Results 1  10
of
15
AXIOMATIZING RELATIVISTIC DYNAMICS WITHOUT CONSERVATION POSTULATES
"... Abstract. A part of relativistic dynamics is axiomatized by simple and purely geometrical axioms formulated within firstorder logic. A geometrical proof of the formula connecting relativistic and rest masses of bodies is presented, leading up to a geometric explanation of Einstein’s famous E = mc 2 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. A part of relativistic dynamics is axiomatized by simple and purely geometrical axioms formulated within firstorder logic. A geometrical proof of the formula connecting relativistic and rest masses of bodies is presented, leading up to a geometric explanation of Einstein’s famous E = mc 2. The connection of our geometrical axioms and the usual axioms on the conservation of mass, momentum and fourmomentum is also investigated. 1.
Firstorder logic foundation of relativity theories
 In New Logics for the XXIst Century II, Mathematical Problems from Applied Logics, volume 5 of International Mathematical Series
, 2006
"... Abstract. Motivation and perspective for an exciting new research direction interconnecting logic, spacetime theory, relativity— including such revolutionary areas as black hole physics, relativistic computers, new cosmology—are presented in this paper. We would like to invite the logician reader to ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Motivation and perspective for an exciting new research direction interconnecting logic, spacetime theory, relativity— including such revolutionary areas as black hole physics, relativistic computers, new cosmology—are presented in this paper. We would like to invite the logician reader to take part in this grand enterprise of the new century. Besides general perspective and motivation, we present initial results in this direction.
Time travel and time machines
, 2011
"... This paper is an enquiry into the logical, metaphysical, and physical possibility of time travel understood in the sense of the existence of closed worldlines that can be traced out by physical objects. We argue that none of the purported paradoxes rule out time travel either on grounds of logic or ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper is an enquiry into the logical, metaphysical, and physical possibility of time travel understood in the sense of the existence of closed worldlines that can be traced out by physical objects. We argue that none of the purported paradoxes rule out time travel either on grounds of logic or metaphysics. More relevantly, modern spacetime theories such as general relativity seem to permit models that feature closed worldlines. We discuss, in the context of Gödel’s infamous argument for the ideality of time based on his eponymous spacetime, what this apparent physical possibility of time travel means. Furthermore, we review the recent literature on socalled time machines, i.e., of devices that produce closed worldlines where none would have existed otherwise. Finally, we investigate what the implications of the quantum behaviour of matter for the possibility of time travel might be and explicate in what sense time travel might be possible according to leading contenders for full quantum theories of gravity such as string theory and loop quantum gravity. 1
General relativistic hypercomputing and foundation of mathematics
"... Abstract. Looking at very recent developments in spacetime theory, we can wonder whether these results exhibit features of hypercomputation that traditionally seemed impossible or absurd. Namely, we describe a physical device in relativistic spacetime which can compute a nonTuring computable task, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Looking at very recent developments in spacetime theory, we can wonder whether these results exhibit features of hypercomputation that traditionally seemed impossible or absurd. Namely, we describe a physical device in relativistic spacetime which can compute a nonTuring computable task, e.g. which can decide the halting problem of Turing machines or decide whether ZF set theory is consistent (more precisely, can decide the theorems of ZF). Starting from this, we will discuss the impact of recent breakthrough results of relativity theory, black hole physics and cosmology to well established foundational issues of computability theory as well as to logic. We find that the unexpected, revolutionary results in the mentioned branches of science force us to reconsider the status of the physical Church Thesis and to consider it as being seriously challenged. We will outline the consequences of all this for the foundation of mathematics (e.g. to Hilbert’s programme). Observational, empirical evidence will be quoted to show that the statements above do not require any assumption of some physical universe outside of our own one: in our specific physical universe there seem to exist regions of spacetime supporting potential nonTuring computations. Additionally, new “engineering ” ideas will be outlined for solving the socalled blueshift problem of GRcomputing. Connections with related talks at the Physics and Computation meeting, e.g. those of Jerome DurandLose, Mark Hogarth and Martin Ziegler, will be indicated. 1
TIME TRAVEL: A NEW HYPERCOMPUTATIONAL PARADIGM
, 2009
"... Assuming that all objections to time travel are set aside, it is shown that a computational system with closed timelike curves is a powerful hypercomputational tool. Speci cally, such a system allows us to solve four out of five problems recently advanced as counterexamples to the fundamental princi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Assuming that all objections to time travel are set aside, it is shown that a computational system with closed timelike curves is a powerful hypercomputational tool. Speci cally, such a system allows us to solve four out of five problems recently advanced as counterexamples to the fundamental principle of universality in computation. The fifth counterexample, however, remains unassailable, indicating that universality in computation cannot be achieved, even with the help of such an extraordinary ally as time travel.
Can general relativistic computers break the Turing barrier?
"... Abstract. Can general relativistic computers break the Turing barrier? Are there final limits to human knowledge? Limitative results versus human creativity (paradigm shifts). Gödel’s logical results in comparison/combination with Gödel’s relativistic results. Can Hilbert’s programme be carried ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Can general relativistic computers break the Turing barrier? Are there final limits to human knowledge? Limitative results versus human creativity (paradigm shifts). Gödel’s logical results in comparison/combination with Gödel’s relativistic results. Can Hilbert’s programme be carried through after all? 1 Aims, perspective The Physical ChurchTuring Thesis, PhCT, is the conjecture that whatever physical computing device (in the broader sense) or physical thought experiment will be designed by any future civilization, it will always be simulatable by a Turing machine. The PhCT was formulated and generally accepted in the 1930’s. At that time a general consensus was reached declaring PhCT valid, and indeed in the succeeding decades the PhCT was an extremely useful and valuable maxim in elaborating the foundations of theoretical computer science, logic, foundation of mathematics and related areas. But since PhCT is partly a physical conjecture, we emphasize that this consensus of the 1930’s was based on the physical worldview of the 1930’s. Moreover, many thinkers considered PhCT as being based on
Vienna Circle and Logical Analysis of Relativity Theory
, 2009
"... 1 introduction In this paper we present some of our school’s results in the area of building up relativity theory (RT) as a hierarchy of theories in the sense of logic. We use plain firstorder logic (FOL) as in the foundation of mathematics (FOM) and we build on experience gained in FOM. The main a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
1 introduction In this paper we present some of our school’s results in the area of building up relativity theory (RT) as a hierarchy of theories in the sense of logic. We use plain firstorder logic (FOL) as in the foundation of mathematics (FOM) and we build on experience gained in FOM. The main aims of our school are the following: We want to base the theory on simple, unambiguous axioms with clear meanings. It should be absolutely understandable for any reader what the axioms say and the reader can decide about each axiom whether he likes it. The theory should be built up from these axioms in a straightforward, logical manner. We want to provide an analysis of the logical structure of the theory. We investigate which axioms are needed for which predictions of RT. We want to make RT more transparent logically, easier to understand, easier to change, modular, and easier to teach. We want to obtain deeper understanding of RT. Our work can be considered as a casestudy showing that the Vienna
Visualizing some ideas about Gödeltype rotating universes
, 2008
"... Some kinds of physical theories describe what our universe looks like. Other kinds of physical theories describe instead what the universe could be like independently of the properties of the actual universe. This second kind aims for the “basic laws of physics” in some sense which we will not make ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Some kinds of physical theories describe what our universe looks like. Other kinds of physical theories describe instead what the universe could be like independently of the properties of the actual universe. This second kind aims for the “basic laws of physics” in some sense which we will not make precise here (but cf. e.g. Malament [25, pp.9899]). The present paper belongs to the second kind. Moreover, it is even more abstract than this, namely it aims for visualizing or grasping some mathematical or logical aspects of what the universe could be like. The first six pages of this material are of a “sciencepopularizing ” character in the sense that first we recall a spacetime diagram from HawkingEllis [18] as “Godgiven truth”, i.e. we do not explain why the reader should believe that diagram. Then we derive carefully in an easily understandable visual manner an exciting, exotic consequence of that diagram: timetravel. This applies to the first six pages. The rest of this work is of a more ambitious character. The reader does not have to believe anything 1. We do our best to make the paper selfcontained and explain and visualize most of what we say. In more detail, this work consists of Sections 18. Section 1 (p.2) is the just mentioned “popular ” part. Section 2 (p.8) lays the foundation for discussing rotating universes. E.g. it shows how to visualize such spacetimes. The spacetime built up in this section is called the “Naive Spiral world”. Section 3 (p.19) is about nonexistence of a natural “now ” in Gödel’s universe GU. Section 4 (p.22) introduces corotating coordinates “transforming the rotation away”. Section 5 (p.29) refines the Gödeltype universe (obtained in Section 2). Section 6 (p.46) illustrates a fuller view of the refined version of GU. Section 7 (p.52) recoordinatizes the refined GU in order that the socalled gyroscopes do not rotate in this coordinatization. Section 8 (p.67) gives connections with the literature. E.g. it presents detailed computational comparison with the spacetime metric in Gödel’s papers. Section 9 (p.70) contains technical data about how we constructed the figures illustrating Gödel’s universe. 1 Not even the diagram recalled from HawkingEllis [18] in Figure 1 or any of the statements made in the first six pages.
New Physics and Hypercomputation
"... Abstract. Does new physics give us a chance for designing computers, at least in principle, which could compute beyond the Turing barrier? By the latter we mean computers which could compute some functions which are not Turing computable. Part of what we call “new physics ” is the surge of results i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Does new physics give us a chance for designing computers, at least in principle, which could compute beyond the Turing barrier? By the latter we mean computers which could compute some functions which are not Turing computable. Part of what we call “new physics ” is the surge of results in black hole physics in the last 15 years, which certainly changed our perspective on certain things. The two main directions in this line seem to be quantum computers and relativistic, i.e. spacetimetheorybased, ones. We will concentrate on the relativistic case. Is there a remote possibility that relativity can give some feedback to its “founding grandmother”, namely, to logic? 1 General perspective The Physical ChurchTuring Thesis, PhCT, is the conjecture that whatever physical computing device (in the broader sense) or physical thought experiment will be designed by any future civilization, it will always be simulatable by a Turing machine. The PhCT was formulated and generally accepted in the 1930’s.
Gödeltype Spacetimes: History and New Developments Visualizing ideas about Gödeltype rotating universes
"... Abstract. This paper consists mostly of pictures visualizing ideas leading to Gödel’s rotating cosmological model. The pictures are constructed according to concrete metric tensor fields. The main aim is to visualize ideas. Some kinds of physical theories describe what our universe looks like. Other ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. This paper consists mostly of pictures visualizing ideas leading to Gödel’s rotating cosmological model. The pictures are constructed according to concrete metric tensor fields. The main aim is to visualize ideas. Some kinds of physical theories describe what our universe looks like. Other kinds of physical theories describe instead what the universe could be like independently of the properties of the actual universe. This second kind aims for the “basic laws of physics ” in some sense which we will not make precise here (but cf. e.g. Malament [Mal84, pp.98–99]). The present paper belongs to the second kind. Moreover, it is even more abstract than this, namely it aims for visualizing or grasping some mathematical or logical aspects of what the universe could be like. The first few pages of this material are of a “sciencepopularizing ” character in the sense that first we recall a spacetime diagram from Hawking–Ellis [HE73] as “Godgiven truth”, i.e. we do not explain why the reader should believe that diagram. Then we derive in an easily understandable visual manner an exciting, exotic consequence of that diagram: timetravel. This applies to the first few pages.