Fundamental Physics, Partial Models and Time’s Arrow

  • Howard G. CallawayEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 27)


This paper explores the scientific viability of the concept of causality—by questioning a central element of the distinction between “fundamental” and non-fundamental physics. It will be argued that the prevalent emphasis on fundamental physics involves formalistic and idealized partial models of physical regularities abstracting from and idealizing the causal evolution of physical systems. The accepted roles of partial models and of the special sciences in the growth of knowledge help demonstrate proper limitations of the concept of fundamental physics. We expect that a cause precedes its effect. But in some tension with this point, fundamental physical law is often held to be symmetrical and all-encompassing. Physical time, however, has not only measurable extension, as with spatial dimensions, it also has a direction—from the past through the present into the future. This preferred direction is time’s arrow. In spite of this standard contrast of time with space, if all the fundamental laws of physics are symmetrical, they are indifferent to time’s arrow. In consequence, excessive emphasis on the ideal of symmetrical, fundamental laws of physics generates skepticism regarding the common-sense and scientific uses of the concept of causality. The expectation has been that all physical phenomena are capable of explanation and prediction by reference to fundamental physicals laws—so that the laws and phenomena of statistical thermodynamics—and of the special sciences—must be derivative and/or secondary. The most important and oft repeated explanation of time’s arrow, however, is provided by the second law of thermodynamics. This paper explores the prospects for time’s arrow based on the second law. The concept of causality employed here is empirically based, though acknowledging practical scientific interests, and is linked to time’s arrow and to the thesis that there can be no causal change, in any domain of inquiry, without physical interaction.


Dark Matter Quantum Mechanic Gravitational Wave Fundamental Physic Special Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49(2), 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, J. (1993). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II. Physical Review, 85, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Born, M. (1954). Nobel Prize lecture, “the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics”. Nobel prize lectures: Physics, 1942–1962 (pp. 256–267). Amsterdam, London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Bub, J. (2010). Von Neumann’s ‘no hidden variable’ proof: A re-appraisal. Foundations of Physics, 4, 1333–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, S. (2010). From eternity to here, the quest for the ultimate theory of time. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, S. (2012). The particle at the end of the universe, how the hunt for the Higgs Boson leads us to the edge of a new world. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, P. (1977). The physics of time asymmetry. Berkeley and Los Angles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dyson, F. (2004). The world on a string, review of Brian Greene, The fabric of the cosmos, The New York review of books, 51, No. 8 May 13, pp. 16; reprinted in Dyson, F. (2006). The scientist as Rebel. New York: The New York Review of Books, pp. 213–228.Google Scholar
  10. Dyson, F. (2012). Is a graviton detectable? The Poincaré Prize Lecture.
  11. Eddington, A. S. (1928/2014). In H. G. Callaway (Ed.), The nature of the physical world, an annotated edition. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Einstein, A. (1916). Nährungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation. In Sitzung der physikalisch-mathematischen Klasse (Approximative integration of the field equations of gravitation, Einstein 1997, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, The Berlin Years, Vol. 6, pp. 201–210) (pp. 688–696). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Einstein, A. (1940). Considerations concerning the fundamentals of theoretical physics. Science, 91(2369), 487–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Einstein, A., & Infield, L. (1938). The evolution of physics, from early concepts to relativity and quanta. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  15. Einstein, A., Podolsky, P., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor, J. A. (1974). Special sciences. In Synthèse (Vol. 28, pp. 77–115). Reprinted in Fodor (1981). RePresentations (pp. 127–45). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1985). A model for a unified quantum description of macroscopic and microscopic systems. In L. Accardi (Ed.), Quantum probability and applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics of microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34, 470ff.Google Scholar
  19. Greene, B. (2000). The elegant universe, superstrings, hidden dimension and the quest for the ultimate theory. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, B. (2004). The fabric of the cosmos, space, time and the texture of reality. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  21. Hewett, J. L., Weets, H., et al. (2012). Fundamental physics at the intensity frontier, report of the workshop held December 2011 in Rockville. MD: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James, W. (1909/2008). In H. G. Callaway (Ed.), A pluralistic universe. A new philosophical reading. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Kennefick, D. (2007). Traveling at the speed of thought, Einstein and the quest for gravitational waves. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krausss, L. M., & Wilczek, F. (2014). Using cosmology to establish the quantization of gravity. Physical Review D, 89(4). arXiv:1309.5343v2.Google Scholar
  25. Laplace, M., & Simon. P. (1902) In F. W. Truscott & F. L. Emory (Eds.), A philosophical essay on probabilities. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the universe, a quantum computer scientist takes on the cosmos. New York: Knopf, Random House (2007).Google Scholar
  27. Maccone, L. (2009). A quantum solution to the arrow of time dilemma. Physical Review Letters 103. arXiv:0802.0438v3.Google Scholar
  28. Majid, S. (2008). Quantum spacetime and physical reality. In S. Majid (Ed.), On space and time (pp. 56–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Norton, J. D. (2003). Causation as folk science. Philosophers’ Imprint, 3(4).
  30. Oriti, D. (2009). Approaches to quantum gravity, toward a new understanding of space, time and matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penrose, R. (2004). The road to reality a complete guide to the laws of the universe. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  32. Rothman, T., & Boughn, S. (2006). Can gravitons be detected? Foundations of Physics 36, 1801–1825. arXiv:gr-qc/0601043v3.Google Scholar
  33. Sauer, T. (2014) Einstein’s unified field theory program. In M. Jannsen & C. Lehner (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Einstein (pp. 281–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Savitt, S. F. (Ed.), (1995). Time’s arrow today, recent physical and philosophical work on the direction of time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Susskind, L. (2008). The black hole war. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, J. H. (1997). Binary pulsars and relativistic gravity. In G. Ekspong (Ed.), (1997) Nobel lectures, physics 1991–1995. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Weinberg, S. (1977/1988). The first three minuets: A modern view of the origin of the universe. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Weinberg, S. (1992). Dreams of a final theory. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  39. Weinberg, S. (2012). The collapse of the state vector. Physical Review A, 85(6). arXiv:1109.6462v4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations