Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez

Philosophy professor, Philosopher of Physics and Science, Colombian, Cyclist Fan

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

Very excited to share a new paper that was just accepted in Nous! It is about historical, philosophical and physical issues surrounding the Relativity Principle (both Galileo’s and Einstein’s). https://t.co/9ffO6aJVC6

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@RBehiel @martinmbauer What makes the debate even more complicated is that physicists and philosophers of physics have used the terms “separability” and “locality” in many different ways, not all consistent. Separability is key here. I try to enumerate the main uses here (n/n). https://t.co/w8kdRElhVi

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@RBehiel @martinmbauer It is important to distinguish the claim that “one can’t use event B to gather information about A in a superliminal way” from “an event A can’t be a cause of B in a superluminal way”. The no signaling theorem doesn’t affect the latter. So there still is a puzzle in QM 1/n

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@RBehiel @martinmbauer It is also worth saying that Einstein didn’t like the EPR paper (he said in a letter to Schrödinger some months later).The best presentation of his incompleteness argument is found in “quantum mechanics and reality” from 1948. 2/n

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@getjonwithit @getjonwithit yeah and they took that into account when determining if the eclipse test confirmed GR or not in 1919! Another related thing that people seem to neglect is that Newton already had something like Einstein’s equivalence principle in the Principia (corollary 6).

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

I am very happy to share this popular piece on relative motion from Galileo to Einstein! It summarizes some ideas from my recent research on the history and philosophy on the relativity principle. Thanks to @IAI_TV for their invitation and for their great editorial work!

[Institute of Art and Ideas @IAI_TV]

How Galileo cracked the problem of relative motion. | https://t.co/PKbZGKCJIs

@SebasMurgue argues that distinguishing between "internal" and "external" versions of the principle highlights Galileo's forward-thinking.

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@eulerfx @martinmbauer starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on these topics, and checking recent references there. The book I posted there, as well as recent reviews of it, might be worth checking out for the particular case of the standard model and scientific realism.

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@eulerfx @martinmbauer It is a bit confusing but the literature on structuralism in science (or structural realism) is different from the literature on structuralism in math. There is also the literature on mathematical explanations in physics that is relevant to your question. I suggest (1/2)

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@eulerfx @martinmbauer @eulerfx Philosophy of physics has dealt with this question for a long time. A good place to start might be the literature on structural realism. For the case of the standard model you are considering, you might be interested in this book:
https://t.co/JXVQL4FjuJ

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@ThomasVanRiet2 @roydherbert I thought this kind of calculation would offer a visualization of the energy of a gravitational wave, similar to Bondi’s or Feynman’s beads case but with springs. But I never went beyond this initial thought and honestly don’t know how to make the calculation! 2/2

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@ThomasVanRiet2 @roydherbert I once wondered if there was a way of surrounding a certain region of space that has gravitational waves (say it has a binary system in the center) with many springs so that they would absorb *all* of the gravitational energy. A way of shielding the waves, so to speak. 1/2

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@Kaju_Nut Good thread! There is another context in which physicists have talked of what *seem* to be negative probabilities, namely, when they are discussing “weak measurements.” I do not know how many physicists took this seriously, but there are some papers about it!

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@Hassaan_PHY Alexei Konevnikov is a very good historian of science and quantum mechanics, with a focus towards Russia’s science (website: https://t.co/Tl2nfyrBe7 ). He has some publications that might interest you. For example: https://t.co/2N6T81cuwJ

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@gomes_ha @Philip_Goff @keithfrankish That one is very good but it starts relatively late (mostly 60s and afterwards).

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@MuddySister @pickover I think more important than finding the probabilities for a particular sequence, we should estimate the probability that we get a sequence with repeated numbers, and compare it to the probability of getting sequences with at least one non-repeated number.

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@MuddySister @pickover Wouldn’t those also be the probabilities for rolling any *particular sequence* (in order)? Say the probability of getting 1,2,2,3 would be 0.077. In this last case, we wouldn’t think it is biased. So why think that it is in the case of 6,6,6,6? (This is a genuine question!)

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@VergaraLautaro I once watched this physics video about a closely related question and found it helpful: https://t.co/Uf321FTTsQ

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@Hassaan_PHY Great title! Did you like the article? (Those are two excellent philosophers of physics but I have never read this one before)

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@WKCosmo @StartsWithABang …This is because your eye is completely in the same relationship with the other boat, without importing if your owner's boat is in rest and the other is in motion, or if the contrary situation prevails”. I made a mistake numbering the posts but this is the real 2/

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@WKCosmo @StartsWithABang Yes, but it goes even earlier than this. Buridan in 1340 had already proposed a relativity principle: “If you find yourself in a boat and imagine that it is in rest, then, if you see your boat that is truly in rest, you will see that your boat is in motion. 1/

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

This is a good and friendly introduction to the relativity principle! If you want to go a bit deeper in terms of historical and physics details, I invite you to read my paper on this topic as well: https://t.co/03NPF7Jf2w

[Ethan Siegel @StartsWithABang]

Relativity: the oldest physics principle that’s still correct

Relativity didn't start with Einstein, but traces its origin back to Galileo, who wrote about it in 1632.

Even in its original form, Galileo's principle is still correct today.

https://t.co/bhXh1aSSLh

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@WKCosmo @StartsWithABang It is also worth noting that a classical system can satisfy Galileo’s relativity principle and yet fail to have Galilean invariant laws. I clarify these and similar things about the history and physics of the principle in a new forthcoming paper: https://t.co/03NPF7Jf2w

[Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez @SebasMurgue]

@WKCosmo @StartsWithABang More importantly, it is important not to confuse the relativity principle that Poincaré proposed in 1904 (or the one by Einstein from 1905) , which was defined in terms of the *laws*, and principles about the relativity of *motion* like the ones by Galileo or Newton 2/