Space-Time Intervals Underlie Human Conscious Experience, Gravity, and a Theory of Everything

Space-time intervals are the fundamental components of conscious experience, gravity, and a Theory of Everything. Space-time intervals are relationships that arise naturally between events. They have a general covariance (independence of coordinate systems, scale invariance), a physical constancy, that encompasses all frames of reference. There are three basic types of space-time intervals (light-like, time-like, space-like) which interact to create space-time and its properties. Human conscious experience is a four-dimensional space-time continuum created through the processing of space-time intervals by the brain; space-time intervals are the source of conscious experience (observed physical reality). Human conscious experience is modeled by Einstein’s special theory of relativity, a theory designed specifically from the general covariance of space-time intervals (for inertial frames of reference). General relativity is our most accurate description of gravity. In general relativity, the general covariance of space-time intervals is extended to all frames of reference (inertial and non-inertial), including gravitational reference frames; space-time intervals are the source of gravity in general relativity. The general covariance of space-time intervals is further extended to quantum mechanics; space-time intervals are the source of quantum gravity. The general covariance of space-time intervals seamlessly merges general relativity with quantum field theory (the two grand theories of the universe). Space-time intervals consequently are the basis of a Theory of Everything (a single all-encompassing coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe). This theoretical framework encompasses our observed physical reality (conscious experience) as well; space-time intervals link observed physical reality to actual physical reality. This provides an accurate and reliable match between observed physical reality and the physical universe by which we can carry on our activity. The Minkowski metric, which defines generally covariant space-time intervals, may be considered an axiom (premise, postulate) for the Theory of Everything

Pierre Duhem’s philosophy and history of science

LEITE (Fábio Rodrigo) – STOFFEL (Jean-François), Introduction (pp. 3-6). BARRA (Eduardo Salles de O.) – SANTOS (Ricardo Batista dos), Duhem’s analysis of Newtonian method and the logical priority of physics over metaphysics (pp. 7-19). BORDONI (Stefano), The French roots of Duhem’s early historiography and epistemology (pp. 20-35). CHIAPPIN (José R. N.) – LARANJEIRAS (Cássio Costa), Duhem’s critical analysis of mecha­ni­cism and his defense of a formal conception of theoretical phy­sics (pp. 36-53). GUEGUEN (Marie) – PSILLOS (Stathis), Anti-­scepticism and epistemic humility in Pierre Duhem’s philosophy of science (pp. 54-72). LISTON (Michael), Duhem : images of science, historical continuity, and the first crisis in physics (pp. 73-84). MAIOCCHI (Roberto), Duhem in pre-war Italian philos­ophy : the reasons of an absence (pp. 85-92). HERNÁNDEZ MÁRQUEZ (Víctor Manuel), Was Pierre Duhem an «esprit de finesse» ? (pp. 93-107). NEEDHAM (Paul), Was Duhem justified in not distinguishing between physical and chemical atomism ? (pp. 108-111). OLGUIN (Roberto Estrada), «Bon sens» and «noûs» (pp. 112-126). OLIVEIRA (Amelia J.), Duhem’s legacy for the change in the historiography of science : An analysis based on Kuhn’s writings (pp. 127-139). PRÍNCIPE (João), Poincaré and Duhem : Resonances in their first epistemological reflec­tions (pp. 140-156). MONDRAGON (Damián Islas), Book review of «Pierre Duhem : entre física y metafísica» (pp. 157-159). STOFFEL (Jean-François), Book review of P. Duhem : «La théorie physique : son objet, sa structure» / edit. by S. Roux (pp. 160-162). STOFFEL (Jean-François), Book review of St. Bordoni : «When historiography met epistemology» (pp. 163-165)

How to Identify Scientifc Revolutions?

Conceptualizing scientific revolutions by means of explicating their causes, their underlying structure and implications has been an important part of Kuhn's philosophy of science and belongs to its legacy. In this paper we show that such “explanatory concepts” of revolutions should be distinguished from a concept based on the identification criteria of scientific revolutions. The aim of this paper is to offer such a concept, and to show that it can be fruitfully used for a further elaboration of the explanatory conceptions of revolutions. On the one hand, our concept can be used to test the preciseness and accuracy of these conceptions, by examining to what extent their criteria fit revolutions as they are defined by our concept. On the other hand, our concept can serve as the basis on which these conceptions can be further specified. We will present four different explanatory concepts of revolutions – Kuhn's, Thagard's, Chen's and Barker's, and Laudan's – and point to the ways in which each of them can be further specified in view of our concept

The alignment of the National Senior Certificate Examinations (November 2014 - March 2018) and the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Grade 12 Physical Sciences : Physics (P1) in South Africa

The Department of Basic Education (DBE) has associated the poor pass rate in the National Senior Certificate (NSC) Grade 12 Physical Sciences examinations to the learners’ lack of practical skills and the inability of learners to solve problems by integrating knowledge from the different topics in Physical Sciences. The CAPS (Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement) is central to the planning, organising and teaching of Physical Sciences. Even though more than a third of the learners achieved below 30% in the NSC Grade 12 Physical Sciences: Physics (P1) November 2017 examination, there was a lack of references made to the CAPS, rationalising the poor performance. A disjointed alignment between the CAPS and the P1 is a possible cause for the poor performance. Since there have been no previous studies that investigated the alignment between the CAPS and the P1, this study aims to fill that gap. This study used a positivist research paradigm and a case study research strategy. A purposive sampling procedure selected the CAPS Grades 10 – 12 Physical Sciences document; the Physical Sciences Examination Guidelines Grade 12 documents and the final and supplementary P1 examinations in the period starting November 2014 to March 2018 as the documents for analysis. A summative content analysis research technique was conducted using the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) research method. The SEC method employed the use of the four topics of Grade 12 Physics and the four non-hierarchical levels of cognitive demand as described in the modified version of Bloom’s taxonomy. The physics topics included mechanics; waves, sound and light; electricity and magnetism; and optical phenomena. The cognitive demand levels included recall; comprehension; application and analysis; and synthesis and evaluation. This study found a 100 percent categorical coherence, a 67.3 percent balance of representation, a 79.4 percent cognitive complexity and an average Porter’s alignment index of 0.77 between the CAPS and the P1. The overall Cohen’s kappa for all the documents analysed was 0.88. The findings of this study indicate that the mechanics topic was under-emphasised whilst the application and analysis cognitive demand was over-emphasised in the P1. The CAPS and the P1 did not utilise the highest cognitive demand, synthesis and evaluation which may be interpreted as an environment that fosters lower order thinking. To change this environment of lower order thinking and simultaneously increase the alignment between the CAPS and the P1 this study recommends that firstly, the CAPS decreases the recall based content of the mechanics topic. Secondly, the CAPS and the P1 increase the synthesis and evaluation cognitive demand-based content at the expense of the recall cognitive demand-based content. Thirdly, the CAPS must include the content of the school-based physics practical assessments while decreasing the focus on physics definitions. The ultimate aim is an improvement in the pass rates of the NSC Grade 12 Physical Sciences examinations.Science and Technology EducationM. Sc. (Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (Physics Education)