics seemed, it was methodologically unobjectionable – and this was crucial for his move towards ‘anarchism’ in philosophy of science.     

Can Bohmian mechanics be made background independent?

The paper presents an inquiry into the question regarding the compatibility of Bohmian mechanics, intended as a non-local theory of moving point-like particles, with background independence. This issue is worth being investigated because, if the Bohmian framework has to be of some help in developing new physics, it has to be compatible with the most well-established traits of modern physics, background independence being one of such traits. The paper highlights the fact that the notion of background independence in the context of spacetime physics is slippery and interpretation-laden. It is then suggested that the best-matching framework developed by Julian Barbour might provide a robust enough meaning of background independence. The structure of Bohmian dynamics is evaluated against this framework, reaching some intermediate results that speak in favor of the fact that Bohmian mechanics can be made background independent.     

The operational framework for quantum theories is both epistemologically and ontologically neutral

Operational frameworks are very useful to study the foundations of quantum mechanics, and are sometimes used to promote antirealist attitudes towards the theory. The aim of this paper is to review three arguments aiming at defending an antirealist reading of quantum physics based on various developments of standard quantum mechanics appealing to notions such as quantum information, non-causal correlations and indefinite causal orders. Those arguments will be discussed in order to show that they are not convincing. Instead, it is argued that there is conceptually no argument that could favour realist or antirealist attitudes towards quantum mechanics based solely on some features of some formalism. In particular, both realist and antirealist views are well accomodable within operational formulations of the theory. The reason for this is that the realist/antirealist debate is located at a purely epistemic level, which is not engaged by formal aspects of theories. As such, operational formulations of quantum mechanics are epistmologically and ontologically neutral. This discussion aims at clarifying the limits of the historical and methodological affinities between scientific antirealism and operational physics while engaging with recent discoveries in quantum foundations. It also aims at presenting various realist strategies to account for those developments.     

Schrödinger and Dirac equations for the hydrogen atom, and Laguerre polynomials

It is usually claimed that the Laguerre polynomials were popularized by Schrödinger when creating wave mechanics; however, we show that he did not immediately identify them in studying the hydrogen atom. In the case of relativistic Dirac equations for an electron in a Coulomb field, Dirac gave only approximations, Gordon and Darwin gave exact solutions, and Pidduck first explicitly and elegantly introduced the Laguerre polynomials, an approach neglected by most modern treatises and articles. That Laguerre polynomials were not very popular before their use in quantum mechanics, probably because they had been little used in classical mathematical physics, is confirmed by the fact that, as we show, they had been rediscovered independently several times during the nineteenth century, in published or unpublished studies of Abel, Murphy, Chebyshev, and Laguerre.     

Whence chemistry?

Along with exploring some of the necessary conditions for the chemistry of our world given what we know about quantum mechanics, I will also discuss a different reductionist challenge than is usually considered in debates on the relationship of chemistry to physics. Contrary to popular belief, classical physics does not have a reductive relationship to quantum mechanics and some of the reasons why reduction fails between classical and quantum physics are the same as for why reduction fails between chemistry and quantum physics. However, a neoreductionist can accept that classical physics has some amount of autonomy from quantum mechanics, but still try to maintain that classical+quantum physics taken as a whole reduces chemistry to physics. I will explore some of the obstacles lying in the neoreductionist's path with respect to quantum chemistry and thereby hope to shed more light on the conditions necessary for the chemistry of our world.     

A beautiful sea: P. A. M. Dirac's epistemology and ontology of the vacuum

This paper charts P.A.M. Dirac's development of his theory of the electron, and its radical picture of empty space as an almost-full plenum. Dirac's Quantum Electrodynamics famously accomplished more than the unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It also accounted for the ‘duplexity phenomena’ of spectral line splitting that we now attribute to electron spin. But the extra mathematical terms that allowed for spin were not alone, and this paper charts Dirac's struggle to ignore or account for them as a sea of strange, negative-energy, particles with positive ‘holes’. This work was not done in solitude, but rather in exchanges with Dirac's correspondence network. This social context for Dirac’s work contests his image as a lone genius, and documents a community wrestling with the ontological consequences of their work. Unification, consistency, causality, and community are common factors in explanations in the history of physics. This paper argues on the basis of materials in Dirac's archive that --- in addition --- mathematical beauty was an epistemological factor in the development of the electron and hole theory. In fact, if we believe that Dirac's beautiful mathematics captures something of the world, then there is both an epistemology and an ontology of mathematical beauty.     

“A dedicated missionary”. Charles Galton Darwin and the new quantum mechanics in Britain

In this paper I discuss the work on quantum physics and wave mechanics by Charles Galton Darwin, a Cambridge wrangler of the last generation, as a case study to better understand the early reception of quantum physics in Britain. I argue that his proposal in the early 1920s to abandon the strict conservation of energy, as well as his enthusiastic embracement of wave mechanics at the end of the decade, can be easily understood by tracing his ontological and epistemological commitments to his early training in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. I also suggest that Darwin's work cannot be neglected in a study of quantum physics in Britain, since he was one of very few fellows of the Royal Society able to judge and explain quantum physics and quantum mechanics.     

力学中非线性方程常用解法的比较及其改进

详细分析了力学中非线性问题常用解法Euler—Cauchy及Newton-Raphson法。论证了这两种方法均是将原非线性方程在求解过程中线性化，用一系列线性方程去逼近原非线性问题导致了误差存在。本文详细分析了上述两种算法的优缺点。将两种算法的优点进行组合，推荐一种基于梯形公式的改良算法。在不增加计算工作量的前提下该法不仅收敛快、收敛半径大，而且计算精度高。最后基于Lagrange微分中值定理论述了加权平均刚度法。     

On the borderline between Science and Philosophy: A debate on determinism in France around 1880

In the second half of the nineteenth century, a new interest in explosive chemical reactions, sudden release of energy in living beings, physical instabilities, and bifurcations in the solutions of differential equations drew the attention of some scholars. New concepts like triggering actions and guiding principles also emerged. Mathematicians, physicists, physiologists, and philosophers were attracted by this kind of phenomena since they raised a question about the actual existence of a strict determinism in science. In 1878 the mathematical physicist Joseph Boussinesq pointed out a structural analogy among physical instabilities, some essential features of living beings, and singular solutions of differential equations. These developments revived long-lasting philosophical debates on the problematic link between deterministic physical laws and free will. We find in Boussinesq an original and almost isolated attempt to merge mathematical, physical, biological, and philosophical issues into a complex intellectual framework. In the last decades, some philosophers of science rediscovered the connection between physical instabilities and determinism, both in the context of chaos theory, and in the debates on the Norton dome. I put forward a consistent historical reconstruction of the main issues and characters involved.