Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1001.4304

Unification and Emergence in Physics: the Problem of Articulation

Ian T. Durham

Published Jan 25, 2010• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

What is physics? What are the limits of what physics can say about the world? In seeking ever-broader theoretical `umbrellas' for physical phenomena, we are seeking unifying principles. Emergent phenomena have turned out to be some of the most difficult to explain, causing a `clash of umbrellas' so-to-speak, at the interface between the quantum and classical domains. This essay explores the role of articulation in this particularly vexing problem and ultimately addresses the question of whether the language and mathematics we use to describe the universe is sufficient in its present form and application.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1001.4304

Related papers

The Possibility for Answers from Physics

Jonathan J. Dickau

When considering the question of what is possible to learn in Physics, we are grappling with issues of what is known, what is unknown, and what is knowable. To an extent, this involves weeding out meaningless or misleading questions and nurturing those questions which will lead us to a greater understanding of what is happening in the universe. But often such a determination rests on finding a broad enough framework to accommodate known factors emerging from different disciplines. It is my belief that it is overly simplistic to seek ideas that reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the form of a Quantum Gravity Theory, if what we really require is a broader framework. This paper offers thoughts on what shape that framework must have, and how we can pin down the details of its structure. Ultimately; this reveals something about the limits of what is knowable by studying Physics, and what we can learn from Science in general.

Prespacetime journal•Jan 1, 2010•1 citation

Quantum Physics

Alastair I. M. Rae

Quantum physics is believed to be the fundamental theory underlying our understanding of the physical universe. However, it is based on concepts and principles that have always been difficult to understand and controversial in their interpretation. This book aims to explain these issues using a minimum of technical language and mathematics. After a brief introduction to the ideas of quantum physics, the problems of interpretation are identified and explained. The rest of the book surveys, describes and criticises a range of suggestions that have been made with the aim of resolving these problems; these include the traditional, or 'Copenhagen' interpretation, the possible role of the conscious mind in measurement and the postulate of parallel universes. This new edition has been revised throughout to take into account developments in this field over the past fifteen years, including the idea of 'consistent histories' to which a completely new chapter is devoted.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 26, 2012•3 citations

On the Independent Emergence of Space-time

Richard Healey

Abstract Difficulties in meshing general relativity with quantum theory have prompted a widespread conviction that space-time is not fundamental but emergent. This raises a difficult ontological question: What is there more fundamental than space-time from which it might emerge? Rather than try to answer this question, this essay suggests that one reject its presupposition that emergence demands a precisely characterized ontological basis. Instead, it explores the possibility that space-time emerges in the domain of a quantum theory of gravity in a way that does not depend on objects, properties, or processes represented by that theory. How can a quantum theory of gravity help itself to talk of physical systems or situations without representing them in space-time? This essay shows how it can in a pragmatist view of quantum theory.

•Jan 25, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Physics

Alastair I. M. Rae

Quantum physics is believed to be the fundamental theory underlying our understanding of the physical universe. However, it is based on concepts and principles that have always been difficult to understand and controversial in their interpretation. This book aims to explain these issues using a minimum of technical language and mathematics. After a brief introduction to the ideas of quantum physics, the problems of interpretation are identified and explained. The rest of the book surveys, describes and criticises a range of suggestions that have been made with the aim of resolving these problems; these include the traditional, or 'Copenhagen' interpretation, the possible role of the conscious mind in measurement, and the postulate of parallel universes. This new edition has been revised throughout to take into account developments in this field over the past fifteen years, including the idea of 'consistent histories' to which a completely new chapter is devoted.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 7, 2004•17 citations

An Axiomatization of Realities

Ashwin Vaidya, Bong Jae Chung

Perhaps one of the most intriguing questions in philosophy concerns the true nature of external reality. In this paper, we discuss some of the theories that have been put forth regarding the nature of reality and of our perceived universe. We develop an abstract mathematical model, whereby, several theories that have been proposed so, ranging from modern physics to ancient Indian philosophy can be brought under a common umbrella. We also discuss a specific case, which emerges from our more general model, which has an interesting consequence upon the way we view our world.

arXiv:math/0408313•Aug 23, 2004•0 citations

On the Foundations of Physics

Johan Noldus

The road on the foundations of science in general consists in (a) making precise what the assumptions are one makes resulting from our measurements (b) holding a “good” balance between theoretical assumptions and genericity of predictions (c) saying as precisely as possible what you mean. Unfortunately, recent work where these three criteria are met is scarce and I often encounter situations where physicists talk about different things in the same words or the other way around, identify distinct concepts (even without being aware of it), or introduce unnecessary hypothesis based upon a too stringent mathematical interpretation of some observation. In this work, I will be as critical as possible and give away those objections against modern theories of physics which have become clear in my mind and therefore transcend mere intuition. All these objections result from the use of unclear language or too stringent assumptions on the nature of reality. Next, we weaken the assumptions and discuss what I call process physics; it will turn out that Bell’s concerns do find a natural solution within this framework.

•Mar 1, 2016•3 citations
What is physics? What are the limits of what physics can say about the world? In seeking ever-broader theoretical umbrellas' for physical phenomena, we are seeking unifying principles. Emergent phenomena have turned out to be some of the most difficult to explain, causing a clash of umbrellas' so-to-speak, at the interface between the quantum and classical domains. This essay explores the role of articulation in this particularly vexing problem and ultimately addresses the question of whether the language and mathematics we use to describe the universe is sufficient in its present form and application.
When considering the question of what is possible to learn in Physics, we are grappling with issues of what is known, what is unknown, and what is knowable. To an extent, this involves weeding out meaningless or misleading questions and nurturing those questions which will lead us to a greater understanding of what is happening in the universe. But often such a determination rests on finding a broad enough framework to accommodate known factors emerging from different disciplines. It is my belief that it is overly simplistic to seek ideas that reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the form of a Quantum Gravity Theory, if what we really require is a broader framework. This paper offers thoughts on what shape that framework must have, and how we can pin down the details of its structure. Ultimately; this reveals something about the limits of what is knowable by studying Physics, and what we can learn from Science in general.
Quantum physics is believed to be the fundamental theory underlying our understanding of the physical universe. However, it is based on concepts and principles that have always been difficult to understand and controversial in their interpretation. This book aims to explain these issues using a minimum of technical language and mathematics. After a brief introduction to the ideas of quantum physics, the problems of interpretation are identified and explained. The rest of the book surveys, describes and criticises a range of suggestions that have been made with the aim of resolving these problems; these include the traditional, or 'Copenhagen' interpretation, the possible role of the conscious mind in measurement and the postulate of parallel universes. This new edition has been revised throughout to take into account developments in this field over the past fifteen years, including the idea of 'consistent histories' to which a completely new chapter is devoted.
Abstract Difficulties in meshing general relativity with quantum theory have prompted a widespread conviction that space-time is not fundamental but emergent. This raises a difficult ontological question: What is there more fundamental than space-time from which it might emerge? Rather than try to answer this question, this essay suggests that one reject its presupposition that emergence demands a precisely characterized ontological basis. Instead, it explores the possibility that space-time emerges in the domain of a quantum theory of gravity in a way that does not depend on objects, properties, or processes represented by that theory. How can a quantum theory of gravity help itself to talk of physical systems or situations without representing them in space-time? This essay shows how it can in a pragmatist view of quantum theory.
Quantum physics is believed to be the fundamental theory underlying our understanding of the physical universe. However, it is based on concepts and principles that have always been difficult to understand and controversial in their interpretation. This book aims to explain these issues using a minimum of technical language and mathematics. After a brief introduction to the ideas of quantum physics, the problems of interpretation are identified and explained. The rest of the book surveys, describes and criticises a range of suggestions that have been made with the aim of resolving these problems; these include the traditional, or 'Copenhagen' interpretation, the possible role of the conscious mind in measurement, and the postulate of parallel universes. This new edition has been revised throughout to take into account developments in this field over the past fifteen years, including the idea of 'consistent histories' to which a completely new chapter is devoted.
Perhaps one of the most intriguing questions in philosophy concerns the true nature of external reality. In this paper, we discuss some of the theories that have been put forth regarding the nature of reality and of our perceived universe. We develop an abstract mathematical model, whereby, several theories that have been proposed so, ranging from modern physics to ancient Indian philosophy can be brought under a common umbrella. We also discuss a specific case, which emerges from our more general model, which has an interesting consequence upon the way we view our world.
The road on the foundations of science in general consists in (a) making precise what the assumptions are one makes resulting from our measurements (b) holding a “good” balance between theoretical assumptions and genericity of predictions (c) saying as precisely as possible what you mean. Unfortunately, recent work where these three criteria are met is scarce and I often encounter situations where physicists talk about different things in the same words or the other way around, identify distinct concepts (even without being aware of it), or introduce unnecessary hypothesis based upon a too stringent mathematical interpretation of some observation. In this work, I will be as critical as possible and give away those objections against modern theories of physics which have become clear in my mind and therefore transcend mere intuition. All these objections result from the use of unclear language or too stringent assumptions on the nature of reality. Next, we weaken the assumptions and discuss what I call process physics; it will turn out that Bell’s concerns do find a natural solution within this framework.