https://arxiv.org/api/JQbzApC1HKmGKZlxvZzDdTZMlso 2026-06-21T14:28:06Z 5621 810 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04047v2 2024-06-19T12:52:42Z

It is universally believed that with his 1905 paper "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?" Einstein first demonstrated the equivalence of mass and energy by making use of his special theory of relativity. In the final step of that paper, however, Einstein equates the kinetic energy of a body to its Newtonian value, indicating that his result is at best a low-velocity approximation. Today, several characters debate whether a mid-nineteenth century physicist, employing only physics available at the time, could plausibly arrive at the celebrated result. In other words, is Einsteinian relativity necessary to derive ${\mc E}=mc^2$?

2024-02-06T14:49:58Z 33 pages, 3 figures. Moderate line-editing on previous version. A few derivations slightly trimmed/simplified. "Victorian" thought experiment in Sec. 7 simplified by going to two masses instead of three. Eur. J. Phys (2024) Eur. J. Phys. 45 (2024) 053001 (21 pp) Tony Rothman 10.1088/1361-6404/ad67ba http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13058v1 2024-06-18T21:04:45Z

How should we interpret physical theories, and especially quantum theory, if we drop the assumption that we should treat it as an exact description of the whole Universe? I expound and develop the claim that physics is about the study of autonomous, but not necessarily isolated, dynamical systems, and that when applied to quantum mechanics this entails that in general we should take quantum systems as having mixed states and non-unitary dynamics. I argue that nonetheless unitary dynamics continues to have a special place in physics, via the empirically-well-supported reductionist principles that non-unitarity is to be explained by restriction to a subsystem of a larger unitary system and that microscopic physics is governed by unitary and largely known dynamics. I contrast this position with the `Open Systems View' advocated recently by Michael Cuffaro and Stephan Hartmann.

2024-06-18T21:04:45Z David Wallace http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05695v2 2024-06-13T16:02:01Z

This paper uses anthropic reasoning to argue for the Non-Arbitrary Existence Hypothesis (NAEH). Nick Bostrom's Self-Sampling Assumption (SSA) combined with NAEH is compared against SSA without such an assumption and also SSA with the Self-Indication Assumption (SIA). When considered in the light of various thought experiments, including the Incubator Gedanken, the Doomsday Argument, the Presumptuous Philosopher and Bostrom's Adam and Eve thought experiments, SSA with NAEH is found to give the most plausible results. The possibility of principles not explicitly considered in the paper being superior also is discussed but found to have limited plausibility.

2020-10-09T16:11:38Z 13 pages - Tidied up section on Doomsday Argument. Other minor changes Toby Pereira http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09452v1 2024-06-12T17:54:02Z

In this work we argue against the interpretation that underlies the "Standard" account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) that was established during the 1930s by Niels Bohr and Paul Dirac. Ever since, following this orthodox narrative, physicists have dogmatically proclaimed -- quite regardless of the deep contradictions and problems -- that the the theory of quanta describes a microscopic realm composed of elementary particles (such as electrons, protons and neutrons) which underly our macroscopic world composed of tables, chairs and dogs. After critically addressing this atomist dogma still present today in contemporary (quantum) physics and philosophy, we present a new understanding of quantum individuals defined as the minimum set of relations within a specific degree of complexity capable to account for all relations within that same degree. In this case, quantum individuality is not conceived in absolute terms but -- instead -- as an objectively relative concept which even though depends of the choice of bases and factorizations remain nonetheless part of the same invariant representation.

2024-06-12T17:54:02Z 17 pages. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2405.05756 Christian de Ronde Raimundo Fernández Mouján César Massri http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07359v3 2024-06-12T06:18:04Z

In recent years, the question of the reliability of Machine Learning (ML) methods has acquired significant importance, and the analysis of the associated uncertainties has motivated a growing amount of research. However, most of these studies have applied standard error analysis to ML models, and in particular Deep Neural Network (DNN) models, which represent a rather significant departure from standard scientific modelling. It is therefore necessary to integrate the standard error analysis with a deeper epistemological analysis of the possible differences between DNN models and standard scientific modelling and the possible implications of these differences in the assessment of reliability. This article offers several contributions. First, it emphasises the ubiquitous role of model assumptions (both in ML and traditional Science) against the illusion of theory-free science. Secondly, model assumptions are analysed from the point of view of their (epistemic) complexity, which is shown to be language-independent. It is argued that the high epistemic complexity of DNN models hinders the estimate of their reliability and also their prospect of long-term progress. Some potential ways forward are suggested. Thirdly, this article identifies the close relation between a model's epistemic complexity and its interpretability, as introduced in the context of responsible AI. This clarifies in which sense, and to what extent, the lack of understanding of a model (black-box problem) impacts its interpretability in a way that is independent of individual skills. It also clarifies how interpretability is a precondition for assessing the reliability of any model, which cannot be based on statistical analysis alone. This article focuses on the comparison between traditional scientific models and DNN models. But, Random Forest and Logistic Regression models are also briefly considered.

2024-01-14T20:14:07Z To appear in Minds and Machines Minds & Machines 34, 27 (2024) Luigi Scorzato 10.1007/s11023-024-09682-0 http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13928v3 2024-06-12T04:51:09Z

In previous work with Ken Wharton, it was proposed that Bell correlations are a special sort of selection artefact, explained by a combination of (i) collider bias and (ii) a boundary constraint on the collider variable. This requires no direct causal influence outside lightcones, and may hence offer a new way to reconcile Bell nonlocality and relativity. This piece outlines a new argument for the proposal. It explains how it is valid for a special class of ('W-shaped') Bell experiments involving delayed-choice entanglement swapping, and argues that it can be extended to the general ('V-shaped') case. A detailed version of the argument is now available in arXiv:2406.04571 [quant-ph].

2024-04-22T07:04:51Z 17 pages, 5 figures; this version adds minor bibliographical tweaks, and changes the V and W notation to play nicely with the HTML conversion Huw Price http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09198v2 2024-06-10T20:05:22Z

In the philosophical literature, symmetries of physical theories are most often interpreted within the general doctrine called 'Sophistication'. Roughly speaking, it says that models related by symmetries can peacefully co-exist while representing the same physical possibility. But this interpretation still leaves open two main worries about Sophistication: (a) it allows the individuation of what I call 'structure-tokens' to remain intractable and thus of limited use, which is why practising physicists frequently invoke 'relational, symmetry-invariant observables'; and (b) it leaves us with no formal framework for expressing counterfactual statements about the world. Here, I will show that a new Desideratum to be satisfied by theories with symmetries answers these worries. The new Desideratum is that the theory admits what I will call representational conventions for its structure-tokens.

2024-02-14T14:28:22Z v2: Major revision for clarity of exposition. 39 pages; with 3 page appendix Henrique Gomes http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06659v1 2024-06-10T11:26:12Z

Owing to the contextuality of the properties of quantum objects, quantum mechanics does not appear to countenance the elision of the thinking and perceiving subject. If quantum objects owe their properties to the experimental conditions in which they are observed, the experimental apparatus cannot owe its properties to the quantum objects of which it is commonly said to be composed. It follows that neither quantum objects nor measuring instruments can be regarded as property-carriers existing independently of conscious subjects. However, if the difference between the classical domain and the quantum domain is understood as essentially the difference between the manifested world and what is instrumental in its manifestation, the elision of the subject can again be achieved.

2024-06-10T11:26:12Z 13 pages Ulrich Mohrhoff http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06159v1 2024-06-10T10:44:08Z

A derivation of Balmer's formula is presented, guided by the principles of simplicity and harmony.

2024-06-10T10:44:08Z 4 pages D V Redzic http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11456v2 2024-06-09T22:52:16Z

This essay offers a meta-level analysis in the sociology and history of physics in the context of the so-called "Arrow of Time Problem" or "Two Times Problem," which asserts that the empirically observed directionality of time is in conflict with physical theory. I argue that there is actually no necessary conflict between physics and the arrow of time, and that the observed directionality of time is perfectly consistent with physics unconstrained by certain optional metaphysical, epistemological and methodological beliefs and practices characterizing the conventional or Received View.

2023-11-19T23:43:07Z Invited contribution to Proceedings of Conference on the Arrow of Time, Buenos Aires, February 2023; final accepted version R. E. Kastner http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01293v2 2024-06-09T16:47:43Z

Raoul Gatto and Bruno Touschek's collaboration in the establishment of electron positron colliders as a fundamental discovery tool in particle physics will be illustrated. In particular, we will tell the little-known story of how Gatto and Touschek's pioneering vision combined to provide the theoretical foundations for AdA, the first matter-antimatter collider, and how their friendship with Wolfgang Pauli and Gerhard Lüders was crucial to their understanding of the CPT theorem, the basis for AdA's success. We will see how these two exceptional scientists shaped physics between Rome and Frascati, from the proposal to build AdA and, soon after in 1961, the larger machine ADONE, to the discovery of the $J/Ψ$ particle in 1974. We will also highlight Gatto and Touschek's contribution in mentoring an extraordinary cohort of students and collaborators whose work contributed to the renaissance of Italian theoretical physics after the Second World War and to the establishment of the Standard Model of particle physics.

2023-11-02T15:08:39Z 69 pages, 29 figures, 3 appendices, doubling the previous version in number of pages, many more figures and added bibliography, enlarging version1 to incorporate Gatto and Touschek's legacy beyond AdA with extra sections about ADONE, the development of the Frascati Laboratory theory group, the appearance of multihadron production and the confirmation of the American discovery of the J/Psi Luisa Bonolis MPIWG, Berlin Franco Buccella INFN Rome1 Giulia Pancheri INFN-LNF and CREF http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12156v3 2024-06-08T18:27:39Z

In spring 1949 about 70 physicists from eight countries met in Florence to discuss recent trends in statistical mechanics. This scientific gathering, co-organized by the Commission on Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) and the Italian Physical Society (SIF), initiated a tradition of IUPAP-sponsored international conferences on statistical mechanics that lasts to this day. In 1977, when this conference series took the name of StatPhys, the foundational role of the Florence conference was recognized by retrospectively naming it StatPhys1. This paper examines the dual scientific and social significance of the conference, situating it in the broader contexts of the post-World War II reconstruction in Italian physics and of the revitalization of the international science organization. Through an analysis of IUPAP archives and Italian records, we illustrate how the event's success hinged on the aligned objectives of its organizers. Internationally, it was instrumental in defining the scientific and organizational foundations for the activities of IUPAP commissions during a critical phase of IUPAP's history, when the Union was resurging on the international scene after the inactivity of the interwar period. Nationally, the conference served as a cornerstone in SIF's strategy to re-establish Italian physics' international stature and to aid the domestic revitalization of physics through the internationalization of its activities, notably of its flagship journal, \textit{Il Nuovo Cimento}. This analysis not only sheds light on the conference's impact but also informs recent discussions in the history of science about the multiple roles of international scientific conferences.

2024-04-18T13:00:36Z 44 pages. We have added a more extensive recontextualization at a scientific level of statistical mechanics as an emerging discipline at the time of the 1949 conference organized in Florence.The manuscript has been accepted for publication in The European Physical Journal H Roberto Lalli Paolo Politi http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01719v3 2024-06-08T11:25:11Z

"Norton's Dome" is an example of a Newtonian system that violates the Lipschitz condition at a single point, leading to non-unique solutions (indeterminism). Here we reformulate this problem into a "weak" form (in the sense of distributions). In our description the indeterminism manifests through the problematic interpretation of initial conditions, since distributions (as linear functionals on the space of test functions) do not have values at individual points.

2018-01-05T11:23:27Z 7 pages, no figures, minor revision; comments welcome Christine C. Dantas Astrophysics Division - INPE - Brazil http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.12782v3 2024-06-07T08:29:03Z

We scan Paul K. Feyerabend's work in philosophy of physics and of science more generally for insights that could be useful for the contemporary debate on the foundations of quantum mechanics. We take as our starting point what Feyerabend has actually written about quantum mechanics, but we extend our analysis to his general views on realism, objectivity, pluralism, and the relation between physics and philosophy, finding that these more general views could in fact offer many interesting insights for physicists and philosophers working on quantum foundations.

2022-12-24T17:17:31Z 30 pages; invited contribution to a special issue in International Studies in Philosophy of Science, dedicated to the work of P. K. Feyerabend; v2: improved presentations, several clarifications added, typos corrected, references added; v3: improved presentation, more typos corrected, more references added Daniele Oriti http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04571v1 2024-06-07T01:22:37Z

We propose that quantum entanglement is a special sort of selection artefact, explicable as a combination of (i) collider bias and (ii) a boundary constraint on the collider variable. We show that the proposal is valid for a special class of (`W-shaped') Bell experiments involving delayed-choice entanglement swapping, and argue that it can be extended to the ordinary (`V-shaped') case. The proposal requires no direct causal influence outside lightcones, and may hence offer a way to reconcile Bell nonlocality and relativity. The main argument is a detailed version of an approach previously outlined in arXiv:2404.13928 [quant-ph].

2024-06-07T01:22:37Z 39 pages, 8 figures, and 1 table Huw Price Ken Wharton