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

Nicholas Maxwell

Nicholas Maxwell contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.hist-phmath.NANumerical Analysisphysics.pop-phphysics.soc-phquant-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
6topics
3close 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

6 published item(s)

preprint2019arXiv

Science Under Attack

Some attack scientific rationality, others defend it, but both miss the point. What both parties take to be scientific rationality is actually a species of irrationality masquerading as scientific rationality. The current orthodox conception of science, taken for granted by scientists and non-scientists alike, is irrational because it suppresses problematic assumptions, inherent in the aims of science, having to do with metaphysics, values, and political and social issues. We urgently need a more rigorous conception of science to be adopted and implemented that honestly acknowledges the problematic character of the aims of science, and seeks to improve them as science proceeds.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

A parallel butterfly algorithm

The butterfly algorithm is a fast algorithm which approximately evaluates a discrete analogue of the integral transform \int K(x,y) g(y) dy at large numbers of target points when the kernel, K(x,y), is approximately low-rank when restricted to subdomains satisfying a certain simple geometric condition. In d dimensions with O(N^d) quasi-uniformly distributed source and target points, when each appropriate submatrix of K is approximately rank-r, the running time of the algorithm is at most O(r^2 N^d log N). A parallelization of the butterfly algorithm is introduced which, assuming a message latency of αand per-process inverse bandwidth of β, executes in at most O(r^2 N^d/p log N + βr N^d/p + α)log p) time using p processes. This parallel algorithm was then instantiated in the form of the open-source DistButterfly library for the special case where K(x,y)=exp(i Φ(x,y)), where Φ(x,y) is a black-box, sufficiently smooth, real-valued phase function. Experiments on Blue Gene/Q demonstrate impressive strong-scaling results for important classes of phase functions. Using quasi-uniform sources, hyperbolic Radon transforms and an analogue of a 3D generalized Radon transform were respectively observed to strong-scale from 1-node/16-cores up to 1024-nodes/16,384-cores with greater than 90% and 82% efficiency, respectively.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Has Science Established that the Cosmos is Physically Comprehensible?

Most scientists would hold that science has not established that the cosmos is physically comprehensible - i.e. such that there is some as-yet undiscovered true physical theory of everything that is unified. This is an empirically untestable thesis and thus lies beyond the scope of science. However, this argument presupposes a conception of science which holds that in science theories are accepted solely on the basis of evidence. But this conception of science is untenable. Any fundamental physical theory, in order to be accepted as a part of theoretical scientific knowledge, must be (1) sufficiently empirically successful, and (2) sufficiently unified. Given any accepted theory of physics, endlessly many empirically more successful disunified rivals can always be concocted - disunified because they assert that different dynamical laws govern the diverse phenomena to which the theory applies. These disunified rivals are not considered for a moment in physics, despite their greater empirical success. This persistent rejection of empirically more successful but disunified rival theories means, I argue, that a big, highly problematic, implicit assumption is made by science about the cosmos, to the effect, at least, that the cosmos is such that all seriously disunified theories are false. Once this point is recognized, it becomes clear, I argue, that we need a new conception of science which holds that science makes a hierarchy of assumptions about the cosmos, these assumptions becoming less and less substantial as one goes up the hierarchy. One of these assumptions is that the cosmos is physically comprehensible. Hence the conclusion: improve our ideas about the nature of science and it becomes apparent that science has established that the cosmos is physically comprehensible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Aim-Oriented Empiricism

In this paper I argue that aim-oriented empiricism (AOE), a conception of natural science that I have defended at some length elsewhere, is a kind of synthesis of the views of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos, but is also an improvement over the views of all three. Whereas Popper's falsificationism protects metaphysical assumptions implicitly made by science from criticism, AOE exposes all such assumptions to sustained criticism, and furthermore focuses criticism on those assumptions most likely to need revision if science is to make progress. Even though AOE is, in this way, more Popperian than Popper, it is also, in some respects, more like the views of Kuhn and Lakatos than falsificationism is. AOE is able, however, to solve problems which Kuhn's and Lakatos's views cannot solve.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Do We Need a Scientific Revolution?

Many see modern science as having serious defects, intellectual, social, moral. Few see this as having anything to do with the philosophy of science. I argue that many diverse ills of modern science are a consequence of the fact that the scientific community has long accepted, and sought to implement, a bad philosophy of science, which I call standard empiricism. This holds that the basic intellectual aim is truth, the basic method being impartial assessment of claims to knowledge with respect to evidence. Standard empiricism is, however, untenable. Furthermore, the attempt to put it into scientific practice has many damaging consequences for science. The scientific community urgently needs to bring about a revolution in both the conception of science, and science itself. It needs to be acknowledged that the actual aims of science make metaphysical, value and political assumptions and are, as a result, deeply problematic. Science needs to try to improve its aims and methods as it proceeds. Standard empiricism needs to be rejected, and the more rigorous philosophy of science of aim-oriented empiricism needs to be adopted and explicitly implemented in scientific practice instead. The outcome would be the emergence of a new kind of science, of greater value in both intellectual and humanitarian terms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Is the Quantum World Composed of Propensitons?

In this paper I outline my propensiton version of quantum theory (PQT). PQT is a fully micro-realistic version of quantum theory that provides us with a very natural possible solution to the fundamental wave/particle problem, and is free of the severe defects of orthodox quantum theory (OQT) as a result. PQT makes sense of the quantum world. PQT recovers all the empirical success of OQT and is, furthermore, empirically testable (although not as yet tested). I argue that Einstein almost put forward this version of quantum theory in 1916/17 in his papers on spontaneous and induced radiative transitions, but retreated from doing so because he disliked the probabilistic character of the idea. Subsequently, the idea was overlooked because debates about quantum theory polarised into the Bohr/Heisenberg camp, which argued for the abandonment of realism and determinism, and the Einstein/Schrödinger camp, which argued for the retention of realism and determinism, no one, as a result, pursuing the most obvious option of retaining realism but abandoning determinism. It is this third, overlooked option that leads to PQT. PQT has implications for quantum field theory, the standard model, string theory, and cosmology. The really important point, however, is that it is experimentally testable. I indicate two experiments in principle capable of deciding between PQT and OQT.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access