The contributions of few contemporary scientists have been as far reaching in their effects as those of Nobel Laureate Werner Heisenberg.

The author begins by recalling how he was led in 1923–24 to the ideas of wave mechanics in generalizing the ideas of Einstein's theory of light quanta. He made himself at that time a concrete physical picture of the coexistence of waves and particles and, in 1927, attempted to give them precise form in his “theory of the double solution.” As other ideas prevailed at the time, he abandoned the development of his conception. But for the past twenty years, once (...) again convinced, like Einstein, that present-day quantum mechanics is only a statistical theory and does not give a true picture of physical reality, he has again taken up his old ideas and developed them considerably. He has in particular introduced an element of randomness into the theory and has thus attained to a “hidden thermodynamics of particles,” the results of which appear to be very interesting. (shrink)

This paper is written from the perspective of a computer scientist and addressed to theoretical physicists. As a consequence it may seem somewhat unusual, but rest assured, everything is really quite simple! The point of this paper is that the study of certain phenomena from computer science suggests that there are computer systems (cellular automata) that may be appropriate as models for microscopic physical phenomena. Cellular automata are now being used to model varied physical phenomena normally modelled by wave equations, (...) fluid dynamics, Ising models, etc. We hypothesize that there will be found a single cellular automaton rule that models all of microscopic physics; and models it exactly. We call this field DM, for digital mechanics. (shrink)

NOW IN PAPERBACK"€"Starting from a collection of simple computer experiments"€"illustrated in the book by striking computer graphics"€"Stephen Wolfram shows how their unexpected results force a whole new way of looking at the operation of our universe.

The authors aim to reinstate a spirit of philosophical enquiry in physics. They abandon the intuitive continuum concepts and build up constructively a combinatorial mathematics of process. This radical change alone makes it possible to calculate the coupling constants of the fundamental fields which? via high energy scattering? are the bridge from the combinatorial world into dynamics. The untenable distinction between what is?observed?, or measured, and what is not, upon which current quantum theory is based, is not needed. If we (...) are to speak of mind, this has to be present? albeit in primitive form? at the most basic level, and not to be dragged in at one arbitrary point to avoid the difficulties about quantum observation. There is a growing literature on information-theoretic models for physics, but hitherto the two disciplines have gone in parallel. In this book they interact vitally. (shrink)

Introduction Major scientific revolutions are rarely, if ever, started deliberately. They can be "in the air" for a long time before the first recognizable ...

It is widely assumed that there exist certain objects which can in no way be distinguished from each other, unless by their location in space or other reference-system. Some of these are, in a broad sense, 'empirical objects', such as electrons. Their case would seem to be similar to that of certain mathematical 'objects', such as the minimum set of manifolds defining the dimensionality of an R -space. It is therefore at first sight surprising that there exists no branch of (...) mathematics, in which a third parity-relation, besides equality and inequality, is admitted; for this would seem to furnish an appropriate model for application to such instances as these. I hope, in this work, to show that such a mathematics in feasible, and could have useful applications if only in a limited field. The concept of what I here call 'indistinguishability' is not unknown in logic, albeit much neglected. It is mentioned, for example, by F. P. Ramsey [1] who criticizes Whitehead and Russell [2] for defining 'identity' in such a way as to make indistinguishables identical. But, so far as I can discover, no one has made any systematic attempt to open up the territory which lies behind these ideas. What we find, on doing so, is a body of mathematics, offering only a limited prospect of practical usefulness, but which on the theoretical side presents a strong challenge to conventional ideas. (shrink)