DE / EN
2023/2024
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Summer)
Vertical Divider
Time & Place:
|
Vertical Divider
|
Tuesdays from 14:15 to 15:45 CEST.
Almost all sessions can be attended via Zoom; the sessions that are indicated as 'hybrid' below may also be attended in person, in the main building (Am Hof 1, 53113 Bonn) in seminar room 1.070. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de. Subscribing to this list is possible a) here, b) by sending an empty email to hpp-subscribe@listen.uni-bonn.de, or c) by contacting jdobosze@uni-bonn.de |
Conveners:
|
Vertical Divider
|
Vertical Divider
9 April 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Karim Thébault (University of Bristol)
Decoherence and Probability Abstract
TBA |
23 April 2024
|
Vertical Divider
|
Tba
|
30 April 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Jürgen Renn (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology)
David Bohm‘s lectures on quantum theory and dialectical materialism Abstract
TBA |
7 May 2024
|
Vertical Divider
|
Tba
|
14 May 2024
hybrid (in person speaker), all day long |
Vertical Divider
|
Workshop Foundational Challenges in Cosmological Studies of Black Holes |
28 May 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Robert Rynasiewicz (John Hopkins University
Seven Myths about the Hole Argument Abstract
Tba |
4 June 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Jan Michel (University of Düsseldorf)
Can machines make scientific discoveries? Abstract
Tba |
11 June 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Tushar Menon (Australian Catholic University)
The inferentialist guide to quantum mechanics Abstract
Tba |
18 June 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Alexander Reutlinger (Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, LMU Munich)
Articulating Invariantism. Revisiting the Counterfactual Independence Account of Scientific Objectivity Abstract
Invariantism defines scientific objectivity via the notion of invariance. I will present a version of invariantism, according to which the key notion of invariance is spelled out more precisely as a specific sort of counterfactual independence. This invariantist view – the counterfactual independence account of objectivity – needs to be articulated in a more nuanced manner. To do so, I will first explore under which conditions this version of invariantism is applicable to two different concepts of objectivity: epistemic and structural objectivity. In a second step, I will analyze what the epistemic import of (different concepts of) objectivity is, what objectivity contributes to generating scientific knowledge, if one adopts the sort of invariantism I propose.
|
25 June 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Jonathan Fay (Hertz fellow; University of Bristol)
On the Reissner-Sciama hypothesis: Relative motion and the necessary existence of gravitation Abstract
Tba |
2 July 2024
online |
Vertical Divider
|
Alex Mathie (Hertz fellow; MCMP LMU Munich)
Against ‘Interactionalism’ about Black Hole Thermodynamics Abstract
Tba |
9 July 2024
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Abhay Ashtekar (Physics Department, Penn State, US and Perimeter Institute, Canada)
Einstein’s Universe and the Quantum Abstract
Our notions of space and time underwent a radical change just over a 100 years ago. Through general relativity, gravity ceased to be a force and became a manifestation of space-time geometry. This paradigm shift opened unforeseen perspectives in our understanding of the physical universe: possibility of ripples in space-time geometries that manifest themselves as gravitational waves; of black holes, representing geometries that trap not only matter but also light; and of the Big Bang, the primordial explosion marking the birth of the space-time continuum itself. However, through black holes and the big bang we also learnt that Einstein’s equations predict the presence of space-time singularities: rugged edges where the space-time continuum tears and all of classical physics comes to an abrupt halt. These singularities are the gates to physics beyond Einstein –i.e., to unification of general relativity with quantum physics. Construction of this desired theory of quantum gravity is a truly challenging task because it requires an entirely new syntax to formulate concepts that are sufficiently adequate to describe the extreme universe. We now need the quantum analog of Riemannian geometry that serves as the syntax for general relativity. After a brief discussion of why several distinct approaches are being pursued, I will focus on loop quantum gravity, based on a specific theory of Riemannian quantum geometry. I will explain how it leads to quantum space-times that extend Einstein’s classical continuum beyond its singularities. While this conceptual framework is rather abstract and involves novel mathematics, it also leads to predictions that can be tested observationally. |
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Winter)
Time & Place:
|
Vertical Divider
|
Tuesdays from 14:15 to 15:45 CEST.
Almost all sessions can be attended via Zoom; the sessions that are indicated as 'hybrid' below may also be attended in person, in the main building (Am Hof 1, 53113 Bonn) in seminar room 1.070. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de. Subscribing to this list is possible a) here, b) by sending an empty email to hpp-subscribe@listen.uni-bonn.de, or c) by contacting jdobosze@uni-bonn.de |
Conveners:
|
17 Oct 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Michel Janssen (University of Minnesota)
Drawing the line between kinematics and dynamics in special relativity and quantum mechanics Abstract
The mathematical equivalence of matrix and wave mechanics papers over an important difference in what Heisenberg and Schrödinger took to be their key insights. For Schrödinger it was that atomic physics calls for an underlying wave theory just as geometric optics had in the 19th century. For Heisenberg it was that atomic physics calls for a new general framework for doing physics just as electrodynamics had in the early-20th century. Following Heisenberg rather than Schrödinger, I present a few case studies in special relativity and quantum mechanics in which problems that seem to call for dynamical solutions were solved instead by an appeal to the new kinematical frameworks introduced by these new theories. I use these case studies to bring out some parallels between the standard take on special relativity and a more controversial information-theoretic take on quantum mechanics and use the former to argue for the latter. Based on joint work with Michael Janas and Mike Cuffaro. |
24 Oct 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Cancelled
|
31 Oct 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Jose Senovilla (University of the Basque Country)
Singularity Theorems: a critical evaluation Abstract
After describing the historical context before the publication of Penrose’s singularity theorem, I will briefly discuss the key novel assumptions in the theorem and its immediate impact. A more general discussion of singularity theorems will follow, emphasizing their relevance in Cosmology and for gravitational collapse. A critical appraisal of the theorems and their consequences will then be presented, specifically trying to rebut many inaccurate “folklore” knowledge around the subject. Illustrative examples will be shown throughout. |
14 Nov 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Workshop on Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, and the birth of nuclear weapons. For further information see here: oppenheimer_event.pdf.
|
21 Nov 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Michael te Vrugt (DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge)
Coarse-graining in cosmology Abstract
Cosmological models assume the universe to be homogenous on large scales, which corresponds to an averaged ("coarse-grained") description. Coarse-graininig, however, is both mathematically and philosophically quite challenging. For example, the derivation of the Friedmann equations corresponds to a mathematically incorrect coarse-graininig procedure, and it is not clear at present what consequences this has for their accuracy. From the philosophical side, a major question is the justification of coarse-graininig [1]. In this talk, I will first show how the Mori-Zwanzig formalism, a technique from nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, allows to develop improved coarse-grained cosmological models [2]. I will then use this derivation as a case study to argue that, contrary to some claims made in the philosophical literature, justifications of coarse-graininig often involve epistemic and observer-dependent considerations - and that this is not problematic [3]. [1] M. te Vrugt, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 87, 136-146 (2021) [2] M. te Vrugt, S. Hossenfelder and R. Wittkowski, Physical Review Letters 127, 231101 (2021) [3] M. te Vrugt, European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12, 41 (2022) |
28 Nov 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Antonis Antoniou (University of Bonn)
Laws and Initial Conditions in Cosmology. Abstract
Two notable characteristics that set cosmology apart from other fields of physics are the uniqueness of its main object of study -- the universe -- and the fact that the initial conditions of the cosmos appear to be necessary rather than contingent. These two characteristics are in tension with two well-established philosophical views about laws and initial conditions: (a) that laws must apply to multiple instances of a physical phenomenon and (b) that initial conditions are distinguished from laws by virtue of their contingency. The present article provides a framework for the resolution of this tension by defining scientific laws as guiding principles within the models of a theory, and initial conditions as the values of parameters to which such laws remain invariant. This framework facilitates the understanding of scientific laws that apply to only one object, and preserves the distinction between laws and initial conditions despite the fact that the latter may not always be contingent. |
5 Dec 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (Leibniz Universität Hannover, Institute of Philosophy, Professor emeritus & Universität Zürich, Department of Economics, Lecturer)
How do robust abstract economic models explain? Abstract
I shall try to answer the question how robust abstract economic models explain; my main illustrative example is the Schelling (Sakoda) model of (racial) segregation. I shall presuppose that abstract economic models deliver for the real world how-possibly explanations at best. The crucial question is how can model results be transferred to real-world phenomena. I shall propose to reframe this transfer problem in the following way. Robust model results inductively support a conjectured, non-obvious logical truth that can be immediately applied both to the model world and to the real world, thereby delivering how-possibly explanations. I shall develop this thesis in 12 steps gradually dismantling its counter-intuitive character. The result will be that the function of robust abstract models is to tease out non-obvious explanatory consequences of theories (evolutionary theory, e.g.) or mechanisms (Schelling dynamics, e.g.) that cannot be directly inferred from them. |
19 Dec 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Florian Boge (TU Dortmund)
Deep Learning Robustness for Scientific Discovery: The Case of Anomaly Detection in High Energy Physics [Joint work with Michael Krämer, ThHEP, Aachen, & Christian Zeitnitz, ExpHEP, Wuppertal] Abstract
Machine Learning (ML) techniques such as Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are of great promise in science today. In High Energy Physics in particular, they are supposed to foster scientific discovery through the detection of anomalies, without reliance on any specific theory or model. But DNNs also have astonishing shortcomings, as they are vulnerable to ‘adversarial examples’; data instances that are easily classifiable for humans but totally misclassified by DNNs. Adversarial vulnerability is a double-edged sword: On the one hand, it shows that discerning DNNs’ credible outputs from flukes requires some skill. On the other hand, adversarials exhibit DNNs’ sensitivity to subtle, often human-inscrutable features that could also be scientifically productive (Buckner [2020]). Such features are, in fact, being utilised in anomaly detection. Against this backdrop, we offer an analysis of, and a cautionary tale about, DNNs’ present utility for scientific discovery. To do so, we introduce a notion of performance-robustness, which DNNs need to satisfy in order to be able to deliver genuine discoveries. However, as we shall also argue, the achievement of performance-robustness often, if not always, implies limitations to purely ML-driven discovery. |
16 Jan 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) 15:15-16:45 (one hour later than usual) |
Caspar Jacobs (Leiden University)
A Philosophical Introduction to Hidden Symmetries Abstract
The existence of so-called “hidden symmetries” is widely known in physics. Although there is no consensus about the definition of such symmetries, one can roughly characterise them as symmetries of a system that are not apparent from the geometry and/or dynamics of that system. The aim of our project is to introduce hidden symmetries to philosophers. In particular, we argue that such symmetries pose new challenges for philosophical accounts of symmetries and laws, and for “symmetry-to-reality” inferences. We go on to suggest that such symmetries may act as a guide towards hidden structures.TBA. |
23 Jan 2023
online |
Jamie Shaw
“Fund People, not Projects”: From Narrative CVs to Affirmative Action in Science Funding Policy Abstract
There has been a recent increase in attention towards the proper targets of evaluation in science funding policy. Specifically, some claim that we should “fund people, not projects” to allow for increased autonomy for researchers (Ioannidis 2011; Waters 2014). Critics argue that this movement unduly opens room for biases against several marginalized groups of scientists (Guglielmi 2018a; Raymond and Goodman 2019). In this paper, I contribute to this discussion by accomplishing a few related tasks. First, I analyze the idea of “funding people, not projects” and show that it actually suggests multiple distinct positions. Second, I propose a mechanism for evaluating researchers through narrative CVs. Finally, I respond to critics by showing that we should shift the goalposts from debiasing peer review to affirmative action funding policies. In doing so, I hope to clarify and assess the movement, while pointing to ways forward for science funding policy. |
.30 Jan 2023
hybrid (in person speaker) |
Kian Salimkhani (Universität zu Köln)
On progress in metaphysics (joint work w/ Matthias Rolffs) Abstract
There has been a recent increase in attention towards the proper targets of evaluation in science funding policy. Specifically, some claim that we should “fund people, not projects” to allow for increased autonomy for researchers (Ioannidis 2011; Waters 2014). Critics argue that this movement unduly opens room for biases against several marginalized groups of scientists (Guglielmi 2018a; Raymond and Goodman 2019). In this paper, I contribute to this discussion by accomplishing a few related tasks. First, I analyze the idea of “funding people, not projects” and show that it actually suggests multiple distinct positions. Second, I propose a mechanism for evaluating researchers through narrative CVs. Finally, I respond to critics by showing that we should shift the goalposts from debiasing peer review to affirmative action funding policies. In doing so, I hope to clarify and assess the movement, while pointing to ways forward for science funding policy. |
Uncertainty and Insecurity - Oppenheimer vs. Heisenberg?
Two talks by leading historians of science followed by a podium discussion on 14 Nov 2023
Two talks by leading historians of science followed by a podium discussion on 14 Nov 2023
The movie "Oppenheimer" by Christopher Nolan portrays of one of the most critical episodes in 20th-century: the birth of nuclear weapons. Join us for a two talks and a podium discussion on November 14th at the Otto-Deiters-Hörsaal at Anatomisches Institut (Nußallee 10, Bonn). Both talks and the podium discussion will be accessible for the general public. Find the poster here: oppenheimer_event.pdf
Time & Place:
|
14 Nov 2023, Otto-Deiters-Hörsaal at Anatomisches Institut, Nußallee 10, Bonn.
|
5 pm
|
Michel Janssen (University of Minnesota/University of Bonn)
Reflections on Oppenheimer, the man and the movie (in English) Abstract
Christopher Nolan‘s movie Oppenheimer raises a number of interesting questions about the life and times of its main subject and off ers a range of answers for viewers to choose from. Why was Oppenheimer in favor of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why did he not become a spokesperson for those among his fellow physicists opposed to their military use? And why then was he adamantly opposed a few years later to the development of the hydrogen bomb? What about his communist sympathies? I will deal with these and further questions as they come up as Oppenheimer‘s life and career unfolds, from US ambassador of quantum mechanics in Berkeley to scientific leader of the Manhattan project in Los Alamos to Einstein‘s boss at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton and prominent adviser to the Truman administration on matters concerning nuclear physics and national security to his fall from grace under Eisenhower and his eventual partial rehabilitation by Kennedy and Johnson. |
6.15 pm
|
Dieter Hoffmann (MPI für Wissenschaftsgeschichte Berlin)
Farm Hall und die Furcht der Alliierten vor der deutschen Atombombe (in German) Abstract
„Es waren zehn Forscher in Farm Hall, Die galten für fürchterlich harmvoll. Beim Jüngsten Gericht Erschienen sie nicht, denn sie saßen noch immer in Farn Hall.“ Diesen Limmerick verfasste im Herbst 1945 Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker - eben auf jenem Landsitz Farm Hall in der englischen Grafschaft Cambridgeshire, wo nach dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs zehn deutsche Atomforscher für sechs Monate als „Guest of his Majesty“ interniert und systematisch abgehört worden waren. Mit dieser Geheimdienstoperation wollte man erfahren, ob die Angst der Alliierten vor einer deutschen Atombombe berechtigt und wie „harmful“ die deutschen Forschungen auf diesem Gebiet wirklich gewesen waren; auch hoffte man, von deutschem Spezialwissen profitieren und für die Entwicklung der eigenen Atombombe noch nutzen zu können. Allerdings wurde sehr schnell deutlich, dass man in Deutschland weit vom Bau einer Atombombe entfernt und selbst bei der Entwicklung einer Uranmaschine bzw. Reaktors gescheitert war. Die Abhörprotokolle sind aber nicht nur ein Dokument dieses Scheiterns, sondern zudem ein beeindruckendes Zeitdokument über das Leben, die Motive und die Moral von Wissenschaftlern im Dritten Reich wie von technokratischen Eliten überhaupt; zugleich geben sie wichtige Aufschlüsse über die bis heute nachwirkende Mythenbildung zur deutschen Atombombe. |
7.30 pm
|
Refreshments
|
8 pm
|
Podium Discussion in German with Prof. Janssen, Prof. Hoffmann, Prof. Dieter Meschede (Institute for Applied Physics, University of Bonn), Prof. Dr. Carl Christian von Weizsäcker (Department of Economics, University of Cologne).
Moderated by Prof. Dennis Lehmkuhl (University of Bonn). |
Foundational Challenges in Cosmological Studies of Black Holes (14 May 2024)
Foundational Challenges in Cosmological Studies of Black Holes
14th May 2024
University of Bonn
With the emergence of new observational windows, black holes are increasingly used in constraining cosmological theories. This workshop aims to address the major foundational and methodological challenges in cosmological studies of black holes: What are the methodological principles of these searches? What should we expect from future observations? How do long-standing research programs look from the new vantage points? What foundational lessons can be drawn from cosmological studies of new physics? The workshop will facilitate a multi-disciplinary perspective on the cosmological implications of black holes, by bringing together contributions from theoretical physics, astronomy, and the philosophy of physics.
List of speakers:
Kristen Lackeos (Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn)
Antonia Frassino (University of Barcelona)
Jamee Elder (Tufts University)
Erik Curiel (University of Bonn, Harvard University’s Black Hole Initiative)
Juliusz Doboszewski (University of Bonn, Harvard University’s Black Hole Initiative)
Main topics of the workshop include, but are not limited to:
Call for Abstracts:
We accept the submission of abstracts for a limited number of slots for contributed talks related to the topics of the workshop. Please submit the title of your talk and an abstract of up to 500 words along with your name, contact details and affiliation in a pdf file by email to aanton@uni-bonn.de by 31st of March midnight anywhere on Earth (UTC -12). We will communicate the decision soon after.
Attendance to the workshop is free and open to everyone, however, all participants are required to register by 7th May by sending an email to: aanton@uni-bonn.de
Attendance via zoom is also possible, the link will be shared with all registered participants in due time. When registering please indicate whether you are planning to participate in-person or online.
Organizers:
This workshop is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Project "Inductive Metaphysics".
14th May 2024
University of Bonn
With the emergence of new observational windows, black holes are increasingly used in constraining cosmological theories. This workshop aims to address the major foundational and methodological challenges in cosmological studies of black holes: What are the methodological principles of these searches? What should we expect from future observations? How do long-standing research programs look from the new vantage points? What foundational lessons can be drawn from cosmological studies of new physics? The workshop will facilitate a multi-disciplinary perspective on the cosmological implications of black holes, by bringing together contributions from theoretical physics, astronomy, and the philosophy of physics.
List of speakers:
Kristen Lackeos (Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn)
Antonia Frassino (University of Barcelona)
Jamee Elder (Tufts University)
Erik Curiel (University of Bonn, Harvard University’s Black Hole Initiative)
Juliusz Doboszewski (University of Bonn, Harvard University’s Black Hole Initiative)
Main topics of the workshop include, but are not limited to:
- primordial black holes as dark matter candidates
- epistemology of gravitational wave astrophysics
- model agnostic searches and notions of model independence
- philosophical issues in multi-messenger astronomy
- alternatives to black holes
- statistical wars in astrophysics and cosmology
- foundational issues in black hole physics
Call for Abstracts:
We accept the submission of abstracts for a limited number of slots for contributed talks related to the topics of the workshop. Please submit the title of your talk and an abstract of up to 500 words along with your name, contact details and affiliation in a pdf file by email to aanton@uni-bonn.de by 31st of March midnight anywhere on Earth (UTC -12). We will communicate the decision soon after.
Attendance to the workshop is free and open to everyone, however, all participants are required to register by 7th May by sending an email to: aanton@uni-bonn.de
Attendance via zoom is also possible, the link will be shared with all registered participants in due time. When registering please indicate whether you are planning to participate in-person or online.
Organizers:
- Antonis Antoniou (aanton@uni-bon.de)
- Juliusz Doboszewski (jdobosze@uni-bonn.de)
This workshop is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Project "Inductive Metaphysics".
2022/2023
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Summer)
Vertical Divider
Time & Place: |
Vertical Divider
|
Tuesdays from 14:15 to 15:45 CEST.
Almost all sessions can be attended via Zoom; the sessions that are indicated as 'hybrid' below may also be attended in person, in the main building (Am Hof 1, 53113 Bonn) in seminar room 1.070. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de. Subscribing to this list is possible a) here, b) by sending an empty email to hpp-subscribe@listen.uni-bonn.de, or c) by contacting jdobosze@uni-bonn.de |
Conveners: |
Vertical Divider
|
Dr. Juliusz Doboszewski & Prof. Dr. Dennis Lehmkuhl |
18 Apr 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
The analysis of spacetime singularities concerns the resolution of this puzzle and the detailed account and classification of their types and significance. Aside from its intrinsic interest, it has at least two important implications. Insofar as singularities are taken to be betoken some sort of "breakdown" of or "serious physical pathology" in GR`s representational capabilities, their analysis and consequent prevalence have implications for the bounds of the possibilities that GR represents. Moreover, the "resolution" of these singularities is often taken as a necessary criterion for a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity. I outline how mathematical analogies were used to define spacetime singularities, without that definition being completely interpretable in physical terms - at least, until now: I present results that clarify the stakes involved in accpeting the standard definition.
Qua |
25 Apr 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Henrique Gomes (University of Oxford)
A comparison of gravitational and electromagnetic radiative energy Abstract
I'll give a conceptual exposition of aspects of gravitational radiation, especially in relation to energy. My motive for doing so is that the strong analogies with electromagnetic radiation are not widely appreciated. In particular, this is a reply to some recent papers in the philosophy of physics literature that seem to deny that gravitational waves carry energy. The main argument of the talk is based on two points: (i) that for both electromagnetism and gravity, in the presence of material sources, radiation is an effective concept, unambiguously emerging only in certain regimes or solutions of the theory; and (ii) similarly, energy conservation is only unambiguous in certain regimes or solutions of general relativity. Crucially, the domain of (i), in which radiation is meaningful, overlaps significantly with the domain of (ii), in which energy conservation is meaningful. Conceptually, the overlap of regimes is no coincidence: the long-standing question about the existence of gravitational waves was settled precisely by finding a consistent manner to articulate their energy and momentum.
Qua |
2 May 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
Ken Wharton and I have proposed a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is the familiar statistical phenomenon of collider bias, or Berkson's bias. In the language of causal models, a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal associations between its contributing causes, even if they are actually independent. It is easy to show that this phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. It is also straightforward that such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may be expected to emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. This talk will be based on an explanation of the idea for general audiences available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06986, itself based on a suggestion we first made in arXiv:2101.05370v4. |
9 May 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Gianni Klesen (Bonn)
Plato`s Sophistes Abstract
In this talk I will focus on Plato's Sophistes. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the extent to which Plato here explicitly develops an operative attention. Thus I will try to show to what extent Plato draws attention to the given speech and pays special regard to the concepts used. It is especially important to me to point out that and how Plato deals with a problem formulated by Parmenides. I hope that in this way it can be shown how it might be misguided to understand Plato's search for definitions as a search for 'real definitions'. I might also discuss the implications of this dialogue for contemporary debates. Frauke Stoll (Bonn)
Max Planck and the Blackbody Problem - A Case Study in Theory Extension Abstract
I will present a case study of Max Planck's work on the blackbody problem, which led to an extension of thermodynamics and the identification of blackbody radiation as a thermodynamic phenomenon. By examining how Planck resolved the issue and came to identify blackbody radiation as a thermodynamic phenomenon, we can gain insight into what it means to extend thermodynamics and how such a process can take play. Through this case study, I will demonstrate that theory extension can result in a deepened understanding of the relations between theories and the modification of existing concepts, which in this case resulted in a consolidation of thermodynamics, electrodynamics, and statistical mechanics. The case study also underscores the crucial role that experiments play in the development of scientific theories. |
16 May 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Zachary Hall (Stanford)
An Immanent Critique of Many-Worlds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, or: On the Reality of Quantum Jumps Abstract
The central motivation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics is to view quantum mechanics as a faithful representation of (all) physical reality. In this talk, I exposit the core of the reasoning of adherents of the MWI from this commitment to the conclusion that physical reality consists of a simultaneous multitude of branching, approximately classical worlds. Given a commitment to realism about quantum mechanics, this reasoning is plausible, but ultimately unsound. In particular, evidentially motivated realism about unitary, continuous evolution of quantum states implies the falsity of two premises essential to this reasoning: (i) that wavefunctions in general consist of superpositions of components each of which would on their own deterministically evolve into one unique corresponding measurement state in a given experimental context; (ii) that unitary, continuous evolution of quantum states is universal. In the bulk of the talk, I accordingly advance an immanent critique of the MWI: evidentially motivated realism about unitary, continuous evolution of quantum states not only fails to support the MWI, but positively rules out the existence of any such worlds. This critique in turn implies a few positive upshots for the foundations of quantum physics, including that quantum measurements of position must be (NB: not “cause”) discontinuous changes of quantum state or “quantum jumps” and that the wavefunctions of non-relativistic quantum mechanics must be effective representations of (a plurality of possible) dynamics of a specific class of physical systems. |
23 May 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
The talk reconstructs Musil's views on science from passages scattered over his (unfinished) book "Man without qualities". It is shown that Musil's concept of science is very close to the notion of science as understood by logical positivism. It will be argued that in his book Musil also provides an implicit critique of logical positivism by drawing the consequences for philosophy of life of this concept of science. Texts will be presented showing that where logical positivism only sees a pure epistemological problem of demarcation of science from non-science, Musil detects the clash of two substantial, not easily compatible spheres of human existence: The sphere of rationality and the sphere of the irrational. Musil formulates the human need of fusing together these two spheres but he does not give any hint in his book about how such a fusion could be achieved.
Qua |
30 May 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
no seminar
|
6 Jun 2023 |
Vertical Divider
|
no seminar
|
13 Jun 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
The cosmic emptiness extends from the closer cosmic environment to the most distant future states of universe. The discussion of the proximity of emptiness reveals a difference between human beings’ small scope for acting on a cosmic scale and their impressive observational capabilities. With regard to the distant emptiness, there is the possibility of a drastic restriction of observational capabilities. This prospect relativizes the truth claim of contemporary knowledge. The assumption that modern cosmology can make predictions into the most distant future calls for an extended concept of natural philosophy whose scope encompasses not only existing human beings.
Qua |
20 Jun 2023
|
no seminar
|
27 Jun 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Jamee Elder (Harvard)
What is a 'direct' image of a shadow? A history and epistemology of 'directness' in black hole imaging Abstract
When the first image of the shadow of a black hole was released in 2019, the result was presented by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) Collaboration as a ‘direct’ image. Yet the meaning of ‘directness’ was not always clear. In this talk, I present joint work with Emilie Skulberg analysing the many notions of `directness' that emerged with respect to this image in peer-reviewed literature, science communication, and interviews with members of the EHT Collaboration. I will compare and contrast the EHT case to other case studies including: the LIGO-Virgo `direct detection' of gravitational waves, the observation of s-stars by the Genzel and Ghez groups, and the detection of gravitational waves using the Hulse-Taylor binary. In doing so, I will tease apart different notions of directness and the extent to which these connect to matters of epistemology and prestige. The goal will be to spell out the ways in which the EHT images are (and are not) direct and what (if anything) ascriptions of directness tell us about the nature of an astronomical observation. |
4 Jul 2023
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
Wolfgang Pauli is considered to be one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, a genius of nearly unparalleled depth and scope. His critical insight was legendary, and his judgment unassailable. Indeed, Pauli was long held as the living 'conscience of physics'. However, this high acclaim has not extended to Pauli's extensive historical and philosophical research. The criticism of Pauli's philosophical thought is often tied to his friendship with Carl Jung, and their decades-long collaboration on Jung's analytic psychology (which included a shared interest in parapsychology and the paranormal). While it is true that Pauli's thought tended toward mysticism, his historical and philosophical studies spanned over two millennia in the history of ideas, and went far beyond the confines of Jungian psychology. And though Pauli's collaboration with Jung has long garnered significant interest within the history of psychology and the philosophy of mind, there has been little discussion of his broader philosophy of science. This lack of detailed historical and philosophical study has obscured some of the fundamental insights that Pauli sought to draw from his decades of research in the foundations of physics. In this talk, I will present some of the lesser known aspects of Pauli's philosophy. In particular, I will focus on Pauli's reading of Plato, as it emerges from both his work with Jung and his broader correspondence in the late 40s and early 50s. For Pauli, Plato is not only the progenitor of a distinct philosophy, but is also representative of a key stage in the historical development of philosophical thought. The rich interplay between Pauli's reading of Plato and the history of Platonism sets the course for his understanding of the expression of archetypical forms of thought throughout history. This expression is guided by what Pauli terms a cosmic harmony which underwrites our understanding of nature. Through a discussion of Pauli's Platonism and his appeal to a cosmic harmony in nature, I will try to outline some of the contours of his later philosophical thought and his hopes for future physics. ----- |
International Conference on Large-Scale Experiments (Karlsruhe)
The final conference of the 6-year interdisciplinary research unit "Epistemology of the LHC" will take place in Karlsruhe (8-10 December 2022) and reflect on large-scale experiments from the perspectives of history, philosophy and social studies of science. More information can be found here: indico.uni-wuppertal.de/event/152/.
Online Working Group on the History and Philosophy of Contemporary Theoretical Physics
Our new working/reading group on the history and philosophy of contemporary physics is open for registration. Hosted by The Consortium for the History of Science, this group will help promote a network of scholars who are interested in studying foundational papers in the history and philosophy of modern theoretical physics (full group description is below).
In our first meeting, which will be held by zoom on Wednesday Oct 12th, we will read and discuss Weyl's 1918 Gravitation and Electricity.
Schedule, zoom links and resources are available after registration.
The group page for registration and updates is available here:
https://www.chstm.org/content/history-and-philosophy-contemporary-theoretical-physics-0
Description
The working group will meet once a month to discuss both historical papers and recent work by its members. The initial focus of the group will be on the increased mathematization of theoretical physics in the 20th century, in particular its historical development and philosophical implications. The readings for the group will include primary resources associated with the development of general relativity, quantum theory, and quantum field theories. We will begin with the history of early unified field theories, and follow different threads in their subsequent development in the second half of the twentieth century. Just a few examples of issues that fall within the scope of the working group are the historical development of gauge theory, modified gravity, and grand unified field theory, as well as related philosophical and conceptual issues.
In our first meeting, which will be held by zoom on Wednesday Oct 12th, we will read and discuss Weyl's 1918 Gravitation and Electricity.
Schedule, zoom links and resources are available after registration.
The group page for registration and updates is available here:
https://www.chstm.org/content/history-and-philosophy-contemporary-theoretical-physics-0
Description
The working group will meet once a month to discuss both historical papers and recent work by its members. The initial focus of the group will be on the increased mathematization of theoretical physics in the 20th century, in particular its historical development and philosophical implications. The readings for the group will include primary resources associated with the development of general relativity, quantum theory, and quantum field theories. We will begin with the history of early unified field theories, and follow different threads in their subsequent development in the second half of the twentieth century. Just a few examples of issues that fall within the scope of the working group are the historical development of gauge theory, modified gravity, and grand unified field theory, as well as related philosophical and conceptual issues.
Workshop on the History and Philosophy of the Gravitational Constant
Our St. Andrews/Bonn Gravitational Constant Network is organising a workshop in St. Andrews (20-21 April 2023). The schedule and further info can be found at www.gravconstant.net/events.html
Workshop on Quantum Foundations (Annual DPG Meeting, Dresden, 20-24 March 2023)
CFA for Workshop "Quantum Foundations" at the annual DPG Meeting, Dresden, 20-24 March 2023
The Working Group “Philosophy of Physics” (AGPhil) of the German Physical Society (DPG) invites submissions for its annual workshop. Contributions on any topic in philosophy of physics are welcome; the focus, however, will be on the foundations of quantum mechanics. The workshop takes place 20-24 March 2023 at the TU Dresden and will be part of the Annual Meeting of the DPG.
The following Invited Speakers have confirmed speakers thus far:
Emily Adlam (Western University)
Michael Cuffaro (LMU Munich)
Paul Näger (WMU Münster)
Alyssa Ney (UC Davis)
If you would like to present a paper, please submit an abstract of about 200 words by 13 January 2023 (ignore the stated 1 December 2022 abstract submission deadline on the website), using the online-form here.
As conference fees are not trivial (see here), speakers who have difficulties paying the conference fees should contact us about possible travel grants.
The Working Group “Philosophy of Physics” (AGPhil) of the German Physical Society (DPG) invites submissions for its annual workshop. Contributions on any topic in philosophy of physics are welcome; the focus, however, will be on the foundations of quantum mechanics. The workshop takes place 20-24 March 2023 at the TU Dresden and will be part of the Annual Meeting of the DPG.
The following Invited Speakers have confirmed speakers thus far:
Emily Adlam (Western University)
Michael Cuffaro (LMU Munich)
Paul Näger (WMU Münster)
Alyssa Ney (UC Davis)
If you would like to present a paper, please submit an abstract of about 200 words by 13 January 2023 (ignore the stated 1 December 2022 abstract submission deadline on the website), using the online-form here.
As conference fees are not trivial (see here), speakers who have difficulties paying the conference fees should contact us about possible travel grants.
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Winter)
|
Tuesdays from 14:15 to 15:45 CEST.
Almost all sessions can be attended via Zoom; the sessions that are indicated as 'hybrid' below may also be attended in person, in the main building (Am Hof 1, 53113 Bonn) in Hörsaal X. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de. Subscribing to this list is possible a) here, b) by sending an empty email to hpp-subscribe@listen.uni-bonn.de, or c) by contacting jdobosze@uni-bonn.de Dr. Juliusz Doboszewski & Prof. Dr. Dennis Lehmkuhl |
18 Oct 2022
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Abstract
|
25 Oct 2022
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Dennis Lehmkuhl (University of Bonn)
The Petrov-Pirani-Penrose Classification of Spacetimes and Its Role in the Renaissance of General Relativity Abstract
This talk will focus on the development of new mathematical methods during the 1960s that allowed for new ways of understanding the solution space of the Einstein equations. The focus will be on the classification scheme for vacuum solutions first developed by Aleksei Petrov in 1954 and then applied to the question of how to give an coordinate-independent definition of the presence of gravitational radiation by Felix Pirani in 1957. I will review Pirani’s definition and rationale for proposing his definition, and then discuss Penrose’s 1960 re-derivation and elaboration of the Petrov classification in the context of his spinor formulation of GR, and his criticism of Pirani’s definition of gravitational radiation. Starting from there, I will review the emerging discussion of how the different Petrov classes should be interpreted, and thus how the solution space of the Einstein equations could be understood, indeed how it could be used as a map of spacetimes and their interpretation. I shall argue that present-day philosophy of physics is still very far from having harvested all the conceptual treasures that originated from this debate in the 1950s and 1960s. |
1 Nov 2022
|
TBA.
|
9 Nov 2022
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Abstract
Primordial black holes (PBHs) were first postulated more than half a century ago, and they remain a fascinating theoretical curiosity. In recent years, many researchers have realized that PBHs provide an exciting prospect for accounting for dark matter. Rather than requiring some as-yet unknown elementary particles beyond the Standard Model, or modified gravitational dynamics, dark matter might consist of a large population of PBHs that formed very early in cosmic history. In this talk I will review production mechanisms that could yield PBHs as well as present observational constraints. I will also describe models that yield an appropriate population of PBHs following a brief phase of cosmic inflation, while remaining consistent with the latest high-precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation. |
15 Nov 2022
|
No seminar.
|
22 Nov 2022
(In-person only) |
Moved to the summer term
Christian Röken (University of Bonn) On the Black Hole and the Wormhole in the Movie Interstellar Abstract
tba. |
29 Nov 2022
(In-person only) |
Frauke Stoll (University of Bonn)
Is the analogy between black holes and thermodynamics more than formal? Abstract
There is a striking analogy between the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of black hole mechanics that physicists confidently use to work on quantum gravity. But due to an almost complete lack of empirical data that would support the analogy, this confidence can seem surprising. In this talk I want to examine the most popular claim in literature that black holes are true thermodynamic objects and that thermodynamics extends into the new regime of black holes. This will be done by applying functionalism onto the analogy. It will be shown that following the functionalist approach, it can be established that black holes truly do extend thermodynamics, which leads to them being identified as true thermodynamic objects. Gianni Klesen (University of Bonn) A few remarks about reading philosophy Abstract
Reading philosophy can be challenging. In my talk I will address some of those challenges. |
6 Dec 2022
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Ted Jacobson (University of Maryland)
Einstein & Aether: deformations of general relativity with a preferred local rest frame Abstract
A cornerstone of general relativity is the assumption that the ultra local structure of spacetime at point is entirely determined by the metric tensor. Nevertheless, deformations of general relativity incorporating a local preferred rest frame have been extensively explored in connection with speculation about the ultra short distance structure of spacetime. I will review the motivation, dynamical properties, and current observational constraints for two such deformations, Einstein-Aether theory and Horava gravity. Aside from their potential (but unlikely) relevance to the real world, these theories provide an interesting foil to contrast with general relativity. |
13 Dec 2022
(In-person only) |
Adrian Wüthrich (Technische Universität Berlin)
Characterizing a Collaboration by Its Communication Structure Abstract
I present first results of my analysis of a collection of about 24,000 email messages from internal mailing lists of a major particle physics collaboration during the years 2010--2013. I represent the communication on these mailing lists as a network in which the members of the collaboration are connected if they reply to each other's messages. Such a network allows me to characterize the collaboration from a bird's eye view of its communication structure in epistemically relevant terms. I propose to interpret established measures such as the density of the network as indicators for the degree of "collaborativeness" of the collaboration and the presence of "communities" as a sign of cognitive division of labor. Similar methods have been used in philosophical and historical studies of collective knowledge generation but mostly at the level of information exchange, cooperation and competition between individual researchers or small groups. The present analysis aims to take initial steps towards a transfer of these methods and bring them to bear on the processes of collaboration inside a "collective author." |
20 Dec 2022
|
No seminar.
|
10 Jan 2023
|
Francesca Biagioli (Università degli Studi di Torino)
Hermann Weyl on the History of Non-euclidean Geometry Abstract
The history of non-Euclidean geometry played an important role in the early philosophical interpretations of Einstein’s general relativity. Whereas Moritz Schlick and the logical positivists emphasized the break between the Euclidean tradition and the abstract systems of modern geometry, neo-Kantian philosophers such as Ernst Cassirer looked at Riemannian geometry and its developments in an attempt to identify the fundamental conditions of the new physics. Hermann Weyl engaged in this debate by arguing that the history of non-Euclidean geometry illuminates increasingly higher levels of abstraction in the mathematical analysis of space, culminating with his own reformulation of the invariants of the spacetime continuum in differential geometry. Starting from a discussion of Weyl’s view in Space-Time-Matter and other writings from 1918-1923, this talk will address some of the philosophical issues that arise in connection with his treatment of the relativistic problem of space, in particular the status of geometrical concepts, the distinction between a priori and empirical elements of the spacetime structure, and the idea of reducing physics to geometry. |
17 Jan 2023
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Abstract
Do black holes expand for the same reason that cups of tea cool down? There is a striking similarity between the laws of black hole mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics; so striking, that some have gone as far as — indeed the orthodoxy in theoretical physics is — to say it is an identity. But others point out differences between the quantities associated to black holes and the quantities of ordinary thermal systems, like cups of tea and boxes of gas. How can we say black hole entropy is thermodynamic entropy when there are these differences? In this talk, I show to what extent the increasingly popular tool of functionalism can be used to understand the claim that SBH is STD. |
24 Jan 2023
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Abstract
The importance of good definitions has been clear from the beginnings of Greek philosophy and mathematics, and 2000 years later was still recognized by Galilei and Newton, with a decisive shift of emphasis though. I also briefly talk about the logical role of definitions, the role of family resemblances, and the philosophy of mathematical practice (starting from Lakatos). Two case studies illustrate my ideas on what a good definition looks like: randomness (which is a family resemblance) and entropy (which looks like a family resemblance but in fact has a common core). |
31 Jan 2023
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Abstract
In previous work (Vassallo, 2020; Vassallo and Hoefer, 2020), I analyzed the dependence relation between spatiotemporal and material facts in general relativity in terms of acyclic structural equation models. In this talk, I will first consider some arguments involving particular solutions to Einstein's equations, which suggest that the acyclicity requirement should be dropped. I will then discuss how to modify the characterization of the spacetime/matter dependence in light of these arguments. References: - A. Vassallo. Dependence relations in general relativity. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10(2), 2020. DOI 10.1007/s13194-019-0265-5. - A. Vassallo and C. Hoefer. The metaphysics of Machian frame-dragging. In C. Beisbart, T. Sauer, and C. Wüthrich, editors, Thinking about space and time, pages 227–246. Birkhäuser, 2020. |
2021/2022
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Summer)
Vertical Divider
Time & Place: |
Vertical Divider
|
Tuesdays from 16:15 to 17:45 CEST.
Almost all sessions can be attended via Zoom; the sessions that are indicated as 'hybrid' below may also be attended in person, in the main building (Am Hof 1, 53113 Bonn) in Lecture Room 1.070. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de. Subscribing to this list is possible a) here, b) by sending an empty email to hpp-subscribe@listen.uni-bonn.de, or c) by contacting nmartens@uni-bonn.de |
Conveners: |
Vertical Divider
|
Dr. Juliusz Doboszewski & Dr. Niels Martens |
5 Apr 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Ann C Thresher (UC San Diego & UniBonn)
Compact Spaces and Privileged Times; What the Video Game Asteroids Can Teach Us About Presentism Abstract
Presentism has long struggled with the results of special relativity. One proposed solution is to stipulate the existence of an ontologically or metaphysically privileged frame which defines the global present for all observers. Recently this proposal has cropped up in literature on spatially closed universes (SCUs) which seem to naturally instantiate such structures. This paper examines the privileged frame proposal through the lens of SCUs, arguing that even in these space-times which seem overwhelmingly friendly to presentism the theory face insurmountable challenges. It is then shown how these failures are fundamental to the project, rather than specific to the SCU case. |
12 Apr 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Gábor Hofer-Szabó (Hungarian Academy of Sciences)
Two concepts of noncontextuality in quantum mechanics Abstract
There are two different and logically independent concepts of noncontextuality in quantum mechanics. First, an ontological (hidden variable) model for quantum mechanics is called noncontextual if every ontic (hidden) state determines the probability of the outcomes of every measurement independently of what other measurements are simultaneously performed. Second, an ontological model is noncontextual if any two measurements which are represented by the same self-adjoint operator, or equivalently, which have the same probability distribution of outcomes in every quantum state also have the same probability distribution of outcomes in every ontic state. In the talk I will argue that the Kochen-Specker arguments provide an algebraic (state-independent) proof only against noncontextual ontological models of the second type. |
19 Apr 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Debate: Confirmation via Analogue Simulation
Radin Dardashti (University of Wuppertal) Grace Field (University of Cambridge) Niels Linnemann (University of Bremen) |
26 Apr 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Roberto Lalli (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin)
The Socio-Epistemic Networks for General Relativity, 1925-1970: The low-water mark, the renaissance, and the astrophysical turn Abstract
In the last years, a complex historical debate has emerged on the causes, origins, and manifestations of the process dubbed the ‘renaissance’ of Einstein’s theory of gravitation starting. After a thirty-year period of stagnation of the theory, known as its low-water-mark phase, the renaissance marks the return of general relativity to the mainstream of physics after the mid-1950s. The talk aims at presenting the main results of our analysis of the renaissance of general relativity based on the conceptual and methodological framework of socio-epistemic networks. This framework defines a three-layered taxonomy of knowledge networks: the social network (the collection of relations involving individuals and institutions), the semiotic network (the collection of the material representations of knowledge, e.g., citation networks), and the semantic network (the collection of knowledge elements and their relations, including concepts, topics, research agendas, or methods). On the basis of this multi-layer network analysis of the general relativity research landscape between 1925 and 1970, I will argue that the renaissance process should be understood as a two-step reconfiguration of research agendas resulting initially from the interplay of social and epistemic factors. A first phase of theoretical renaissance, driven by social transformations, occurred between the mid-1950s and the early 1960s, and transformed the general theory of relativity to a bona fide physical theory. The second phase of this process, which can be called the astrophysical turn, was an experiment-driven shift toward relativistic astrophysics and physical cosmology, and was strongly related to discoveries in the astrophysical domain in the 1960s. I will conclude by showing early results built on this approach to characterize the conceptual transformation characterizing the first phase as well as to capture the role played by the Brans-Dicke theory as catalyzer of research trends in the second phase of the astrophysical turn. |
3 May 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
Scientific realists argue that empirically successful theories latch on to unobservable features of reality. But it is often thought that conventional theories of particle physics do not deserve realist commitment, despite their outstanding empirical success. Recently, a number of "effective" realisms have argued that we should distinguish between the low- and high-energy claims of particle theory and that we can and should be realist about the former but not the latter. I argue that this proposal conflicts with physical folklore, according to which the claims of realistic particle theories cannot be relativized to energy scales. I use this conflict to distinguish two forms of effective realism. One form of effective realism indeed conflicts with the kernel of truth in the physical folklore, making it inapplicable to the theories that enjoy empirical success. The second form of effective realism is compatible with realistic theories, but requires a substantial revision of the terms of the realist debate. I will indicate why I think the second form is nevertheless the more promising. |
10 May 2022 |
Vertical Divider
|
No seminar
|
17 May 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Dialogue: Philosophy of the Historical Sciences
Paleontology, Geology & Archeology Adrian Currie (University of Exeter) Astronomy & Cosmology Juliusz Doboszewski (University of Bonn & BHI Harvard) |
24 May 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Ettore Minguzzi (University of Florence)
A gravitational collapse singularity theorem consistent with black hole evaporation Abstract
The global hyperbolicity assumption present in gravitational collapse singularity theorems is in tension with the quantum mechanical phenomenon of black hole evaporation. In this talk I show that the causality conditions in Penrose's theorem can be almost completely removed. As a result, it is possible to infer the formation of spacetime singularities even in absence of predictability and hence compatibly with quantum field theory and black hole evaporation. |
31 May 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
Our naïve human senses often detect phenomena that appear asymmetric in time when they are not. For example, a book will slide to a stop on a tabletop, and never the reverse. But, when that experience is carefully described in terms of dynamical systems, we find that the description invariably omits degrees of freedom in a way that hides an underlying temporal symmetry. This talk will develop an account of what is required to have a true arrow of time, in the sense that 'time itself' has an asymmetry. I will argue that most of what is commonly referred to as an ‘arrow of time’ fails to be a time asymmetry in this sense. |
BREAK (one week)
14 June 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Jamee Elder (Black Hole Initiative, Harvard & UniBonn)
The "Direct Detection" of Gravitational Waves Abstract
In this talk, I will clarify and adjudicate a controversy that arose within the astrophysics community concerning whether or not the first LIGO detection, “GW150914”, was the first “direct detection” of gravitational waves. To do so, I provide an analysis according to which there is an epistemically significant distinction between direct and indirect detections in this context. Roughly, our justification for trusting a direct detection depends mainly on the reliability of instruments that are under our control, rather than on the reliability of our models of separate target systems. In contrast, indirect detections rely on confidence in such models. Having argued for this account of the direct/indirect distinction, I close by considering its application to LIGO’s other scientific role: observing black holes. This helps to illustrate some of the key epistemic challenges of gravitational-wave astrophysics (and indeed astrophysics broadly) in contrast to science with controlled experiments. (For those who are interested, the most recent version of the corresponding paper can be downloaded from the research section of my website.) |
21 June 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Student Presentations (for members of UniBonn only; one talk in English, one in German)
|
28 June 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
Philosophers of science who engage with astrophysics often portray it as a distinctively observational science, since its targets are too distant to experiment upon. The lack of experiment in astrophysics is usually taken either (pessimistically) to imply that the field as a whole is epistemically handicapped, or (optimistically) to explain and justify the use of simulations in place of experiments in the pursuit of astrophysical knowledge. This characterization misses some fascinating features of the epistemology of laboratory astrophysics, which investigates the nature of celestial objects and processes using terrestrial experiments. Laboratory astrophysics provides an illuminating testbed for understanding the tradeoffs between experimental and observational methods that scientists face in practice. Drawing on a variety of cases—from axion searches to accelerator-based nuclear astrophysics to high-energy laser confinement experiments—I will argue that the subtleties of the epistemology of laboratory astrophysics are best appreciated by attending to the relationship between the research target and the causal production of the data. Ultimately, this framework actually illuminates more continuity between the epistemic situation in astrophysics and in other fields of empirical research than is often appreciated, in both the obstacles and the opportunities that arise. |
5 July 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
Several philosophers have advocated an eliminativist position regarding gravitational energy and conservation principles applied to it. We cannot directly characterize the energy carried by the gravitational field with a local quantity analogous to what is used in other field theories: we cannot define a gravitational energy-momentum tensor that assigns local properties to spacetime points and can be integrated over volumes to characterize energy-momentum flows. Because of the equivalence principle, we can always choose a locally freely falling frame, and by so doing locally transform away the gravitational field. The eliminitavists take these features to imply that there is no such thing as ``gravitational energy'' or integral conservation laws governing it, and that efforts to resurrect such a notion illustrate how misleading it can be to treat general relativity as analogous to other field theories. In this talk I will consider how quasi-local definitions of energy and conservation laws based on them support a response to the eliminativists, and in particular concerns about whether such proposals depend on ``background structure'' in a problematic sense. Quasi-local energy and conservation laws depend on background structure --- we need a way to designate some motions as ``freely falling,'' so that energy-momentum transfers can be measured via departures from these trajectories. But I will argue that these background structures can justifiably be introduced within particular modeling contexts. The challenge regarding gravitational energy then has a different character: namely that there are many conflicting proposals for how to define quasi-local energy, and it is not clear whether they deliver consistent verdicts. |
12 July 2022
|
Vertical Divider
|
Feraz Azhar (University of Notre Dame)
Flows into de Sitter from anisotropic initial conditions: An effective field theory approach Abstract
For decades, physicists have analyzed various versions of a "cosmic no-hair" conjecture, to understand under what conditions a spacetime that is initially spatially anisotropic and/or inhomogeneous will flow into an isotropic and homogeneous state. Wald's theorem, in particular, established that certain homogeneous but anisotropic spacetimes, if filled with a positive cosmological constant plus additional matter sources that satisfy specific energy conditions, will necessarily flow toward an (isotropic) de Sitter state at late times. In this talk, using an EFT-based dynamical framework, I'll describe recent work on the flow of homogeneous but anisotropic spacetimes toward (isotropic) de Sitter states under conditions more general than those to which Wald's theorem applies. In particular, in the absence of a bare cosmological constant, and for effective matter sources that do not obey the energy conditions required for Wald's theorem, the evolution of homogeneous but anisotropic spacetimes can be consistent with the emergence of an effective cosmological constant. |
Global Structure in Semi-Classical Gravity Conference (Munich)
21-23.07.2022, LMU Munich. This will be the first major conference to address foundational issues associated with semi-classical gravity. See here for more information: https://www.mcmp.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/events/workshops/container/scg2022/index.html
Persistence in Stability Workshop
In collaboration with the Change & Change-Makers DFG-Network, the Lichtenberg Group is organising a workshop on persistence in stability. See here for further info.
History, Philosophy & Sociology of Cosmology & Astroparticle Physics Conference
HPS-CAP conference, 29-30 June 2022, University Club Bonn. Organised by the project "LHC, dark matter & gravity" of the research unit "Epistemology of the LHC". See here for further info.
Beyond Models Workshop
Beyond Models Workshop, 14-15 June 2022, University of Bonn. Organised by the project "Model Building and Dynamics" of the research unit "Epistemology of the LHC". See here for further info.
AGPhil DPG Conference
Section of the Philosophy of Physics Group during the German Physical Society Conference, 21-25 March 2022, online/Heidelberg. Organised by Dennis Lehmkuhl & Radin Dardashti. For further info, see here.
Philosophy of Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter Candidates Reading Group (PPBHDM)
Primordial black holes as dark matter research program connects to large-scale cosmic history in the very early universe as well as quantum gravity phenomenology. Despite lack of evidence for the existence of primordial black holes, PBHDM have been intensively pursued for over 50 years. This makes it a striking territory for philosophers of physics to explore. The group meets on Wednesdays, from 17:00 till 18:00 CE(S)T, every two weeks (alternating with the Particle/Astro/Cosmology Discussion Group). For more information, contact Juliusz Doboszewski or Mike Schneider.
Particle/Astro/Cosmology Discussion Group
After the online philosophy of dark matter workshop in March 2021, a group of roughly 20 scholars (incl. physicists, philosophers, historians & sociologists) started a regular, global, online discussion group on the history, philosophy and sociology of the intersection between cosmology, astronomy and particle physics, with an initial focus on dark matter. We meet every two weeks on Wednesdays, from 17:00 till 18:00 CE(S)T. Initially we discussed the dark matter chapters from Peebles’ recent book “Cosmology’s Century”, but currently we discuss whatever other/broader topics are of interest to the group, either based on a published paper, a draft by a group member, or we just have an open discussion about a specific theme. If you are interested in joining the "Peebles Fan Club", please contact nmartens [at] uni-bonn.de.
# |
Date |
Topic |
Reading |
1 |
21 April 2021 |
Intro |
Peebles Ch.1 |
2 |
5 May 2021 |
Dark Matter |
Peebles Ch.6.1-3 |
3 |
19 May 2021 |
Dark Matter |
Peebles Ch.6.4-6 |
4 |
2 June 2021 |
Dark Matter |
Peebles Ch.7 |
5 |
30 June 2021 |
Interaction bewteen particle physics, astronomy & cosmology (constraints & communities) |
None. General discussion. |
6 |
14 July 2021 |
Early history of dark matter & cosmology |
|
7 |
29 Sept 2021 |
Cosmic structure |
Peebles Ch5.1 |
8 |
13 Oct 2021 |
Relationship between philosophy/history/sociology and cosmology/astronomy/particle physics |
None. General discussion. |
9 |
3 Nov 2021 |
Testability in modern cosmology |
|
10 |
17 Nov 2021 |
Cosmological Principle |
|
11 |
1 Dec 2021 |
Historical style in modern cosmology |
|
12 |
15 Dec 2021 |
Simulation in astronomy & cosmology |
|
13 |
19 Jan 2022 |
Experiment vs Observation |
None. Small presentation followed by general discussion. |
14 |
2 Feb 2022 |
Stabs in the Dark Sector |
Schneider draft |
15 |
16 Feb 2022 |
Cosmological Realism |
|
16 |
9 March 2022 |
Manchak on underdetermination in cosmology |
Manchak 2009, 2011 |
17 |
23 March 2022 |
The fate of TeVeS |
History, Philosophy & Sociology of Large Physics Experiments Spring School (Wuppertal)
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Winter)
Vertical Divider
Time & Place: |
Tuesdays from 16:15 to 17:45 CE(S)T.
All sessions can be attended via Zoom; the sessions that are indicated as 'hybrid' below may also be attended in person (HS X at Nussallee 9). Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de. Subscribing to this list is possible a) here, b) by sending an empty email to hpp-subscribe@listen.uni-bonn.de, or c) by contacting nmartens[at]uni-bonn[dot]de |
Conveners: |
12 Oct 2021
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Klaus Hentschel (University of Stuttgart)
History of the concept and of mental models of photons: concept-formation in slow-motion Abstract
In the talk I will unfold my idea of a layer-wise semantic accretion which took centuries in the case of light. This case is thus like a slow-motion version of the general process of concept formation which often condenses into far shorter time intervals. I will also discuss a few other models of concept-formation. |
19 Oct 2021
Hybrid (in-person speaker) |
Vertical Divider
|
Jan Potters (University of Antwerp & University of Bonn)
Hazy spots on a photographic plate: On the Measurement of the Electron's Charge-To-Mass Ratio Abstract
In 1906, Walter Kaufmann published the results of his highly anticipated experiments on the velocity-dependency of the electron's charge-to-mass ratio. The interest mainly stemmed from Kaufmann's promise that these experiments would be so precise as to allow for a decision between two fundamental approaches to physics at the time: the theory of special relativity and the electromagnetic world view. And the results were clear, according to Kaufmann: the relativistic approach had to be considered as a failure. In this talk, I will focus on one particular aspect of these experiments and the attempts to replicate them, namely the use of photographic plates to capture electrons and measure their velocity and charge-to-mass ratio. I will argue, more specifically, that by analyzing how these photographic plates were produced and handled, one can discern different conceptualizations of the relation between objectivity, precision, and error. By means of the work of Kathryn Olesko, Lorraine Daston and Kelley Wilder, I will then argue that these different conceptualizations can be traced back to different local measurement contexts. In the final part of my talk, I will then reflect on what this could mean for how we study approaches such as the electromagnetic world view, following a debate between Suman Seth and Shaul Katzir. I will suggest, more specifically, that they are not to be seen as a set of explicit theoretical commitments, but rather as a way of going about in either theoretical or experimental practice, and that how this way is given content is, in part, influenced by the local context in which a scientist is active. |
26 Oct 2021
Hybrid (both speakers will present online, but it is possible to watch a large-screen live-stream at the Nussallee) |
Vertical Divider
|
Master Presentations on Scientific Realism
Presentation 1 (16:15-17:15): Laura Michler Structural Realism as an Alternative to Standard Scientific Realism: Epistemic Structural Realism vs. Ontic Structural Realism Abstract
In this session, I will present parts of my Bachelor’s thesis in which I argued in favor of scientific realism, yet not for the standard version but for an alternative which is called structural realism (SR). I will analyze whether SR is an alternative to the standard version of scientific realism regarding the way SR addresses the scientific realist’s challenges. The main focus of my thesis is to explore the two versions of structural realism, epistemic structural realism (ESR) and ontic structural realism (OSR), in order to investigate whether both, one or none of these forms can successfully address the problems the standard realist faces. Regarding this matter, I will examine what the epistemic and the ontic version of SR consist in, how they operate and how they respond to the challenges of scientific realism such as the Underdetermination of Theory Choice by Evidence (UTE) and the Pessimistic Meta-Induction (PMI). Vertical Divider
Presentation 2 (17:15-18:15): Tim Niereisel
The Realism of the Event Horizon Telescope Abstract
tba |
2 Nov 2021
Hybrid (in-person debaters) NB. Germany has just switched from CEST to CET. |
Vertical Divider
|
Debate: The merits of semi-classical gravity
Proponent: Erik Curiel (MCMP, LMU Munich & BHI Harvard) Opponent: Christian Wüthrich (University of Geneva) |
9 Nov 2021
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
In this talk I will briefly explain the initial value formulation for Einstein’s equations. Using this formulation, I will then discuss the question of the future stability of the standard models of the universe. Finally, I will the discuss the extent to which it is possible to determine the shape (topology) of the universe on the basis of observations. This naturally leads to a discussion of the Copernican and cosmological principles. |
16 Nov 2021
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Domenico Giulini (University of Hannover)
Lie's 'sphere-geometry' as a tool to generate cosmological solutions Abstract
One of the fundamental problems in mathematical cosmology is how to derive the Friedman equations within a scheme of controlled approximations from Einstein’s field equations, e.g., through averaging. In this talk I will present a new idea of how to analytically construct initial data consisting of generalised apollonian-like packings of black holes, that allows to vastly generalise the old lattice-universe models by Lindquist & Wheeler (1957). In this way we can, in principle, analytically construct initial data of lattice-like cosmological models with any degree of homogeneity. Our approach makes essential use of Lie’s 'sphere geometry’, a part of geometry that so far seems to have found (almost) no application in physics. The talk is based on our 2020 paper https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab6a20. |
23 Nov 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
CANCELLED
|
30 Nov 2021
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
In this talk I examine the use of storylines in the recent IPCC report, AR6, and argue that, in light of the deep uncertainties affecting detailed projections of climate futures, presenting low-likelihood but high-impact storylines serves an important purpose for structuring public policy decisions. |
7 Dec 2021
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
14 Dec 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh)
POSTPONED TILL 31 MAY 2022 DUE TO THE PANDEMIC Perspectival modelling as modelling possibilities. Nuclear models around 1930s-1950s. |
21 Dec 2021
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Abstract
A brief (and very personal) history of particle theory in the early '70s between 't Hooft's unraveling of spontaneously broken non-Abelian gauge theories and the experimental discovery of the J/Psi. The creation of grand unified theories was both inevitable and revolutionary, ultimately contributing to a dramatic change in our conception of quantum field theory and global symmetries. |
BREAK (two weeks)
11 Jan 2022
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Michael Gordin (Princeton University)
Relativistic Bohemia: Einstein’s Theory from Prague’s Perspective Abstract
The history of Albert Einstein’s relativity theory is often told through a fixed set of places: the Bern Patent office, the Zurich Notebooks, and the celebrated presentation of the general theory in Berlin in November 1915. Marginal to this progression of intellectual triumphs is Prague, where Einstein worked at the German University as professor of theoretical physics from April 1911 to August 1912. While in Prague, Einstein for the first time devoted significant attention to expanding his earlier ideas about how to generalize special relativity as a theory of gravity. The so-called “static theory,” which he developed in the Bohemian capital, has been widely considered a failure (when it is considered at all), and serious analysis of his intellectual trajectory typically begins with his subsequent collaboration with Marcel Grossmann in Zurich. This presentation places the static theory within the Prague context to show the many ways in which the development and interpretation of relativity was shaped by his comparatively brief residence in the third city of the Habsburg Empire. In addition to gravitation, the presentation will discuss Einstein’s personal and philosophical connections with his Prague predecessor Ernst Mach and Prague successor Philipp Frank, as well as later Czech interpretations of relativity theory in the decades following Einstein’s departure. |
18 Jan 2022
Hybrid (in-person discussants) |
Vertical Divider
|
Dialogue: Philosophy of the Historical Sciences
POSTPONED TILL 17 MAY 2022 DUE TO THE PANDEMIC Paleontology, Geology & Archeology Adrian Currie (University of Exeter) Astronomy & Cosmology Juliusz Doboszewski (University of Bonn & BHI Harvard) |
25 Jan 2022
17:00-18:30 Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Debate: Relevance of History of Physics for Philosophy of Physics
Proponent: Dennis Lehmkuhl (University of Bonn) Opponent: Stephan Hartmann (MCMP, LMU Munich) |
1 Feb 2022
Online only |
Vertical Divider
|
Marie Gueguen (Institute of Physics of Rennes 1)
A crack in the track of the Hubble constant: a guide for astrophysical measures in context of high uncertainties Abstract
Measuring the value of the Hubble constant, i.e., the rate at which the universe expands at a given time, has always been a topic of controversy. As early as the 1970’s, Sandage et de Vaucouleurs have been arguing about what the adequate methodology should be for such a delicate experimental measure. Should astronomers focus only their best indicators, e.g. the Cepheids, and improve the precision of this measurement based on a unique object to the best possible? Or should they “spread the risks” , i.e., multiply the indicators and methodologies before averaging over their results? Should a robust agreement across several uncertain measures weigh more than a single 1% precision measurement? This disagreement, I argue, stems from a misconception of what managing the uncertainties associated with such experimental measures require. Astrophysical measurements such as the measure of the Hubble constant, indeed, require a methodology that permits both to reduce the known uncertainties and to track the unknown unknowns. In other words, the methods advocated by Sandage and de Vaucouleurs are both needed, but do not serve the same purpose. Based on the lessons drawn from the Hubble crisis, I suggest a methodological guide for identifying, quantifying and reducing uncertainties in astrophysical measurements. |
2020/2021
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Summer)
Time and Place: |
Vertical Divider
|
Tuesdays from 16:15 to 17:45 CEST.
Online via Zoom. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de. Subscribing to this list is possible a) here, b) by sending an empty email to hpp-subscribe@listen.uni-bonn.de, or c) by contacting nmartens[at]uni-bonn[dot]de |
Conveners: |
Vertical Divider
|
13 April 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Martin Lesourd (Black Hole Initiative, Harvard & Clark University)
What can observers know about their spacetime? In general relativity (Lorentzian geometry more precisely), one can make this question mathematically precise and study it rigorously. J.Earman, C.Glymour, D.Malament, JB Manchak have all contributed to the question. The most up to date results (before this work) are due to JB Manchak and these seem to suggest a strong sense of epistemic underdetermination, i.e., the answer to the question being `global facts about our spacetime are out of reach in a strong sense' . I'll describe some new results that shed new light on this and I'll state some attractive open questions. |
20 April 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Adam Koberinski (University of Waterloo & University of Bonn)
How effective is inflation? Inflation is currently a key component of the cosmological model of the early universe. First developed to solve the horizon and flatness problems, its empirical success in predicting the scale-invariant spectrum of inhomogeneities in the cosmic microwave background has cemented inflation as a major component of our understanding of the universe. Standard accounts of inflation involve a scalar field driving exponential expansion of the universe. Coupled with an understanding of our best quantum field theories as effective field theories, many physicists (Weinberg 2008, Cheng et al. 2008) take inflation to be an effective field theory as well. In this talk I will distinguish two notions of effective field theory that are often conflated. The former, loose sense of effective is that the theory is approximate and taken to only be valid in a limited domain, while the second employs the full machinery of the renormalization group, scale separation, and allows one to place quantitative error bounds on calculations made with the theory. I argue that, while inflationꟷalong with many other theoriesꟷis effective in the first sense, it is not in the more robust sense. This has implications for the extent to which we can think of inflation “washing away” the physics of the early universe. If inflation is not an effective field theory in the latter sense, then it is currently a (highly successful) phenomenological model that faces major foundational hurdles to being a useful guide for further inquiry into the early universe. I will end by discussing implications of the argument for exploring alternatives to inflation. In particular, one should prioritize approaches that lead to a fruitful enterprise of early universe cosmology; deviations from the expected behaviour point the way to new physical features relevant to the domain. |
27 April 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Shannon Sylvie Abelson (Indiana University, Bloomington)
The fate of TeVeS The GW 170817 event co-detected by the LIGO and Virgo observatories registered simultaneous arrival times for gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation emanating from a binary star merger. This detection event has been treated consistently within recent literature (Boran, et al. 2018; Green, et al. 2018; Baker, et al. 2017; Sakstein and Jain 2017; Schmidt 2017) as a crucial test of all alternative theories of gravity which postulate gravitational waves propagate along separate geodesics from electromagnetic spectra—a test such theories fail. These theories are purportedly thereby falsified. This includes relativistic extensions of Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), perhaps most notably Bekenstein’s Tensor-Vector-Scalar gravity (TeVeS). I critically examine the explicit endorsement of this case as one of falsification by members of the scientific community. While the current state of these theories is dim, it is not clear that recent developments in multimessenger observation can supply a decisive falsification. Rather this evidence should be regarded as merely disconfirmatory. The recommendation of caution regarding philosophical terminology in this case is intended to underscore the importance of having a consistent testing and confirmation methodology. The reliance upon over-simplified historical views from the philosophy of science is likely to be more of a hindrance than a help. |
4 May 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Noah Stemeroff (University of Bonn)
Weyl on the methodology of physical inquiry (or why we can't teach theoretical physics to babies, no matter what Chris Ferrie says) There is a common belief concerning the nature of scientific knowledge, which suggests that successful physical theories provide an accurate picture of reality. To understand a theory, we simply need to understand this picture and what it says about the world. Against this belief stands the neo-Kantian idealist tradition in the philosophy of science, which suggests that the distinction between ‘theory’ and ‘reality’ is untenable. To the idealist, ‘reality’ is, at least in part, a theoretical construction. In this talk, I will provide an introduction to Cassirer’s neo-Kantian philosophy of science and some aspects of Weyl's more idealistic thought. In particular, I will focus on the way in which Weyl’s account of the role that both history and philosophy play in securing a mathematical harmony in the theoretical construction of reality can serve to support a neo-Kantian challenge to traditional scientific realism. At some point, I will also clarify what all this has to do with the burgeoning theoretical physics for babies literature. |
11 May 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Erik Curiel (Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy & Black Hole Initiative)
Causality, Topology, Affinity, Curvature, Metric Traditional and popular debates about the metaphysical, physical and conceptual character of different types of structure in spacetime theories such as general relativity tend to focus on the differential manifold and the metric. There are, however, many different types of structure making up the formalism of such theories, each playing its own peculiar role in making it possible for the integrated whole to be interpreted as a "spacetime". Those roles, moreover, are not independent of each other: each places non-trivial constraints on the other, and that in a number of ways. The resulting pattern has more the texture of a web of interlacing, mutually ramifying structures than the clearly stratified and ordered stack of independent layers they are usually depicted as (when attended to at all). I canvass a number of theorems, constructions and cases exemplifying this glorious mess. They show clearly that traditional and popular debates such as substantivalism versus relationalism and the dynamical versus the geometrical views are, in the context of general relativity, badly misconceived at best and irremediably incoherent at worst. The results, facts and observations I discuss reveal new, albeit related, questions, new problems, that deserve their own analysis, investigation and exploration---questions and problems natural to general relativity, arising from its intrinsic formal and conceptual structures, in a way that the standard debates are not, having themselves been imposed by historical contingency or imported from the contexts of other theories where they perhaps had more cogency. |
18 May 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Anna Ijjas (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics)
A new kind of cyclic universe In this talk, I will discuss how combining intervals of ultra-slow contraction with a (non-singular) classical bounce naturally leads to a novel cyclic theory of the universe in which the Hubble parameter, energy density and temperature oscillate periodically, but the scale factor grows by an exponential factor from one cycle to the next. |
BREAK
1 June 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Robert Rynasiewicz (Johns Hopkins University)
How not to argue that distant simultaneity is conventional In 1905 Einstein averred that the one-way speed of light in vacuo, and thus the simultaneity of distant events, is a matter of convention. Setting that speed to c in all directions, the principle of relativity together with the light postulate entails that judgments of simultaneity are relative to the choice inertial frames. Reichenbach showed in the early 1920's that the latitude in the original choice of a simultaneity criterion corresponds to the freedom in the choice the parameter ε anywhere between 0 and 1 (exclusively) in the equation t2 = t1 + ε(t3 – t1) wherein t1 is the time of departure from point A, t2 the time of arrival and reflection at point B, and t3 the time of return to point A. Subsequently, Grünbaum saw this as defining the region of "topological" simultaneity between future and past light cones, which indicated to him that there is no causally definable hyperplane of simultaneity through their point of intersection. However, Malament showed in 1977 that this is mistaken: the plane that is Minkowski orthogonal to the observer's world line is picked out by causal criteria alone. On this ground, Malament went on to conclude that the criterion for frame relative simultaneity is not conventional. In this talk, I argue that Grünbaum simply missed Einstein's point. It was for that reason that Malament was able to produce a result in conflict with Grünbaum's contention. But Malament also missed the point, leading him to the false conclusion that frame-relative simultaneity is not conventional. I go on to suggest that in the current divide on the topic, those in the non-conventional camp are typically confused with Grünbaum and Malament on what's at stake in the debate. |
8 June 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Richard Staley (University of Cambridge)
The epistemologist and the history of relational mechanics: Mach, Einstein, Rovelli Mach’s major contributions to the development of relativity have long seemed to be primarily epistemological - as Einstein avers in his well-known obituary, for example. This paper examines the origins of much of Mach’s work in psychophysics in the 1860s and 70s and his own account of the nature of epistemology from the 1890s onwards to argue instead for a more fluid approach to what has counted as ‘science’ and ‘epistemology’ at different times, while exploring different moments in the history of relational mechanics in the work of Mach, Einstein and Carlo Rovelli. |
15 June 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Tiffany Nichols (Harvard University, Dept. of the History of Science & Black Hole Initiative)
The Blueberry Barrens as a Potential Site of Gravitational Wave Detection: Early Understandings of the Role of Land in the Detection of Gravitational Waves Current literature has unduly collapsed the site selection history of the Laser Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) to a claimed U.S. Congressional decision for LIGO's sites. My research reveals that the site selection history is more expansive. By providing an account of LIGO's holistic site selection history, my research shows the importance of land considerations in gravitational wave detection. This talk will focus on LIGO physicists' initial consideration of a site in the blueberry barrens of Maine during the 1980s. I will discuss how land features, geological history, and social characteristics of the land became features of the experiment and quest to detect gravitational waves. |
22 June 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Kevin Coffey (NYU Abu Dhabi)
Symmetry and Interpretation in Newtonian Gravitation It has long been recognized that Newtonian gravitation theory exhibits an important symmetry with respect to its inertial structure. Many philosophers of physics have used this fact to conclude that inertial structure within the theory ought to be interpreted as a gauge quantity—a conventional choice without underlying physical significance. This claim originally took shape in the cosmological context, but has now been extended to all models of Newtonian gravitation. In recent years, this argument has also played a role in attempts to show that Newtonian gravitation theory is theoretically equivalent to Newton-Cartan theory, a ‘geometrized’ counterpart to Newtonian gravitation. In my talk I aim to challenge this interpretation of Newtonian gravitation: despite the noted symmetry, I’ll argue that there are good reasons not to interpret its inertial structure as a gauge quantity. In the process, I hope to reveal an unappreciated aspect of the relationship between symmetries and theory interpretation. |
29 June 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
William L. Vanderburgh (California State University, San Bernardino)
What We Don't Know Could Fill the Universe–And It Does Given the fact that we have known about the dark matter problem since at least Zwicky 1933, it is rather surprising that we don't yet have a good idea what its solution is. This is even more surprising if you read the popular science press since, dozens of times in recent decades, they have announced that the dark matter mystery has been "solved." Every good idea seems to be quickly shot down and we are left with little but uncertainty. In my talk for the Philosophy of Dark Matter Workshop earlier this spring, I argued that Multi-messenger Astronomy is a model for how we could come to know enough to be scientific realists about dark matter. This paper builds on that one by looking for specific detailed examples of multiple measurement, consilience, multimodal evidence and related evidential concepts in the search for dark matter. It concludes that while there are prospects for fulfilling our hope to discover the nature of dark matter and confirm its role in astrophysics and cosmology, it is still possible that we may never achieve this hope. At this point, we need to wrestle with the possibilities that (1) even if have good reason to think that dark matter exists, it may be a kind of stuff it will be impossible for us ever know and that (2) pursuing knowledge of dark matter might not be worthwhile from the point of view of the costs in time, talent, resources, and lost opportunities to study other things. |
6 July 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Panel: Epistemology of Very Large Experiments
Event Horizon Telescope Jamee Elder (Black Hole Initiative, Harvard & University of Bonn) Juliusz Doboszewski (University of Bonn & Black Hole Initiative) LIGO-Virgo Jamee Elder (Black Hole Initiative, Harvard & University of Bonn) Lydia Patton (Virginia Tech) Large Hadron Collider Christian Zeitnitz (University of Wuppertal) Florian Boge (University of Wuppertal) |
13 July 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Jeremy Butterfield & Henrique Gomes (University of Cambridge)
A Noether Hole Argument The infamous hole argument---devised by Einstein and revived by Earman & Norton (1987)---has recently found its third wind. The spark that ignited yet another round of debate was Weatherall (2018)'s claim that proper attention to the mathematical structure of general relativity sufficed to disarm the indeterminism implied by the hole argument. One of Weatherall (2018)'s main ideas is to stipulate that, under the right notion of model-isomorphism, points of the manifold necessarily get dragged along with the metric. While cousins of this reply have appeared in several different attempts to block the indeterminism, we will argue that it cannot encompass all there is to the concept of diffeomorphism symmetry in general relativity. For, by dragging metric and spacetime points together, the effects of a diffeomorphism operation are, in a sense, trivialized. As a result, any idea of symmetry that is associated with this operation cannot secure conservation laws. The upshot will be that general relativity uses, and needs to use, two distinct notions of identification for the points in the underlying manifolds of symmetry-related models: a notion using a diffeomorphism to drag the metric; and a contrasting notion that individuates spacetime points independently of their metrical relations. But only the latter is non-trivial, in a sense that we describe. |
20 July 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Guy Hetzroni (University of Oxford & Utrecht University)
Joint work with James Read From Spacetime Symmetries to Gravitational Coupling This paper explores the connection between the gravitational interaction and spacetime symmetries: general covariance on the one hand, and symmetries of the tangent space on the other hand. It is based on understanding general covariance and gauge invariance as a manifestation of one heuristic principle, the methodological equivalence principle, that prescribes the introduction of a new interaction into a theory based on the way it violates an invariance requirement. This way of understanding general covariance can be used to compare general relativity not only with generally covariant formulations of special relativity, but also with gauge theories of gravity that involve non-Riemannian geometrical properties (torsion and non-metricity). Our approach suggests that the coupling prescription of general relativity introduces the minimal structure that at the same time achieves general covariance and also accounts for the preferred role of local inertial frames in non-gravitational dynamics. |
Philosophy of Lambda Workshop
This online workshop focuses on various philosophical aspects of Lambda, i.e. dark energy/ the cosmological constant/ vacuum energy. Nora Mills Boyd and Genco Guralp will discuss experimental aspects. Adam Koberinski, Mike Schneider and David Wallace will debate the cosmological constant problem. The workshop will take place on Wednesday the 16th of June 2021, via Zoom. If you are already signed up for the hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de mailing list, there is no need to register for the workshop; you will receive the Zoom-link via the mailing list roughly one week before the workshop. If not, please register via this form by the 8th of June. If you have any questions, please contact the organisers: Juliusz Doboszewski (jdobosze[at]uni-bonn.de) and Niels Martens (nmartens[at]uni-bonn.de).
All times below are in CEST. During the breaks it will be possible to informally chat with the speakers and other participants via the platform Wonder; a link will be sent out in due course.
All times below are in CEST. During the breaks it will be possible to informally chat with the speakers and other participants via the platform Wonder; a link will be sent out in due course.
14:30-15:30
Chair: Niels Martens |
Vertical Divider
|
Nora Mills Boyd (Siena College)
Do's and Don'ts from DES: Epistemic challenges in combining constraints from multiple dark energy probes Abstract
Combining empirical results in an epistemically responsible way requires significant care and attention to details of the provenance of those results. Indeed, the epistemic utility of joint constraints hangs crucially on how they were combined. Cosmologists want to study dark energy by combining data from different probes (the cosmic microwave background, supernovae, gravitational lensing, galaxy clustering, and baryon acoustic oscillations) in order to produce joint constraints on the dark energy equation of state parameter. The details involved in each of these probes are different. They use different instruments, techniques, and modeling assumptions. Until relatively recently, the way that cosmologists have deployed these results together was by processing the data from these diverse probes in parallel and then combining the results at the very end. But, as the Dark Energy Survey (DES) collaboration has pointed out, we have good reason to think that this approach to combining results could be epistemically problematic since the physical processes from which these various results derive are not independent of one another. Therefore, a more sophisticated way to combine them is to take into account correlations between the results from the different probes. Is this second approach enough to ensure that resources and assumptions that have gone into each are not interacting in a way that is problematically affecting the use to which the cosmologists want to put these results? More broadly, what is required in order to combine diverse results in an epistemically responsible way?
Combining empirical results in an epistemically responsible way requires significant care and attention to details of the provenance of those results. Indeed, the epistemic utility of joint constraints hangs crucially on how they were combined. Cosmologists want to study dark energy by combining data from different probes (the cosmic microwave background, supernovae, gravitational lensing, galaxy clustering, and baryon acoustic oscillations) in order to produce joint constraints on the dark energy equation of state parameter. The details involved in each of these probes are different. They use different instruments, techniques, and modeling assumptions. Until relatively recently, the way that cosmologists have deployed these results together was by processing the data from these diverse probes in parallel and then combining the results at the very end. But, as the Dark Energy Survey (DES) collaboration has pointed out, we have good reason to think that this approach to combining results could be epistemically problematic since the physical processes from which these various results derive are not independent of one another. Therefore, a more sophisticated way to combine them is to take into account correlations between the results from the different probes. Is this second approach enough to ensure that resources and assumptions that have gone into each are not interacting in a way that is problematically affecting the use to which the cosmologists want to put these results? More broadly, what is required in order to combine diverse results in an epistemically responsible way? |
Break (15 min)
15:45-16:45
Chair: Niels Martens |
Vertical Divider
|
Genco Guralp (San Diego State University)
Dark Energy Measurements with Type Ia Supernovae: Mapping the Systematic Uncertainty Terrain Abstract
Supernova cosmology played a prominent role in the empirical confirmation of dark energy. The early work that indicated the existence of dark energy made use of 10s of supernovae (SNe) to establish the accelerating cosmic expansion, which was then interpreted in terms of a positive cosmological constant. Today, the available supernova sample contains thousands of objects, and with the advent of the Vera Rubin Observatory and the launch of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, this statistical sample size will reach unprecedented magnitudes of tens of thousands. With this increase in the sample size, one may expect the systematic uncertainties to dominate the error budget of SNe measurements. In fact, much of the recent work in SNe cosmology is devoted to obtaining a better control on the sources of the systematics that affect the supernova analysis of dark energy. This is essential, in particular, for the measurement of the w parameter, as indicated in the science goals of the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) that puts stringent limits on the systematics in the SNe probe. The aim of this talk is to provide a general overview of the sources of systematic error in SNe cosmology and the epistemic strategies the experimentalists recently developed to tackle this issue. On the basis of this map of the systematic uncertainty terrain, I aim to show that a satisfactory epistemological account of the systematic uncertainty assessment in SNe cosmology requires a detailed examination and classification of distinct forms of modeling and simulation practices that are employed in the uncertainty computations at different levels of analysis. An important aspect of SNe cosmology is that the underlying physics of supernova explosions are not well understood, and standard data modeling is realized on purely empirical grounds. This enables experimentalists to continuously improve different aspects of the model of the experiment with the increase in the data supply. As a result, rather than having a unique aim or function, systematic uncertainty considerations in SNe cosmology play distinct roles that need to be specified at each and every aspect of the experimental activity, including design, data acquisition, modeling, analysis and validation. |
Break (15 min)
17:00-19:00
Moderator: Juliusz Doboszewski |
Vertical Divider
|
Debate - The Cosmological Constant Problem
Adam Koberinski (University of Waterloo & University of Bonn) Mike Schneider (University of Pittsburgh) David Wallace (University of Pittsburgh) |
Philosophy of Dark Matter Workshop
This online workshop is being organised as part of the project "LHC, dark matter & gravity", and will take place on 29-30 March 2021 via Zoom. Click here for further info, incl. (free) registration. The times in the schedule below are in CEST.
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Winter)
Time and Place: |
Tuesdays from 16:15 to 17:45 CET.
Online via Zoom. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de; contact nmartens[at]uni-bonn[dot]de to be added to this mailing list. |
Conveners: |
3 Nov 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Juliusz Doboszewski (University of Bonn)
Kerr black holes as time machines Spinning black holes are now considered to be a well-established feature of our universe. However, some maximal extensions of certain spinning black hole spacetimes (such as the Kerr spacetime) have chronology violating regions. How likely is it, then, that our universe contains chronology violating regions? In this talk, I will discuss whether and to what extent spinning black hole spacetimes could be seen as a time machine in some precise sense, and critically assess a recent claim that time machines (and other forms of time travel to the past in general relativity) are incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. |
10 Nov 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Richard Dawid (Stockholm University)
Based on joint work with Casey McCoy (Yonsei University) How postmodern is cosmic inflation? In 2014, Ijjas, Loeb and Steinhardt (ILS) claimed that the paradigm of eternal inflation had left the regime of canonical scientific reasoning (using the pejorative term postmodern inflation). The debate on their paper eventually led to a highly antagonistic and much publicized exchange between ILS and 40 main exponents of inflation in Scientific American. In my talk I will argue that the irreconcilable positions in this debate have genuine philosophical roots. I will sketch a Bayesian analysis of the problem raised by ILS and will argue that acknowledging the role of meta-empirical theory assessment is helpful for identifying the core of the disagreement. |
17 Nov 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Romain Ruzziconi (TU Wien)
Asymptotic symmetries in gravity and the BMS group in (A)dS I will start this talk by reviewing some aspects of asymptotic symmetries in gauge theories with a focus on General Relativity. I will insist on the deep implications of imposing boundary conditions for the general covariance principle. I will then introduce the notion of asymptotically flat spacetime and define the Bondi-van der Burg-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) group and its various extensions. Afterwards, I will propose a new definition of asymptotically (anti-)de Sitter ((A)dS) spacetime and show that the associated asymptotic symmetry group, called the Λ-BMS group, reduces to one of the extensions of the BMS group in the flat limit. Using the holographic renormalization procedure and a diffeomorphism between Bondi and Fefferman-Graham gauges, I will show that the flat limit is also valid at the level of the phase space. Based on: 1905.00971, 1910.08367, 2004.10769. |
24 Nov 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Joshua Eisenthal (Caltech & University of Bonn)
Hertz’s Mechanics and a unitary notion of force Heinrich Hertz dedicated the last four years of his life to a systematic reformulation of mechanics. One of the main issues that troubled Hertz in the traditional formulation was a ‘logical obscurity’ in the notion of force. However, it is unclear what this logical obscurity was, hence it is unclear how Hertz took himself to have avoided this obscurity in his own formulation of mechanics. In this paper I will first identify an issue concerning the Newtonian conception of force that lay in the background of Hertz’s concerns. I will argue that a subtle ambiguity in Newton’s original laws of motion led to the development of two different notions of force: a vectorial notion and a variational notion. I will then explore how Hertz employed the mathematical apparatus of differential geometry to arrive at a unitary notion of force, thus avoiding the logical obscurity that lurked in the traditional formulation of mechanics. |
1 Dec 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Emilie Skulberg (University of Cambridge)
Visual representations of the space around black holes The image of the shadow of a black hole released in April 2019 became an icon in the span of hours. Although this image was historic, if we consider visual representations such as visualisations from simulations, diagrams, and artist impressions, the iconography of black holes dates back decades before the release of imaging based on observation. The first part of my presentation provides a brief overview of this history. The second part accounts for the production of imaging within the Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, which was behind the April 2019 image. The presentation is based primarily on fieldwork where I have studied the work of the collaboration, an analysis of their publications targeting various audiences, and the study of a collection of black hole imaging from 1973 to 2000. |
8 Dec 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Eleanor Knox (King's College London)
How to be a spacetime functionalist There is increasing interest in a position that goes by the name of spacetime functionalism, and several authors emphasise the importance of functional reduction to the interpretation of spacetime theories. I will argue that, although thinking about functional reduction is apt in some cases, focussing on a Lewisian model of reduction misses important features of spacetime functionalism. I will illustrate this with cases from classical spacetime theories. |
15 Dec 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Gordon Belot (University of Michigan)
The Mach—Einstein Principle of 1917—1918 In 1917 and 1918 Einstein was working on relativistic cosmology and promoting and explaining general relativity in correspondence. During this period, he maintained that in general relativity the spacetime metric is fully determined by the distribution of matter. I’ll worry about what he means by this, whether it makes any sense, and whether any claim in the neighbourhood is true. |
22 Dec 2020
|
Vertical Divider
|
Sjang ten Hagen (University of Bonn)
Historical Methods in Nineteenth-Century Physics The histories of the historical and the natural sciences have been written largely separately from one another. This is problematic, since it has obscured crucial instances of cross-fertilization between historical and natural-scientific research in the past. In my talk, I discuss a key example of such cross-fertilization: the use of historical methods in physics. In particular, I examine the historically focused work of two prominent German-speaking physicists from the nineteenth century: Johann Christian Poggendorff (1796–1877) and Ernst Mach (1838–1916). Both considered historiography to be a highly valuable tool for the physicist. Their motivations to use this tool, however, were very different. What were these motivations? What did Mach and Poggendorff’s historiography concretely entail? How were their results judged by other physicists, and by historians? And what, finally, does all this suggest about the general relationship between the historical and the natural sciences? |
BREAK
12 Jan 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Lydia Patton (Virginia Tech)
Expanding theory testing in general relativity: LIGO and parametrized theories The multiple detections of gravitational waves by LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), operated by Caltech and MIT, have been acclaimed as confirming Einstein's prediction, a century ago, that gravitational waves propagating as ripples in spacetime would be detected. Yunes and Pretorius (2009) investigate whether LIGO's template-based searches encode fundamental assumptions, especially the assumption that the background theory of general relativity is an accurate description of the phenomena detected in the search. They construct the parametrized post-Einsteinian (ppE) framework in response, which broadens those assumptions and allows for wider testing under more flexible assumptions. Their methods are consistent with work on confirmation and testing found in Carnap (1936), Hempel (1969), and Stein (1992, 1994), with the following principles in common: that confirmation is distinct from testing, and that, counterintuitively, revising a theory's formal basis can make it more broadly empirically testable. These views encourage a method according to which theories can be made abstract, to define families of general structures for the purpose of testing. With the development of the ppE framework and related approaches, multi-messenger astronomy is a catalyst for deep reasoning about the limits and potential of the theoretical framework of general relativity. Based on: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219818302089 |
19 Jan 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Bernadette Lessel (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin)
„I think I could make a report on quantization of gravitation much shorter than 30 minutes“ - Léon Rosenfeld and his understanding of the necessity of quantizing fields Léon Rosenfeld is probably mostly known as devoted adherent and fierce defender of Niels Bohr’s interpretation of Quantum mechanics. But he also had had a past, where he had pioneered in a remarkable way in the area of quantization of gravitation, while he later sharply criticized this program altogether. In this talk we want to examine how this all goes together and in particular outline Rosenfeld's distinct view on the usage of mathematical methods in physical theory development. |
26 Jan 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Karim Thébault (University of Bristol)
Based on joint work with Sean Gryb (Groningen) Poincaré, Dark Energy, and the Deadly Robots of Krikkit Henri Poincaré, in a strangely neglected passage towards the end of his monumental essay on `Relative and Absolute Motion' (Science and Hypothesis, 1905 Chapter 7), appeals to the idea of a planet entirely secluded from the rest of the universe by clouds to argue that 'as long as nature has secrets' the distinction between constants of nature and constants of motion will remain 'highly arbitrary and always precarious' (p.87). To what extent do such arguments support a relationship between a scientist's epistemic access to different scales and the categorisation of constants? What are the implications of this view for modern cosmology, in particular the interpretation of the cosmological constant and the quantization of gravity? And what does any of this have to do with Robots? In this talk I will attempt to answer these and other related questions. |
2 Feb 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
James Read (Oxford University)
Based on joint work with Niels Linnemann (Rotman & Bremen) On the null propagation of electromagnetic waves Orthodoxy dictates that light propagates along null geodesics. Since at least the work of DeWitt and Brehme (1960), this orthodoxy has been questioned. Recently, Asenjo and Hojman (2017) have continued in this tradition, by solving Maxwell’s equations in spacetimes such as Gödel and Kerr. They argue that: (i) before the geometrical optics limit is taken, light in curved spacetimes need not propagate on null geodesics; (ii) sometimes, the geometrical optics limit cannot consistently be taken. In this talk, I expand upon (i), by considering the effects of including additional curvature coupling terms in Maxwell’s equations. I also argue that (ii) is false. Finally, I consider whether (as Asenjo and Hojman assume) the group velocity of light is properly associated with the signal velocity. |
9 Feb 2021
|
Vertical Divider
|
Siska de Baerdemaeker (Stockholm University)
Method-driven experiments and the search for dark matter Since the discovery of dark matter, multiple experiments have been set up to detect dark matter particles through some other interaction than gravity--despite the fact that the only available evidence for dark matter's existence is through its gravitational effects. I show that the justifications for why these experiments should be able to detect dark matter take on a different structure than what is often the case in experimental practice. By illuminating this 'method-driven logic', I shed new light on questions surrounding complementarity and measurement robustness in context of dark matter research. |
2019/20
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Summer)
Time and Place: |
Vertical Divider
|
Tuesdays from 4:15pm to 5:45pm CET.
Online via Zoom. Zoom-links and weekly reminders are announced via hpp@listen.uni-bonn.de |
Conveners: |
Vertical Divider
|
21.04.2020: Tushar Menon (Cambridge)
“Settlers of Cartan—how to be a true relationalist about General Relativity”
28.04.2020: Juliusz Doboszewski (Bonn)
“Humean supervenience and general relativity”
05.05.2020: Guido Bacciagaluppi (Utrecht)
"Better than Bohr: Grete Hermann and the Copenhagen Interpretation"
12.05.2020: Sean Gryb (Groningen)
"Relational Rotation"
26.05.2020: Robert DiSalle (Western University)
"Metaphysics and method of space-time theories: the contribution of conventionalism"
09.06.2020: Chris Wüthrich (Geneva)
"Spacetime functionalism from a realist perspective"
23.06.2020: Patrick Dürr (Oxford & Bonn)
"E Pluribus Unum - E Uno Pluralia: Minimal Bohmian Mechanics"
30.06.2020: Sam Fletcher (Minnesota)
"On Surplus Structure Arguments"
07.07.2020: Alex Blum (MPIWG Berlin)
"The birth of quantum mechanics from the spirit of radiation theory"
14.07.2020: Neil Dewar (MCMP, Munich)
"Duelling theories and dual theories”
“Settlers of Cartan—how to be a true relationalist about General Relativity”
28.04.2020: Juliusz Doboszewski (Bonn)
“Humean supervenience and general relativity”
05.05.2020: Guido Bacciagaluppi (Utrecht)
"Better than Bohr: Grete Hermann and the Copenhagen Interpretation"
12.05.2020: Sean Gryb (Groningen)
"Relational Rotation"
26.05.2020: Robert DiSalle (Western University)
"Metaphysics and method of space-time theories: the contribution of conventionalism"
09.06.2020: Chris Wüthrich (Geneva)
"Spacetime functionalism from a realist perspective"
23.06.2020: Patrick Dürr (Oxford & Bonn)
"E Pluribus Unum - E Uno Pluralia: Minimal Bohmian Mechanics"
30.06.2020: Sam Fletcher (Minnesota)
"On Surplus Structure Arguments"
07.07.2020: Alex Blum (MPIWG Berlin)
"The birth of quantum mechanics from the spirit of radiation theory"
14.07.2020: Neil Dewar (MCMP, Munich)
"Duelling theories and dual theories”
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar (Winter)
Time and Place: |
Vertical Divider
|
Tuesdays from 4:15pm to 5:45pm CET.
|
Convener: |
Vertical Divider
|
8.10.2019: Dennis Lehmkuhl (Bonn)
“Why integrated history and philosophy of physics? A case study in gravity”
15.10.2019: Patrick Dürr (Oxford and Bonn)
“Unweyling three Mysteries of Nordström Gravity”
22.10.2019: Erik Curiel (MCMP Munich)
“Kinematics, Dynamics, and the Structure of Theories”
5.11.2019: Jamee Elder (Notre Dame and Bonn)
“Black hole coalescence: models and measurement”
12.11.2019: Christian Röken (Bonn)
“An integral representation of the massive Dirac operator in the Kerr geometry in EF-type Coordinates”
19.11.2019: Taimara Passero (Sao Paulo and Bonn)
"Some philosophical questions about the geometrization in General Relativity: approach from an image of nature and image of science"
26.11.2019: Juliusz Doboszewski (Bonn)
"Black to white hole bounces: an integrated history and philosophy of science perspective"
3.12.2019: Dominic Dold (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science)
“A unified approach to the relativistic and non-relativistic geodesic principle”
10.12.2019: Harvey Brown (Oxford)
“What I have learnt from the history of physics”
17.12.2019: Kian Salimkhani (Bonn)
“The dynamical approach to spin-2 gravity”
7.1.2020: Erhard Scholz (Wuppertal)
“Is integrable Weyl geometry useful in phyiscs?”
14.1.2020: Stephan Hartmann (MCMP Munich)
"Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach"
21.1.2020 Holger Lyre (Magdeburg)
“Structuralism about Parity. Handedness, mirror symmetry, and the metaphysics of space”
“Why integrated history and philosophy of physics? A case study in gravity”
15.10.2019: Patrick Dürr (Oxford and Bonn)
“Unweyling three Mysteries of Nordström Gravity”
22.10.2019: Erik Curiel (MCMP Munich)
“Kinematics, Dynamics, and the Structure of Theories”
5.11.2019: Jamee Elder (Notre Dame and Bonn)
“Black hole coalescence: models and measurement”
12.11.2019: Christian Röken (Bonn)
“An integral representation of the massive Dirac operator in the Kerr geometry in EF-type Coordinates”
19.11.2019: Taimara Passero (Sao Paulo and Bonn)
"Some philosophical questions about the geometrization in General Relativity: approach from an image of nature and image of science"
26.11.2019: Juliusz Doboszewski (Bonn)
"Black to white hole bounces: an integrated history and philosophy of science perspective"
3.12.2019: Dominic Dold (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science)
“A unified approach to the relativistic and non-relativistic geodesic principle”
10.12.2019: Harvey Brown (Oxford)
“What I have learnt from the history of physics”
17.12.2019: Kian Salimkhani (Bonn)
“The dynamical approach to spin-2 gravity”
7.1.2020: Erhard Scholz (Wuppertal)
“Is integrable Weyl geometry useful in phyiscs?”
14.1.2020: Stephan Hartmann (MCMP Munich)
"Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach"
21.1.2020 Holger Lyre (Magdeburg)
“Structuralism about Parity. Handedness, mirror symmetry, and the metaphysics of space”
2018/19
Dark Matter & Modified Gravity Conference (Aachen)
Simplicities & Complexities Conference
History and Philosophy of Physics Research Seminar
Time and Place: |
Vertical Divider
|
4:15pm to 5:45pm CET.
|
Convener: |
Vertical Divider
|
20.12.2018: Erik Curiel (MCMP Munich & BHI Harvard)
"What Is the Einstein Field Equation, and Why Does It Matter for Quantum Gravity?"
10.01.2019: Patrick Dürr (Oxford)
“Against Fuctional Gravitational Energy"
02.04.2019: Tushar Menon (Oxford)
“Clocks and chronogeometry: Rotating spacetimes and the relativistic null hypothesis”
09.04.2019: Tilman Sauer (Mainz)
“The History of Distant Parallelism Revisited”
23.04.2019: Dennis Lehmkuhl (Bonn)
"The Einstein-Weyl correspondence and geodesic motion”
30.04.2019: Florian Boge (Wuppertal)
"Quantum Information vs. Epistemic Logic: An Analysis of the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem”
07.05.2019: Joshua Rosaler (Aachen)
"The Geometry of Reduction: Compound Reduction and Overlapping State Space Domains”
27.05.2019: Jeroen van Dongen (University of Amsterdam)
"History and Philosophy of the Black Hole Information Paradox”
04.06.2019: Carina Prunkl (Oxford)
"Boltzmann Brains and Simulations - rethinking the Skeptical Hypothesis”
18.06.2019: Radin Dardashti (Wuppertal)
"The Empirical Progress of Non-Empirical Science”
25.06.2019: Martin King (Bonn)
"The Rise of Model Independence in Particle Physics”
02.07.2019: Michael Stöltzner (South Carolina & Bonn)
"On the Emergence of Fluctuations”
"What Is the Einstein Field Equation, and Why Does It Matter for Quantum Gravity?"
10.01.2019: Patrick Dürr (Oxford)
“Against Fuctional Gravitational Energy"
02.04.2019: Tushar Menon (Oxford)
“Clocks and chronogeometry: Rotating spacetimes and the relativistic null hypothesis”
09.04.2019: Tilman Sauer (Mainz)
“The History of Distant Parallelism Revisited”
23.04.2019: Dennis Lehmkuhl (Bonn)
"The Einstein-Weyl correspondence and geodesic motion”
30.04.2019: Florian Boge (Wuppertal)
"Quantum Information vs. Epistemic Logic: An Analysis of the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem”
07.05.2019: Joshua Rosaler (Aachen)
"The Geometry of Reduction: Compound Reduction and Overlapping State Space Domains”
27.05.2019: Jeroen van Dongen (University of Amsterdam)
"History and Philosophy of the Black Hole Information Paradox”
04.06.2019: Carina Prunkl (Oxford)
"Boltzmann Brains and Simulations - rethinking the Skeptical Hypothesis”
18.06.2019: Radin Dardashti (Wuppertal)
"The Empirical Progress of Non-Empirical Science”
25.06.2019: Martin King (Bonn)
"The Rise of Model Independence in Particle Physics”
02.07.2019: Michael Stöltzner (South Carolina & Bonn)
"On the Emergence of Fluctuations”