Mario Bacelar Valente

A re-evaluation of the notion of vacuum in quantum electrodynamics is presented, focusing on the vacuum of the quantized electromagnetic field. In contrast to the ‘nothingness’ associated to the idea of classical vacuum, subtle aspects are found in relation to the vacuum of the quantized electromagnetic field both at theoretical and experimental levels. These are not the usually called vacuum effects. The view defended here is that the so-called vacuum effects are not due to the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field. Nevertheless it is possible to maintain an empirically demonstrable notion of vacuum state that is consistent with the interpretation of the formalism of the theory.

Quantum electrodynamics presents intrinsic limitations in the description of physical processes that make it impossible to recover from it the type of description we have in classical electrodynamics. Hence one cannot consider classical electrodynamics as reducing to quantum electrodynamics and being recovered from it by some sort of limiting procedure. Quantum electrodynamics has to be seen not as a more fundamental theory, but as an upgrade of classical electrodynamics, which permits an extension of classical theory to the description of phenomena that, while being related to the conceptual framework of the classical theory, cannot be addressed from the classical theory.

Einstein's gravitational redshift derivation in his famous 1916 paper on general relativity seems to be problematic, being mired in what looks like conceptual difficulties or at least contradictions or gaps in his exposition. Was this derivation a blunder? To answer this question, we will consider Einstein’s redshift derivations from his first one in 1907 to the 1921 derivation made in his Princeton lectures on relativity. This will enable to see the unfolding of an interdependent network of concepts and heuristic derivations in which previous ideas inform and condition later developments. The resulting derivations and views on coordinates and clocks are in fact not without inconsistencies. However, we can see these difficulties as an aspect of an evolving network understood as a “work in progress”.

in this paper we return to Marshall Clagett’s view about the existence of an ancient Greek geometry of motion. It can be read in two ways. As a basic presentation of ancient Greek geometry of motion, followed by some aspects of its further development in landmark works by Galileo and Newton. Conversely, it can be read as a basic presentation of aspects of Galileo’s and Newton’s mathematics that can be considered as developments of a geometry of motion that was first conceived by ancient Greek mathematicians.

It has been argued in relation to Old Babylonian mathematical procedure texts that their validity or correctness is self-evident. One “sees” that the procedure is correct without it having, or being accompanied by, any explicit arguments for the correctness of the procedure. Even when agreeing with this view, one might still ask about how is the correctness of a procedure articulated? In this work, we present an articulation of the correctness of ancient Egyptian and Old Babylonian mathematical procedure texts – mathematical texts presenting the solution of problems. We endeavor to make explicit and explain how and why the procedures are reliable over and above the fact that their correctness is intuitive.

The purpose of this work is to address the relation existing between ancient Greek practical geometry and ancient Greek pure geometry. In the first part of the work, we will consider practical and pure geometry and how pure geometry can be seen, in some respects, as arising from an idealization of practical geometry. From an analysis of relevant extant texts, we will make explicit the idealizations at play in pure geometry in relation to practical geometry, some of which are basically explicit in definitions, like that of segments in Euclid’s Elements. Then, we will address how in pure geometry we, so to speak, “refer back” to practical geometry. This occurs in two ways. One, in the propositions of pure geometry. The other, when applying pure geometry. In this case, geometrical objects can represent practical figures like, e.g., a practical segment.

In this work, we consider the views of three exponents of major areas of linguistics – Levelt (psycholinguistics), Jackendoff (theoretical linguistics), and Gil (field linguistics) – regarding the issue of the universality or not of the conceptual structure of languages. In Levelt’s view, during language production, the conceptual structure of the preverbal message is language-specific. In Jackendoff’s theoretical approach to language – his parallel architecture –, there is a universal conceptual structure shared by all languages, in contradiction to Levelt’s view. In Gil’s work on Riau Indonesian, he proposes a conceptual structure that is quite different from that of English, adopted by Jackendoff as universal. We find no reason to disagree with Gil’s view. In this way, we take Gil’s work as vindicating Levelt’s view that during language production preverbal messages are encoded with different conceptual structures for different languages.

A perverted space-time geodesy results from the idea of variable rods and clocks, whose length and rates are taken to be affected by the gravitational field. By contrast, what we might call a concrete geodesy relies on the idea of invariable unit-measuring rods and clocks. Indeed, this is a basic assumption of general relativity. Variable rods and clocks lead to a perverted geodesy, in the sense that a curved space-time may be seen as a result of a departure from the Minkowskian space-time as an effect of the gravitational field on the rate of clocks and the length of rods. In the case of a concrete geodesy, we have a curved space-time “directly”, the curvature of which can be determined using (invariable) unit-measuring rods and clocks. In this paper, we will make the case for the plausibility of the claim that Einstein’s views on geometry in relation to general relativity are permeated by a perverted geodesy.

In this paper, we will make explicit the relationship that exists between geometric objects and geometric figures in planar Euclidean geometry. That will enable us to determine basic features regarding the role of geometric figures and diagrams when used in the context of pure and applied planar Euclidean geometry, arising due to this relationship. By taking into account pure geometry, as developed in Euclid’s Elements, and practical geometry, we will establish a relation between geometric objects and figures. Geometric objects are defined in terms of idealizations of the corresponding figures of practical geometry. We name the relationship between them as a relation of idealization. This relation, existing between objects and figures, is what enables figures to have a role in pure and applied geometry. That is, we can use a figure or diagram as a representation of geometric objects or composite geometric objects because the relation of idealization corresponds to a resemblance-like relationship between objects and figures. Moving beyond pure geometry, we will defend that there are two other ‘layers’ of representation at play in applied geometry. To show that, we will consider Euclid’s Optics.

When adopting a sound logical system, reasonings made within this system are correct. The situation with reasonings expressed, at least in part, with natural language is much more ambiguous. One way to be certain of the correctness of these reasonings is to provide a logical model of them. To conclude that a reasoning process is correct we need the logical model to be faithful to the reasoning. In this case, the reasoning inherits, so to speak, the correctness of the logical model. There is a weak link in this procedure, which we call the faithfulness problem: how do we decide that the logical model is faithful to the reasoning that it is supposed to model? That is an issue external to logic, and we do not have rigorous formal methods to make the decision. The purpose of this paper is to expose the faithfulness problem (not to solve it). For that purpose, we will consider two examples, one from the geometrical reasoning in Euclid’s Elements and the other from a study on deductive reasoning in the psychology of reasoning.

The cognitive basis of geometry is still poorly understood, even the ‘simpler’ issue of what kind of representation of geometric objects we have. In this work, we set forward a tentative model of the neural representation of geometric objects for the case of the pure geometry of Euclid. To arrive at a coherent model, we found it necessary to consider earlier forms of geometry. We start by developing models of the neural representation of the geometric figures of ancient Greek practical geometry. Then, we propose a related model for the earliest form of pure geometry – that of Hippocrates of Chios. Finally, we develop the model of the neural representation of the geometric objects of Euclidean geometry. The models are based on the hub-and-spoke theory. In our view, the existence of specific models opens the possibility of addressing the relationship between geometric figures and geometric objects, in a novel way, in terms of their neural representation.

When addressing the notion of proper time in the theory of relativity, it is usually taken for granted that the time read by an accelerated clock is given by the Minkowski proper time. However, there are authors like Harvey Brown that consider necessary an extra assumption to arrive at this result, the so-called clock hypothesis. In opposition to Brown, Richard TW Arthur takes the clock hypothesis to be already implicit in the theory. In this paper I will present a view different from these authors by taking into account Einstein’s notion of natural clock and showing its relevance to the debate.

We present an approach in which ancient Greek mathematical proofs by Hippocrates of Chios and Euclid are addressed as a form of (guided) intentional reasoning. Schematically, in a proof, we start with a sentence that works as a premise; this sentence is followed by another, the conclusion of what we might take to be an inferential step. That goes on until the last conclusion is reached. Guided by the text, we go through small inferential steps; in each one, we go through an autonomous reasoning process linking the premise to the conclusion. The reasoning process is accompanied by a metareasoning process. Metareasoning gives rise to a feeling-knowing of correctness. In each step/cycle of the proof, we have a feeling-knowing of correctness. Overall, we reach a feeling of correctness for the whole proof. We suggest that this approach allows us to address the issues of how a proof functions, for us, as an enabler to ascertain the correctness of its argument and how we ascertain this correctness.

ABSTRACT In Einstein’s physical geometry, the geometry of space and the uniformity of time are taken to be non-conventional. However, due to the stipulation of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light in the synchronization of clocks, as it stands, Einstein’s views do not seem to apply to the whole of the Minkowski space-time. In this work we will see how Einstein’s views can be applied to the Minkowski space-time. In this way, when adopting Einstein’s views, chronogeometry is a physical chronogeometry.

In a way similar to classical mechanics where we have the concept of inertial time as expressed in the motions of bodies, in the theory of relativity we can regard the inertial time as the only notion of time at play. The inertial time is expressed also in the propagation of light. This gives rise to a notion of clock—the light clock, which we can regard as a notion derived from the inertial time. The light clock can be seen as a solution of the theory, which complies with the requirement that a clock to be so must have a rate that is independent from its past history. Contrary to Einstein’s view, we do not need the concept of “clock” as an independent concept. This implies, in particular, that we do not need to rely on the notions of atomic clock or atomic time in the theory of relativity.

While Einstein considered that sub specie astern the correct philosophical position regarding geometry was that of the conventionality of geometry, he felt that provisionally it was necessary to adopt a non-conventional stance that he called practical geometry. here we will make the case that even when adopting Einstein’s views we must conclude that practical geometry is conventional after all. Einstein missed the fact that the conventionality of simultaneity leads to a conventional element in the chrono-geometry, since it corresponds to the possibility of different space-time metrics.

The clock hypothesis is taken to be an assumption independent of special relativity necessary to describe accelerated clocks. This enables to equate the time read off by a clock to the proper time. Here, it is considered a physical system–the light clock–proposed by Marzke and Wheeler. Recently, Fletcher proved a theorem that shows that a sufficiently small light clock has a time reading that approximates to an arbitrary degree the proper time. The clock hypothesis is not necessary to arrive at this result. Here, one explores the consequences of this regarding the status of the clock hypothesis.

Archimedes’ statics is considered as an example of ancient Greek applied mathematics; it is even seen as the beginning of mechanics. Wilbur Knorr made the case regarding this work, as other works by him or other mathematicians from ancient Greece, that it lacks references to the physical phenomena it is supposed to address. According to Knorr, this is understandable if we consider the propositions of the treatise in terms of purely mathematical elaborations suggested by quantitative aspects of the phenomena. In this paper, we challenge Knorr’s view, and address propositions of Archimedes’ statics in their relation to physical phenomena.

In this work we will consider gauge interpretations of the conventionality of simultaneity as developed initially by Anderson and Stedman, and later by Rynasiewicz. We will make a critical reassessment of these interpretations in relation to the “tradition” as developed in particular by Reichenbach, Grünbaum, and Edwards. This paper will address different issues, including: the relation between these two gauge interpretations; what advantages or defects these gauge approaches might have; how “new” Rynasiewicz’s approach in relation to the previous ones is; how much of the gauge interpretation Rynasiewicz actually applies to deal with objections to the conventionality of simultaneity thesis. The conclusion is that the gauge interpretations, in their current formulation, do not provide a better “rationale” of the conventionality of simultaneity thesis that supersedes the “tradition”.

The conventionality of simultaneity thesis as established by Reichenbach and Grünbaum is related to the partial freedom in the definition of simultaneity in an inertial reference frame. An apparently altogether different issue is that of the conventionality of spatial geometry, or more generally the conventionality of chronogeometry when taking also into account the conventionality of the uniformity of time. Here we will consider Einstein’s version of the conventionality of geometry, according to which we might adopt a different spatial geometry and a particular definition of equality of successive time intervals. The choice of a particular chronogeometry would not imply any change in a theory, since its “physical part” can be changed in a way that, regarding experimental results, the theory is the same. Here, we will make the case that the conventionality of simultaneity is closely related to Einstein’s conventionality of chronogeometry, as another conventional element leading to it.

According to Dennis Dieks, in the theory of relativity, the «flow of time» results from the succession of events along time-like worldlines. We have a flow of time per worldline. This leads to a view of now as local to each worldline. In this approach there is no global temporal order of the now-points of different worldlines. For a consistency reason it is imposed a limitation on the assignment of different now-points. Here it is made the claim that this consistency requirement is inbuilt in the theory, and it is presented a detailed analysis of this approach.

It is well-known that, historically, there is no unique interpretation, which might be named the Copenhagen interpretation. At best, it seems to be the case that there is a plethora of related interpretations that, for simplicity, are named as such. Here, a more heterodox possibility is presented. Has this interpretation ever been used/taken into account by physicists? It is a fact that historians, philosophers of science, and a handful of physicists interested in the interpretation of quantum theory have considered, discussed, and, some, endorsed, in different degrees, a Copenhagen interpretation. So, as a "by-product" of academics and their disputations, there is, evidently, a Copenhagen interpretation. But as a community, have physicists ever used/taken into account this interpretation (throughout the decades)? That some "big" names did it does not imply that, as a community, there has ever been a "living tradition" that uses, in any meaningful way, this interpretation (i.e., a community for which the interpretation existed in any practical sense). Here, we propose that this has never been the case (besides some "toy versions" of the interpretation used for educational purposes in universities).