BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

James Owen Weatherall

James Owen Weatherall contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.hist-phgr-qcphysics.class-phquant-phmath-phmath.MPphysics.atom-phphysics.opticsphysics.soc-phSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
14works
0followers
10topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

14 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Deterministic Theories

Determinism is (roughly) the thesis that the past determines the future. But efforts to define it precisely have exposed deep methodological disagreements. Standard possible-worlds formulations of determinism presuppose an "agreement" relation between worlds,but this relation can be understood in multiple ways, none of which is particularly clear. We critically examine the proliferation of definitions of determinism in the recent literature, arguing that these definitions fail to deliver clear verdicts about actual scientific theories. We advocate a return to a formal approach, in the logical tradition of Carnap, that treats determinism as a property of scientific theories, rather than an elusive metaphysical doctrine. We highlight two key distinctions: (1) the difference between qualitative and "full" determinism, as emphasized in recent discussions of physics and metaphysics, and (2) the distinction between weak and strong formal conditions on the uniqueness of world extensions. We argue that defining determinism in terms of metaphysical notions such as haecceities is unhelpful, whereas rigorous formal criteria such as Belot's D1 and D3 offer a tractable and scientifically relevant account. By clarifying what it means for a theory to be deterministic, we set the stage for a fruitful interaction between physics and metaphysics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On Automorphism Criteria for Comparing Amounts of Mathematical Structure

Wilhelm (2021) has recently defended a criterion for comparing structure of mathematical objects, which he calls Subgroup. He argues that Subgroup is better than SYM * , another widely adopted criterion. We argue that this is mistaken; Subgroup is strictly worse than SYM *. We then formulate a new criterion that improves on both SYM * and Subgroup, answering Wilhelm's criticisms of SYM * along the way. We conclude by arguing that no criterion that looks only to the automorphisms of mathematical objects to compare their structure can be fully satisfactory.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Where Does General Relativity Break Down?

It is widely accepted by physicists and philosophers of physics alike that there are certain contexts in which general relativity will "break down". In such cases, one expects to need some as-yet undiscovered successor theory. This paper will discuss certain pathologies of general relativity that might be taken to signal that the theory is breaking down, and consider how one might expect a successor theory to do better. The upshot will be an unconventional interpretation of the "Strong Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis".

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Endogenous Epistemic Factionalization

Why do people who disagree about one subject tend to disagree about other subjects as well? In this paper, we introduce a model to explore this phenomenon of "epistemic factionization". Agents attempt to discover the truth about multiple propositions by testing the world and sharing evidence gathered. But agents tend to mistrust evidence shared by those who do not hold similar beliefs. This mistrust leads to the endogenous emergence of factions of agents with multiple, highly correlated, polarized beliefs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Representational Redundancy, Surplus Structure, and the Hole Argument

We address a recent proposal concerning 'surplus structure' due to Nguyen et al. ['Why Surplus Structure is Not Superfluous.' Br. J. Phi. Sci. Forthcoming.] We argue that the sense of 'surplus structure' captured by their formal criterion is importantly different from---and in a sense, opposite to---another sense of 'surplus structure' used by philosophers. We argue that minimizing structure in one sense is generally incompatible with minimizing structure in the other sense. We then show how these distinctions bear on Nguyen et al.'s arguments about Yang-Mills theory and on the hole argument.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) Hole Argument

The celu of the philosophical literature on the hole argument is the 1987 paper by Earman \& Norton ["What Price Space-time Substantivalism? The Hole Story" Br. J. Phil. Sci.]. This paper has a well-known back-story, concerning work by Stachel and Norton on Einstein's thinking in the years 1913-15. Less well-known is a connection between the hole argument and Earman's work on Leibniz in the 1970s and 1980s, which in turn can be traced to an argument first presented in 1975 by Howard Stein. Remarkably, this thread originates with a misattribution: the argument Earman attributes to Stein, which ultimately morphs into the hole argument, was not the argument Stein gave. The present paper explores this episode and presents some reflections on how it bears on the subsequent literature.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Two Dogmas of Dynamicism

I critically discuss two dogmas of the "dynamical approach" to spacetime in general relativity, as advanced by Harvey Brown [Physical Relativity (2005) Oxford:Oxford University Press] and collaborators. The first dogma is that positing a "spacetime geometry" has no implications for the behavior of matter. The second dogma is that postulating the "Strong Equivalence Principle" suffices to ensure that matter is "adapted" to spacetime geometry. I conclude by discussing "spacetime functionalism". The discussion is presented in reaction to and sympathy with recent work by James Read ["Explanation, geometry, and conspiracy in relativity theory"(20??) Thinking about Spacetime. Boston: Birkauser].

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Why Not Categorical Equivalence?

In recent years philosophers of science have explored categorical equivalence as a promising criterion for when two (physical) theories are equivalent. On the one hand, philosophers have presented several examples of theories whose relationships seem to be clarified using these categorical methods. On the other hand, philosophers and logicians have studied the relationships, particularly in the first order case, between categorical equivalence and other notions of equivalence of theories, including definitional equivalence and generalized definitional (aka Morita) equivalence. In this article, I will express some skepticism about this approach, both on technical grounds and conceptual ones. I will argue that "category structure" (alone) likely does not capture the structure of a theory, and discuss some recent work in light of this claim.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Would Two Dimensions be World Enough for Spacetime?

We consider various curious features of general relativity, and relativistic field theory, in two spacetime dimensions. In particular, we discuss: the vanishing of the Einstein tensor; the failure of an initial-value formulation for vacuum spacetimes; the status of singularity theorems; the non-existence of a Newtonian limit; the status of the cosmological constant; and the character of matter fields, including perfect fluids and electromagnetic fields. We conclude with a discussion of what constrains our understanding of physics in different dimensions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

What is a Singularity in Geometrized Newtonian Gravitation?

I discuss singular spacetimes in the context of the geometrized formulation of Newtonian gravitation. I argue first that geodesic incompleteness is a natural criterion for when a model of geometrized Newtonian gravitation is singular, and then I show that singularities in this sense arise naturally in classical physics by stating and proving a classical version of the Raychaudhuri-Komar singularity theorem.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Inertial motion, explanation, and the foundations of classical spacetime theories

I begin by reviewing some recent work on the status of the geodesic principle in general relativity and the geometrized formulation of Newtonian gravitation. I then turn to the question of whether either of these theories might be said to "explain" inertial motion. I argue that there is a sense in which both theories may be understood to explain inertial motion, but that the sense of "explain" is rather different from what one might have expected. This sense of explanation is connected with a view of theories---I call it the "puzzleball view"---on which the foundations of a physical theory are best understood as a network of mutually interdependent principles and assumptions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Index of refraction engineering in five level DIGS atoms

We present a five level atomic system in which the index of refraction of a probe laser can be enhanced or reduced below unity with vanishing absorption in the region between pairs of absorption and gain lines formed by dressing of the atoms with a control laser and RF/microwave fields. By weak incoherent pumping of population into a single metastable state, one can create several narrow amplifying resonances. At frequencies between these gain lines and additional absorption lines, there exist regions of vanishing absorption but resonantly enhanced index of refraction. In $Rb$ vapors with density $N$ in units of $cm^{-3}$, we predict an index of refraction up to $n \approx \sqrt{1+1.2\times10^{-14}N}$ for the D1 line, which is more than an order of magnitude larger than other proposals for index of refraction enhancement. Furthermore, the index can be readily reduced below 1 by simply changing the sign of the probe or RF field detunings. This enhancement is robust with respect to homogeneous and inhomogeneous broadening.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

On the Status of the Geodesic Principle in Newtonian and Relativistic Physics

A theorem due to Bob Geroch and Pong Soo Jang ["Motion of a Body in General Relativity." Journal of Mathematical Physics 16(1), (1975)] provides a sense in which the geodesic principle has the status of a theorem in General Relativity (GR). I have recently shown that a similar theorem holds in the context of geometrized Newtonian gravitation (Newton-Cartan theory) [Weatherall, J. O. "The Motion of a Body in Newtonian Theories." Journal of Mathematical Physics 52(3), (2011)]. Here I compare the interpretations of these two theorems. I argue that despite some apparent differences between the theorems, the status of the geodesic principle in geometrized Newtonian gravitation is, mutatis mutandis, strikingly similar to the relativistic case.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

Lossless anomalous dispersion and an inversionless gain doublet via dressed interacting ground states (DIGS)

Transparent media exhibiting anomalous dispersion have been of considerable interest since Wang, Kuzmich, and Dogariu [Nature {\bf 406}, 277 (2000)] first observed light propagate with superluminal and negative group velocities without absorption. Here, we propose an atomic model exhibiting these properties, based on a generalization of amplification without inversion in a five-level DIGS system. The system consists of a $Λ$ atom prepared as in standard electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT), with two additional metastable ground states coupled to the $Λ$ atom ground states by two RF/microwave fields. We consider two configurations by which population is incoherently pumped into the ground states of the atom. Under appropriate circumstances, we predict a pair of new gain lines with tunable width, separation, and height. Between these lines, absorption vanishes but dispersion is large and anomalous. The system described here is a significant improvement over other proposals in the anomalous dispersion literature in that it permits additional coherent control over the spectral properties of the anomalous region, including a possible $10^4$-fold increase over the group delay observed by Wang, Kuzmich, and Dogariu.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access