Harvey Brown

This chapter begins with a discussion of Minkowski's geometrization of special relativity (SR). It then discusses Minkowski space-time, what absolute geometry explains, and special relativity. It is argued that Einstein's contribution was not to establish a clear-cut divide between kinematics and dynamics, but the demonstration (a) of the full operational significance of the Lorentz transformations, and (b) that the latter could be obtained by imposing simple phenomenological constraints on the nature of the fundamental interactions in physics.

In his 1923 book _The Mathematical Theory of Relativity_, Arthur Eddington distinguished between two chains of reasoning in general relativity. The first familiar one starts with the existence of the four-dimensional space-time interval _d_s, whose meaning is the usual one associated with the readings of physical rods and clocks and possibly light rays. The other less familiar chain of reasoning ‘binds the physical manifestations of the energy tensor and the interval; it passes from matter as now defined by the energy-tensor to the interval regarded as the result of measurements made with this matter.’ This chapter takes up the challenge of outlining this second chain of reasoning. In developing this reasoning, it argues that the dynamical underpinning of relativistic kinematics that has been defended in this book is consistent with the structure and logic of GR.

The cradle of the special theory of relativity was the combination of Maxwellian electromagnetism and the electron theory of Lorentz (and to a lesser extent of Larmor) based on Fresnel's notion of the stationary ether. This chapter looks at the contributions of the principal figures concerned with the explanation of the _prima facie_ failure to detect any significant trace of the ether wind on the surface of the earth. Topics discussed include the Michelson-Morley experiment, Michelson-Morley kinematics, FitzGerland and Heaviside, Lorentz, Larmor, and the role of ether prior to Einstein.

This chapter argues that Albert Einstein was not the first to use the relativity principle (RP) as a postulate in the treatment of a problem in physics. Christian Huygens had done so over two hundred years earlier in his treatment of collisions. It is shown that even Newton in his pre-_Principia_ writings viewed the RP as having the same axiomatic status as his laws. But the prominent role played by the principle in Einstein's 1905 paper on moving bodies in electrodynamics marked the beginning of a new attitude concerning the foundational status of symmetries in physics.

Following Einstein's brilliant 1905 work on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and its geometrization by Minkowski which proved to be so important for the development of Einstein's general theory of relativity, it became standard to view the FitzGerald-Lorentz hypothesis as the right idea based on the wrong reasoning. This chapter expresses doubts that this standard view is correct, and believes that posterity will look kindly on the merits of the pre-Einsteinian, ‘constructive’ reasoning of FitzGerald, if not Lorentz. The theories of FitzeGerald, Michelson, Heaviside, Einstein, and Bell are discussed. The chapter also considers what space-time is not.

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 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.

The aim of this volume of essays is to delineate and examine a range of topics which represent a systematic account of the nature and implications of QFT. The contributors, who include Michael Redhead, James T. Cushing, Paul Teller, and Gordon Fleming, approach QFT from a variety of standpoints. Part I offers two different interpretations of the value of studying the foundations of QFT as an area of separate metaphysical research. Parts II and III consider the metaphysical and methodological implications of such issues as the problem of the status of virtual particles; the technique of renormalization; and the role of covariance principles. Part IV examines the mathematical foundations of QFT.

The recent philosophy of Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, represents an attempt to solve the traditional puzzles in the foundations of quantum theory by denying the objective reality of the quantum state. Einstein had hoped to remove the spectre of nonlocality in the theory by also assigning an epistemic status to the quantum state, but his version of this doctrine was recently proved to be inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics. In this essay, I present plausibility arguments, old and new, for the reality of the quantum state, and expose what I think are weaknesses in QBism as a philosophy of science.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the `Lorentzian Pedagogy' defended by J.S. Bell in his essay ``How to teach special relativity'', and to explore its consistency with Einstein's thinking from 1905 to 1952. Some remarks are also made in this context on Weyl's philosophy of relativity and his 1918 gauge theory. Finally, it is argued that the Lorentzian pedagogy---which stresses the important connection between kinematics and dynamics---clarifies the role of rods and clocks in general relativity.

The Past Hypothesis defended by David Wallace in his 2011 account of macroscopic irreversibility is technically distinct from, but in the same spirit as, that of David Albert in his 2000 book Time and Chance. I am concerned in this essay with the role of objective probability in both accounts, which I find obscure. Most of the analysis will be devoted to the classical treatments by both authors, but a final section will question whether Wallace's quantum version involving unitary dynamics removes this obscurity.

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 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 non-technical terms.

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

A comparison is made of the traditional Loschmidt and Zermelo objections to Boltzmann's H-theorem, and its simplified variant in the Ehrenfests' 1912 wind-tree model. The little-cited 1896 objection of Zermelo 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.

We approach the physics of \emph{minimal coupling} in general relativity, demonstrating that in certain circumstances this leads to violations of the \emph{strong equivalence principle}, which states that, in general relativity, the dynamical laws of special relativity can be recovered at a point. We then assess the consequences of this result for the \emph{dynamical perspective on relativity}, finding that potential difficulties presented by such apparent violations of the strong equivalence principle can be overcome. Next, we draw upon our discussion of the dynamical perspective in order to make explicit two `miracles' in the foundations of relativity theory. We close by arguing that the above results afford us insights into the nature of special relativity, and its relation to general relativity.

Three claims about what makes a theory “physically complete” are (1) Shimony's assertion that a complete theory says “all there is to say” about nature; (2) EPR's requirement that a complete theory describe all “elements of reality”; and (3) Ballentine and Jarrett's claim that a “predictively complete” theory must obey a condition used in Bell deviations. After introducing “statistical completeness” as a partial formalization of (1), we explore the logical and motivational relationships connecting these completeness conditions. We find that statistical completeness motivates but does not imply Jarrett's completeness condition, because Jarrett's condition encodes further intuitions about locality and causality. We also dispute Ballentine and Jarrett's claim that EPR-completeness implies Jarrett's completeness condition

J. S. Bell's classic 1966 review paper on the foundations of quantum mechanics led directly to the Bell nonlocality theorem. It is not widely appreciated that the review paper contained the basic ingredients needed for a nonlocality result which holds in certain situations where the Bell inequality is not violated. We present in this paper a systematic formulation and evaluation of an argument due to Stairs in 1983, which establishes a nonlocality result based on the Bell-Kochen-Specker “paradox” in quantum mechanics.