The role of a posteriori mathematics in physics

The calculus that co-evolved with classical mechanics relied on definitions of functions and differentials that accommodated physical intuitions. In the early nineteenth century mathematicians began the rigorous reformulation of calculus and eventually succeeded in putting almost all of mathematics on a set-theoretic foundation. Physicists traditionally ignore this rigorous mathematics. Physicists often rely on a posteriori math, a practice of using physical considerations to determine mathematical formulations. This is illustrated by examples from classical and quantum physics. A justification of such practice stems from a consideration of the role of phenomenological theories in classical physics and effective theories in contemporary physics. This relates to the larger question of how physical theories should be interpreted.     

Duality as a category-theoretic concept

In a paper published in 1939, Ernest Nagel described the role that projective duality had played in the reformulation of mathematical understanding through the turn of the nineteenth century, claiming that the discovery of the principle of duality had freed mathematicians from the belief that their task was to describe intuitive elements. While instances of duality in mathematics have increased enormously through the twentieth century, philosophers since Nagel have paid little attention to the phenomenon. In this paper I will argue that a reassessment is overdue. Something beyond doubt is that category theory has an enormous amount to say on the subject, for example, in terms of arrow reversal, dualising objects and adjunctions. These developments have coincided with changes in our understanding of identity and structure within mathematics. While it transpires that physicists have employed the term ‘duality’ in ways which do not always coincide with those of mathematicians, analysis of the latter should still prove very useful to philosophers of physics. Consequently, category theory presents itself as an extremely important language for the philosophy of physics.     

Prelude to chemistry in industry

The Smith's Prize competition was established in Cambridge in 1768 by the will of Robert Smith (1689-1768). By fostering an interest in the study of applied mathematics, the competition contributed towards the success in mathematical physics that was to become the hallmark of Cambridge mathematics during the second half of the nineteenth century. Perceptions of Smith's intentions were to play a part in discussions about the content and balance of the mathematics curriculum, as may be seen in the Airy quotation in the title. In the twentieth century the competition acted to stimulate the formalization of Cambridge postgraduate research in mathematics. Throughout its existence the competition has played a significant role by providing a springboard for graduates considering an academic career and the majority of prize-winners have gone on to become professional mathematicians or physicists. In seeking the reasons behind the competition's success, attention has been paid to the life and work of Robert Smith, the intention behind his bequest, and the history of the competition from its origins until 1940.     

The constitutive a priori and the distinction between mathematical and physical possibility

This paper is concerned with Friedman׳s recent revival of the notion of the relativized a priori. It is particularly concerned with addressing the question as to how Friedman׳s understanding of the constitutive function of the a priori has changed since his defence of the idea in his Dynamics of Reason. Friedman׳s understanding of the a priori remains influenced by Reichenbach׳s initial defence of the idea; I argue that this notion of the a priori does not naturally lend itself to describing the historical development of space-time physics. Friedman׳s analysis of the role of the rotating frame thought experiment in the development of general relativity – which he suggests made the mathematical possibility of four-dimensional space-time a genuine physical possibility – has a central role in his argument. I analyse this thought experiment and argue that it is better understood by following Cassirer and placing emphasis on regulative principles. Furthermore, I argue that Cassirer׳s Kantian framework enables us to capture Friedman׳s key insights into the nature of the constitutive a priori.     

Giulio Racah and theoretical physics in Jerusalem

The present article considers Giulio Racah’s contributions to general physical theory and his establishment of theoretical physics as a discipline in Israel. Racah developed mathematical methods that are based on tensor operators and continuous groups. These methods revolutionized spectroscopy. Currently, these are essential research tools in atomic, nuclear and elementary particle physics. He himself applied them to modernizing theoretical atomic spectroscopy. Racah laid the foundations of theoretical physics in Israel. He educated several generations of Israeli physicists, and put Israel on the world map of physics.     

Naturalness,the autonomy of scales,and the 125 GeV Higgs

The recent discovery of the Higgs at 125 GeV by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC has put significant pressure on a principle which has guided much theorizing in high energy physics over the last 40 years, the principle of naturalness. In this paper, I provide an explication of the conceptual foundations and physical significance of the naturalness principle. I argue that the naturalness principle is well-grounded both empirically and in the theoretical structure of effective field theories, and that it was reasonable for physicists to endorse it. Its possible failure to be realized in nature, as suggested by recent LHC data, thus represents an empirical challenge to certain foundational aspects of our understanding of QFT. In particular, I argue that its failure would undermine one class of recent proposals which claim that QFT provides us with a picture of the world as being structured into quasi-autonomous physical domains.     

The five problems of irreversibility

Thermodynamics has a clear arrow of time, characterized by the irreversible approach to equilibrium. This stands in contrast to the laws of microscopic theories, which are invariant under time-reversal. Foundational discussions of this “problem of irreversibility” often focus on historical considerations, and do therefore not take results of modern physical research on this topic into account. In this article, I will close this gap by studying the implications of dynamical density functional theory (DDFT), a central method of modern nonequilibrium statistical mechanics not previously considered in philosophy of physics, for this debate. For this purpose, the philosophical discussion of irreversibility is structured into five problems, concerned with the source of irreversibility in thermodynamics, the definition of equilibrium and entropy, the justification of coarse-graining, the approach to equilibrium and the arrow of time. For each of these problems, it is shown that DDFT provides novel insights that are of importance for both physicists and philosophers of physics.     

Thomas Reid’s Newtonian Theism: his differences with the classical arguments of Richard Bentley and William Whiston

Reid was a Newtonian and a Theist, but did he found his Theism on Newton’s physics? In opposition to commonplace assumptions about the role of Theism in Reid’s philosophy, my answer is no. Reid prefers to found his Theism on a priori reasons, rather than on physics. Reid’s understanding of physics as an empirical science stops it from contributing in any clear and efficient way to issues of natural theology. In addition, Reid is highly sceptical of our ability to discover the efficient and final causes of natural phenomena, knowledge of which is essential for natural theology. To bring out Reid’s differences with classical Newtonian Theists Richard Bentley and William Whiston, I examine their use of the law and force of general gravitation, and reconstruct what would be Reidian objections.     

Structuralism and the conformity of mathematics and nature

Structuralists typically appeal to some variant of the widely popular ‘mapping’ account of mathematical representation to suggest that mathematics is applied in modern science to represent the world’s physical structure. However, in this paper, I argue that this realist interpretation of the ‘mapping’ account presupposes that physical systems possess an ‘assumed structure’ that is at odds with modern physical theory. Through two detailed case studies concerning the use of the differential and variational calculus in modern dynamics, I show that the formal structure that we need to assume in order to apply the mapping account is inconsistent with the way in which mathematics is applied in modern physics. The problem is that a realist interpretation of the ‘mapping’ account imposes too severe of a constraint on the conformity that must exist between mathematics and nature in order for mathematics to represent the structure of a physical system.     

Vital Instability: Life and Free Will in Physics and Physiology, 1860–1880

During the period 1860–1880, a number of physicists and mathematicians, including Maxwell, Stewart, Cournot and Boussinesq, used theories formulated in terms of physics to argue that the mind, the soul or a vital principle could have an impact on the body. This paper shows that what was primarily at stake for these authors was a concern about the irreducibility of life and the mind to physics, and that their theories can be regarded primarily as reactions to the law of conservation of energy, which was used among others by Helmholtz and Du Bois-Reymond as an argument against the possibility of vital and mental causes in physiology. In light of this development, Maxwell, Stewart, Cournot and Boussinesq showed that it was still possible to argue for the irreducibility of life and the mind to physics, through an appeal to instability or indeterminism in physics: if the body is an unstable or physically indeterministic system, an immaterial principle can act through triggering or directing motions in the body, without violating the laws of physics.     

‘Let the stars shine in peace!’ Niels Bohr and stellar energy, 1929–1934

Faced with various anomalies related to nuclear physics in particular, in 1929 Niels Bohr suggested that energy might not be conserved in the atomic nucleus and the processes involving it. By this radical proposal he hoped not only to get rid of the anomalies but also saw a possibility to explain a puzzle in astrophysics, namely the energy generated by stars. Bohr repeated his suggestion of stellar energy arising ex nihilo on several occasions but without ever going into detail. In fact, it is not very clear what he meant or how seriously he took the stellar energy hypothesis. This paper relates Bohr's comments to the period's attempts to find a mechanism for stellar energy and also to the role played by astrophysics at the Copenhagen institute. Moreover, it looks at how Bohr's hypothesis was received not only by physicists but also by astronomers. In this regard the disciplinary status of astrophysics and its contemporary relation to the new quantum mechanics is of relevance. It turns out that, with very few exceptions, the hypothesis was met with silence by astronomers and astrophysicists concerned with the problem of stellar energy production. And yet, for a brief period of time it did have an impact on how physicists thought about the interior of the stars.     

Structure,scale and emergence

In this paper I consider the structures that chemists and physicists attribute at the molecular scale to substances and materials of various kinds, and how they relate to structures and processes at other scales. I argue that the structure of a substance is the set of properties and relations which are preserved across all the conditions in which it can be said to exist. In short, structure is abstraction. On the basis of this view, and using concrete examples, I argue that structures, and therefore the chemical substances and other materials to which they are essential, are emergent. Firstly, structures themselves are scale-dependent because they can only exist within certain physical conditions, and a single substance may have different structures at different scales (of length, time and energy). Secondly, the distinctness of both substances and structures is a scale-dependent relationship: above a certain point, two distinct possibilities may become one. Thirdly, the necessary conditions for composition, for both substances and molecular species, are scale-dependent. To know whether a group of nuclei and electrons form a molecule it is not enough to consider energy alone: one also has to know about their environment and the lifetime over which the group robustly hangs together.     

Between Kepler and Newton: Hooke’s ‘principles of congruity and incongruity’ and the naturalization of mathematics

ABSTRACT

Robert Hooke’s development of the theory of matter-as-vibration provides coherence to a career in natural philosophy which is commonly perceived as scattered and haphazard. It also highlights aspects of his work for which he is rarely credited: besides the creative speculative imagination and practical-instrumental ingenuity for which he is known, it displays lucid and consistent theoretical thought and mathematical skills. Most generally and importantly, however, Hooke’s ‘Principles?…?of Congruity and Incongruity of bodies’ represent a uniquely powerful approach to the most pressing challenge of the New Science: legitimizing the application of mathematics to the study of nature. This challenge required reshaping the mathematical practices and procedures; an epistemological framework supporting these practices; and a metaphysics which could make sense of this epistemology. Hooke’s ‘Uniform Geometrical or Mechanical Method’ was a bold attempt to answer the three challenges together, by interweaving mathematics through physics into metaphysics and epistemology. Mathematics, in his rendition, was neither an abstract and ideal structure (as it was for Kepler), nor a wholly-flexible, artificial human tool (as it was for Newton). It drew its power from being contingent on the particularities of the material world.     

Topology Change and the Unity of Space

Must space be a unity? This question, which exercised Aristotle, Descartes and Kant, is a specific instance of a more general one; namely, can the topology of physical space change with time? In this paper we show how the discussion of the unity of space has been altered but survives in contemporary research in theoretical physics. With a pedagogical review of the role played by the Euler characteristic in the mathematics of relativistic spacetimes, we explain how classical general relativity (modulo considerations about energy conditions) allows virtually unrestrained spatial topology change in four dimensions. We also survey the situation in many other dimensions of interest. However, topology change comes with a cost: a famous theorem by Robert Geroch shows that, for many interesting types of such change, transitions of spatial topology imply the existence of closed timelike curves or temporal non-orientability. Ways of living with this theorem and of evading it are discussed.     

How physics flew the philosophers' nest

We all know that, nowadays, physics and philosophy are housed in separate departments on university campuses. They are distinct disciplines with their own journals and conferences, and in general they are practiced by different people, using different tools and methods. We also know that this was not always the case: up until the early 17th century (at least), physics was a part of philosophy. So what happened? And what philosophical lessons should we take away? We argue that the split took place long after Newton's Principia (rather than before, as many standard accounts would have it), and offer a new account of the philosophical reasons that drove the separation. We argue that one particular problem, dating back to Descartes and persisting long into the 18th century, played a pivotal role. The failure to solve it, despite repeated efforts, precipitates a profound change in the relationship between physics and philosophy. The culprit is the problem of collisions. Innocuous though it may seem, this problem becomes the bellwether of deeper issues concerning the nature and properties of bodies in general. The failure to successfully address the problem led to a reconceptualization of the goals and subject-matter of physics, a change in the relationship between physics and mechanics, and a shift in who had authority over the most fundamental issues in physics.     

Heuristic analogy in Ars Conjectandi: From Archimedes' De Circuli Dimensione to Bernoulli's theorem

This article investigates the way in which Jacob Bernoulli proved the main mathematical theorem that undergirds his art of conjecturing—the theorem that founded, historically, the field of mathematical probability. It aims to contribute a perspective into the question of problem-solving methods in mathematics while also contributing to the comprehension of the historical development of mathematical probability. It argues that Bernoulli proved his theorem by a process of mathematical experimentation in which the central heuristic strategy was analogy. In this context, the analogy functioned as an experimental hypothesis. The article expounds, first, Bernoulli's reasoning for proving his theorem, describing it as a process of experimentation in which hypothesis-making is crucial. Next, it investigates the analogy between his reasoning and Archimedes' approximation of the value of π, by clarifying both Archimedes' own experimental approach to the said approximation and its heuristic influence on Bernoulli's problem-solving strategy. The discussion includes some general considerations about analogy as a heuristic technique to make experimental hypotheses in mathematics.     

Proposition II (Book I) of Newton’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Principia</Emphasis>

After preparing the way with comments on evanescent quantities and then Newton’s interpretation of his second law, this study of Proposition II (Book I)— Proposition II Every body that moves in some curved line described in a plane and, by a radius drawn to a point, either unmoving or moving uniformly forward with a rectilinear motion, describes areas around that point proportional to the times, is urged by a centripetal force tending toward that same point. —asks and answers the following questions: When does a version of Proposition II first appear in Newton’s work? What revisions bring that initial version to the final form in the 1726 Principia? What, exactly, does this proposition assert? In particular, what does Newton mean by the motion of a body “urged by a centripetal force”? Does it assert a true mathematical claim? If not, what revision makes it true? Does the demonstration of Proposition II persuade? Is it as convincing, for example, as the most convincing arguments of the Principia? If not, what revisions would make the demonstration more persuasive? What is the importance of Proposition II, to the physics of Book III and the mathematics of Book I?     

Relativities of fundamentality

S-dualities have been held to have radical implications for our metaphysics of fundamentality. In particular, it has been claimed that they make the fundamentality status of a physical object theory-relative in an important new way. But what physicists have had to say on the issue has not been clear or consistent, and in particular seems to be ambiguous between whether S-dualities demand an anti-realist interpretation of fundamentality talk or merely a revised realism. This paper is an attempt to bring some clarity to the matter. After showing that even antecedently familiar fundamentality claims are true only relative to a raft of metaphysical, physical, and mathematical assumptions, I argue that the relativity of fundamentality inherent in S-duality nevertheless represents something new, and that part of the reason for this is that it has both realist and anti-realist implications for fundamentality talk. I close by discussing the broader significance that S-dualities have for structuralist metaphysics and for fundamentality metaphysics more generally.     

String theory,Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical

String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein's biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics.     

The making of an intrinsic property: “Symmetry heuristics” in early particle physics

Mathematical invariances, usually referred to as “symmetries”, are today often regarded as providing a privileged heuristic guideline for understanding natural phenomena, especially those of micro-physics. The rise of symmetries in particle physics has often been portrayed by physicists and philosophers as the “application” of mathematical invariances to the ordering of particle phenomena, but no historical studies exist on whether and how mathematical invariances actually played a heuristic role in shaping microphysics. Moreover, speaking of an “application” of invariances conflates the formation of concepts of new intrinsic degrees of freedom of elementary particles with the formulation of models containing invariances with respect to those degrees of freedom. I shall present here a case study from early particle physics (ca. 1930–1954) focussed on the formation of one of the earliest concepts of a new degree of freedom, baryon number, and on the emergence of the invariance today associated to it. The results of the analysis show how concept formation and “application” of mathematical invariances were distinct components of a complex historical constellation in which, beside symmetries, two further elements were essential: the idea of physically conserved quantities and that of selection rules. I shall refer to the collection of different heuristic strategies involving selection rules, invariances and conserved quantities as the “SIC-triangle” and show how different authors made use of them to interpret the wealth of new experimental data. It was only a posteriori that the successes of this hybrid “symmetry heuristics” came to be attributed exclusively to mathematical invariances and group theory, forgetting the role of selection rules and of the notion of physically conserved quantity in the emergence of new degrees of freedom and new invariances. The results of the present investigation clearly indicate that opinions on the role of symmetries in fundamental physics need to be critically reviewed in the spirit of integrated history and philosophy of science.