Source author record

Dennis Lehmkuhl

Dennis Lehmkuhl appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

gr-qc physics.hist-ph hep-th astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

5topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Integrating Dark Matter, Modified Gravity, and the Humanities

Editorial of a special issue on dark matter & modified gravity, distributed across the journals Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics and Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Published version of the open access editorial (in SHPS) available here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.08.015. The six papers are collected here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/studies-in-history-and-philosophy-of-science-part-b-studies-in-history-and-philosophy-of-modern-physics/special-issue/10CR71RJLWM.

preprint2020arXiv

Cartography of the space of theories: an interpretational chart for fields that are both (dark) matter and spacetime

This paper pushes back against the Democritean-Newtonian tradition of assuming a strict conceptual dichotomy between spacetime and matter. Our approach proceeds via the more narrow distinction between modified gravity/spacetime (MG) and dark matter (DM). A prequel paper argued that the novel field $Φ$ postulated by Berezhiani and Khoury's 'superfluid dark matter theory' is as much (dark) matter as anything could possibly be, but also$-$below the critical temperature for superfluidity$-$as much (of a modification of) spacetime as anything could possibly be. Here we introduce and critically evaluate three groups of interpretations that one should consider for such Janus-faced theories. The consubstantiality interpretation holds that $Φ$ is both (dark) matter and a modification of spacetime, analogously to the sense in which Jesus (according to catholicism) is both human and god. The fundamendalist interpretations consider for each of these roles whether they are instantiated fundamentally or emergently. The breakdown interpretations focus on the question of whether $Φ$ signals the breakdown, in some sense to be specified, of the MG-DM dichotomy and perhaps even the broader spacetime-matter distinction. More generally, it is argued that hybrid theories urge a move towards a single space of theories, rather than two separate spaces of spacetime theories and matter theories, respectively.

preprint2020arXiv

Dark Matter = Modified Gravity? Scrutinising the spacetime-matter distinction through the modified gravity/ dark matter lens

This paper scrutinises the tenability of a strict conceptual distinction between space(time) and matter via the lens of the debate between modified gravity and dark matter. In particular, we consider Berezhiani and Khoury's novel 'superfluid dark matter theory' (SFDM) as a case study. Two families of criteria for being matter and being spacetime, respectively, are extracted from the literature. Evaluation of the new scalar field postulated by SFDM according to these criteria reveals that it is as much (dark) matter as anything could possibly be, but also$-$below the critical temperature for superfluidity$-$as much (of a modification of) spacetime as anything could possibly be. A sequel paper examines possible interpretations of SFDM in light of this result, as well as the consequences for our understanding of (the importance of) the modified gravity/ dark matter distinction and the broader spacetime-matter distinction.

preprint2013arXiv

Einstein, the reality of space, and the action-reaction principle

Einstein regarded as one of the triumphs of his 1915 theory of gravity --- the general theory of relativity --- that it vindicated the action--reaction principle, while Newtonian mechanics as well as his 1905 special theory of relativity supposedly violated it. In this paper we examine why Einstein came to emphasise this position several years after the development of general relativity. Several key considerations are relevant to the story: the connection Einstein originally saw between Mach's analysis of inertia and both the equivalence principle and the principle of general covariance, the waning of Mach's influence owing to de Sitter's 1917 results, and Einstein's detailed correspondence with Moritz Schlick in 1920.