Showing 1–9 of 9 results for author: Brown, H R

Do symmetries "explain" conservation laws? The modern converse Noether theorem vs pragmatism

Authors: Harvey R. Brown

Abstract: Noether's first theorem does not establish a one-way explanatory arrow from symmetries to conservation laws, but such an arrow is widely assumed in discussions of the theorem in the physics and philosophy literature. It is argued here that there are pragmatic reasons for privileging symmetries, even if they do not strictly justify explanatory priority. To this end, some practical factors are adduc… ▽ More Noether's first theorem does not establish a one-way explanatory arrow from symmetries to conservation laws, but such an arrow is widely assumed in discussions of the theorem in the physics and philosophy literature. It is argued here that there are pragmatic reasons for privileging symmetries, even if they do not strictly justify explanatory priority. To this end, some practical factors are adduced as to why Noether's direct theorem seems to be more well-known and exploited than its converse, with special attention being given to the sometimes overlooked nature of Noether's converse result and to its strengthened version due to Luis Martínez Alonso in 1979 and Peter Olver in 1986. △ Less

Submitted 15 June, 2021; v1 submitted 21 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: 29 pages. Submitted to: The Physics and Philosophy of Noether's Theorems, James Read, Bryan Roberts and Nicholas Teh (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. Changes to sections 3, 4.3, 6.2, 7; two new appendices and new references

Clarifying possible misconceptions in the foundations of general relativity

Authors: Harvey R. Brown, James Read

Abstract: We discuss what we take to be three possible misconceptions in the foundations of general relativity, relating to: (a) the interpretation of the weak equivalence principle and the relationship between gravity and inertia; (b) the connection between gravitational redshift results and spacetime curvature; and (c) the Einstein equivalence principle and the ability to "transform away" gravity in local… ▽ More We discuss what we take to be three possible misconceptions in the foundations of general relativity, relating to: (a) the interpretation of the weak equivalence principle and the relationship between gravity and inertia; (b) the connection between gravitational redshift results and spacetime curvature; and (c) the Einstein equivalence principle and the ability to "transform away" gravity in local inertial coordinate systems. △ Less

Submitted 18 March, 2016; v1 submitted 31 December, 2015; originally announced December 2015.

Comments: 24 pages; revised title and arguments; conclusions unaltered

Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality

Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson

Abstract: Between 1964 and 1990, the notion of nonlocality in Bell's papers underwent a profound change as his nonlocality theorem gradually became detached from quantum mechanics, and referred to wider probabilistic theories involving correlations between separated beables. The proposition that standard quantum mechanics is itself nonlocal (more precisely, that it violates `local causality') became divorce… ▽ More Between 1964 and 1990, the notion of nonlocality in Bell's papers underwent a profound change as his nonlocality theorem gradually became detached from quantum mechanics, and referred to wider probabilistic theories involving correlations between separated beables. The proposition that standard quantum mechanics is itself nonlocal (more precisely, that it violates `local causality') became divorced from the Bell theorem per se from 1976 on, although this important point is widely overlooked in the literature. In 1990, the year of his death, Bell would express serious misgivings about the mathematical form of the local causality condition, and leave ill-defined the issue of the consistency between special relativity and violation of the Bell-type inequality. In our view, the significance of the Bell theorem, both in its deterministic and stochastic forms, can only be fully understood by taking into account the fact that a fully Lorentz-covariant version of quantum theory, free of action-at-a-distance, can be articulated in the Everett interpretation. △ Less

Submitted 17 December, 2014; originally announced January 2015.

Comments: 1 figure

Ambiguities in order-theoretic formulations of thermodynamics

Authors: Robert Marsland III, Harvey R. Brown, Giovanni Valente

Abstract: Since the 1909 work of Carathéodory, formulations of thermodynamics have gained ground which highlight the role of the the binary relation of adiabatic accessibility between equilibrium states. A feature of Carathéodory's system is that the version therein of the second law contains an ambiguity about the nature of irreversible adiabatic processes, making it weaker than the traditional Kelvin-Plan… ▽ More Since the 1909 work of Carathéodory, formulations of thermodynamics have gained ground which highlight the role of the the binary relation of adiabatic accessibility between equilibrium states. A feature of Carathéodory's system is that the version therein of the second law contains an ambiguity about the nature of irreversible adiabatic processes, making it weaker than the traditional Kelvin-Planck statement of the law. This paper attempts first to clarify the nature of this ambiguity, by defining the arrow of time in thermodynamics by way of the Equilibrium Principle ("Minus First Law"). It then argues that the ambiguity reappears in the important 1999 axiomatisation due to Lieb and Yngvason. △ Less

Submitted 29 July, 2014; originally announced July 2014.

Comments: 13 pages, 1 figure

The theory of the rise of sap in trees: some historical and conceptual remarks

Authors: Harvey R. Brown

Abstract: The ability of trees to suck water from roots to leaves, sometimes to heights of over a hundred meters, is remarkable given the absence of any mechanical pump. This study deals with a number of issues, of both an historical and conceptual nature, in the orthodox Cohesion Tension theory of the ascent of sap in trees. The theory relies chiefly on the exceptional cohesive and adhesive properties of w… ▽ More The ability of trees to suck water from roots to leaves, sometimes to heights of over a hundred meters, is remarkable given the absence of any mechanical pump. This study deals with a number of issues, of both an historical and conceptual nature, in the orthodox Cohesion Tension theory of the ascent of sap in trees. The theory relies chiefly on the exceptional cohesive and adhesive properties of water, the structural properties of trees, and the role of evaporation (transpiration) from leaves. But it is not the whole story. Plant scientists have been aware since the inception of the theory in the late 19th century that further processes are at work in order to prime the trees, the main such process (growth itself) being so obvious to them that it is often omitted from the story. Other factors depend largely on the type of tree, and are not always fully understood. For physicists, in particular, it may be helpful to see the fuller picture, which is what this study attempts to provide in nontechnical terms. △ Less

Submitted 11 April, 2014; originally announced April 2014.

Comments: An updated version of published paper, with corrections and additions

Journal ref: Physics in Perspective, 15 (2013), 320-358

Einstein, the reality of space, and the action-reaction principle

Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Dennis Lehmkuhl

Abstract: Einstein regarded as one of the triumphs of his 1915 theory of gravity --- the general theory of relativity --- that it vindicated the action--reaction principle, while Newtonian mechanics as well as his 1905 special theory of relativity supposedly violated it. In this paper we examine why Einstein came to emphasise this position several years after the development of general relativity. Several k… ▽ More Einstein regarded as one of the triumphs of his 1915 theory of gravity --- the general theory of relativity --- that it vindicated the action--reaction principle, while Newtonian mechanics as well as his 1905 special theory of relativity supposedly violated it. In this paper we examine why Einstein came to emphasise this position several years after the development of general relativity. Several key considerations are relevant to the story: the connection Einstein originally saw between Mach's analysis of inertia and both the equivalence principle and the principle of general covariance, the waning of Mach's influence owing to de Sitter's 1917 results, and Einstein's detailed correspondence with Moritz Schlick in 1920. △ Less

Submitted 20 June, 2013; originally announced June 2013.

Comments: To appear in "The Nature of Reality", P. Ghose (ed.), Oxford University Press

Boltzmann's H-theorem, its limitations, and the birth of (fully) statistical mechanics

Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Wayne Myrvold

Abstract: A comparison is made of the traditional Loschmidt (reversibility) and Zermelo (recurrence) objections to Boltzmann's H-theorem, and its simplified variant in the Ehrenfests' 1912 wind-tree model. The little-cited 1896 (pre-recurrence) objection of Zermelo (similar to an 1889 argument due to Poincare) is also analysed. Significant differences between the objections are highlighted, and several ol… ▽ More A comparison is made of the traditional Loschmidt (reversibility) and Zermelo (recurrence) objections to Boltzmann's H-theorem, and its simplified variant in the Ehrenfests' 1912 wind-tree model. The little-cited 1896 (pre-recurrence) objection of Zermelo (similar to an 1889 argument due to Poincare) is also analysed. Significant differences between the objections are highlighted, and several old and modern misconceptions concerning both them and the H-theorem are clarified. We give particular emphasis to the radical nature of Poincare's and Zermelo's attack, and the importance of the shift in Boltzmann's thinking in response to the objections as a whole. △ Less

Submitted 8 September, 2008; originally announced September 2008.

Comments: 40 pages

Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity

Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Oliver Pooley

Abstract: Einstein distinguished between ``principle'' and ``constructive'' theories in physics, and although he thought the latter were more explanatory than the former, he regarded his 1905 formulation of special relativity theory as a principle theory. Some have claimed that Minkowski space-time can serve as the deep structure within a constructive reformulation of special relativity. We criticise this… ▽ More Einstein distinguished between ``principle'' and ``constructive'' theories in physics, and although he thought the latter were more explanatory than the former, he regarded his 1905 formulation of special relativity theory as a principle theory. Some have claimed that Minkowski space-time can serve as the deep structure within a constructive reformulation of special relativity. We criticise this claim, and argue that a satisfactory constructive version of special relativity must involve a dynamical treatment of the forces holding together the constitutive parts of moving rods and clocks. △ Less

Submitted 17 March, 2004; originally announced March 2004.

Comments: 18 pages, written for Petkov (ed.), The Ontology of Spacetime (in preparation)

The origins of length contraction: I. The FitzGerald-Lorentz deformation hypothesis

Authors: Harvey R Brown

Abstract: One of the widespread confusions concerning the history of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment has to do with the initial explanation of this celebrated null result due independently to FitzGerald and Lorentz. In neither case was a strict, longitudinal length contraction hypothesis invoked, as is commonly supposed. Lorentz postulated, particularly in 1895, any one of a certain family of possibl… ▽ More One of the widespread confusions concerning the history of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment has to do with the initial explanation of this celebrated null result due independently to FitzGerald and Lorentz. In neither case was a strict, longitudinal length contraction hypothesis invoked, as is commonly supposed. Lorentz postulated, particularly in 1895, any one of a certain family of possible deformation effects for rigid bodies in motion, including purely transverse alteration, and expansion as well as contraction; FitzGerald may well have had the same family in mind. A careful analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment (which reveals a number of serious inadequacies in many text-book treatments) indeed shows that strict contraction is not required. △ Less

Submitted 12 April, 2001; originally announced April 2001.

Comments: 29 pages; accepted April 2001 for publication in American Journal of Physics

Journal ref: Am.J.Phys. 69 (2001) 1044-1054