10 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: Erik Curiel (University of Western Ontario)
  1. Erik Curiel (2014). Classical Mechanics Is Lagrangian; It Is Not Hamiltonian. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2):269-321.
    One can (for the most part) formulate a model of a classical system in either the Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian framework. Though it is often thought that those two formulations are equivalent in all important ways, this is not true: the underlying geometrical structures one uses to formulate each theory are not isomorphic. This raises the question of whether one of the two is a more natural framework for the representation of classical systems. In the event, the answer is yes: (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Erik Curiel, Singularities and Black Holes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. David Atkinson, Jeanne Peijnenburg, Theo Kuipers, William T. Wojtach, Erik Curiel & Ronald Pisaturo (2009). 1. How to Confirm the Conjunction of Disconfirmed Hypotheses How to Confirm the Conjunction of Disconfirmed Hypotheses (Pp. 1-21). [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 76 (1).
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Erik Curiel, Classical Mechanics is Lagrangian; It is Not Hamiltonian; the Semantics of Physical Theory is Not Semantical.
    One can (for the most part) formulate a model of a classical system in either the Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian framework. Though it is often thought that those two formulations are equivalent in all important ways, this is not true: the underlying geometrical structures one uses to formulate each theory are not isomorphic. This raises the question whether one of the two is a more natural framework for the representation of classical systems. In the event, the answer is yes: I (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Erik Curiel (2009). General Relativity Needs No Interpretation. Philosophy of Science 76 (1):44-72.
    I argue that, contrary to the recent claims of physicists and philosophers of physics, general relativity requires no interpretation in any substantive sense of the term. I canvass the common reasons given in favor of the alleged need for an interpretation, including the difficulty in coming to grips with the physical significance of diffeomorphism invariance and of singular structure, and the problems faced in the search for a theory of quantum gravity. I find that none of them shows any defect (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Erik Curiel, On Tensorial Concomitants and the Non-Existence of a Gravitational Stress-Energy Tensor.
    Based on an analysis of what it may mean for one tensor to depend in the proper way on another, I prove that, under certain natural conditions, there can be no tensor whose interpretation could be that it represents gravitational stress-energy in general relativity. It follows that gravitational energy, such as it is in general relativity, is necessarily non-local. Along the way, I prove a result of some interest in own right about the structure of the associated jet bundles of (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Erik Curiel (2001). Against the Excesses of Quantum Gravity: A Plea for Modesty. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S424-.
    I argue that all current research programs in quantum gravity conform to the 17th century hypothetico-deductive model of scientific inquiry, perhaps of necessity given the current state of technology. In so far as they do not recognize and advertise the shortcomings of the research method they use, they do a disservice to the integrity of science, for the method admits of far less certainty accruing to its products than one would be led to believe by the pronouncements of researchers in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Erik Curiel (2000). The Constraints General Relativity Places on Physicalist Accounts of Causality. Theoria 15 (1):33-58.
    All accounts of causality that presuppose the propagation or transfer or some physical stuff to be an essential part of the causal relation rely for the force of their causal claims on a principle of conservation for that stuff. General Relativity does not permit the rigorous formulation of appropriate conservation principles. Consequently, in so far as General Relativity is considered and fundamental physical theory, such accounts of causality cannot be considered fundamental. The continued use of such accounts of causality ought (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Erik Curiel (1999). The Analysis of Singular Spacetimes. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):145.
    Much controversy surrounds the question of what ought to be the proper definition of 'singularity' in general relativity, and the question of whether the prediction of such entities leads to a crisis for the theory. I argue that a definition in terms of curve incompleteness is adequate, and in particular that the idea that singularities correspond to 'missing points' has insurmountable problems. I conclude that singularities per se pose no serious problem for the theory, but their analysis does bring into (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation