9 found
Sort by:
  1. David B. Malament (2012). Topics in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Theory. Chicago.
    1.1 Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Tangent Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David B. Malament (2003). On Relative Orbital Rotation in Relativity Theory. In. In A. Ashtekar (ed.), Revisiting the Foundations of Relativistic Physics. 175--190.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. David B. Malament (ed.) (2002). Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics. Open Court.
    In this book, 13 leading philosophers of science focus on the work of Professor Howard Stein, best known for his study of the intimate connection between ...
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David B. Malament, A No-Go Theorem About Rotation in Relativity Theory.
    Within the framework of general relativity, in some cases at least, it is a delicate and interesting question just what it means to say that an extended body is or is not "rotating". It is so for two reasons. First, one can easily think of different criteria of rotation. Though they agree if the background spacetime structure is sufficiently simple, they do not do so in general. Second, none of the criteria fully answers to our classical intuitions. Each one exhibits (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David B. Malament, On Relative Orbital Rotation in Relativity Theory.
    We consider the following question within both Newtonian physics and relativity theory. "Given two point particles X and Y, if Y is rotating relative to X, does it follow that X is rotating relative to Y?" As it stands the question is ambiguous. We discuss one way to make it precise and show that, on that reading at least, the answers given by the two theories are radically different. The relation of relative orbital rotation turns out to be symmetric in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David B. Malament (1995). Is Newtonian Cosmology Really Inconsistent? Philosophy of Science 62 (4):489-510.
    John Norton has recently argued that Newtonian gravitation theory (at least as applied to cosmological contexts where one envisions the possibility of a homogeneous mass distribution throughout all of space) is inconsistent. I am not convinced. Traditional formulations of the theory may seem to break down in cases of the sort Norton considers. But the difficulties they face are only apparent. They are artifacts of the formulations themselves, and disappear if one passes to the so-called "geometrized" formulation of the theory.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David B. Malament (1992). Book Review:Quantum Probability--Quantum Logic Itamar Pitowsky. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 59 (2):300-.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David B. Malament (1984). "Time Travel" in the Godel Universe. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:91 - 100.
    The paper first tries to explain how the possibility of "time travel" arises in the Godel universe. It then goes on to discuss a technical problem conerning minimal acceleration requirements for time travel. A theorem is stated and a conjecture posed. If the latter is correct, time travel can be ruled out as a practical possibility in the Godel universe.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David B. Malament & Sandy L. Zabell (1980). Why Gibbs Phase Averages Work--The Role of Ergodic Theory. Philosophy of Science 47 (3):339-349.
    We propose an "explanation scheme" for why the Gibbs phase average technique in classical equilibrium statistical mechanics works. Our account emphasizes the importance of the Khinchin-Lanford dispersion theorems. We suggest that ergodicity does play a role, but not the one usually assigned to it.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation