{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1251\uc1 \deff0\deflang1049\deflangfe1049{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial{\*\falt Arial};} {\f14\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;}{\f30\fnil\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}TimesNewRomanPSMT{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f78\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f76\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f79\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f80\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f81\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f82\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f83\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f86\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial{\*\falt Arial};}{\f84\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE{\*\falt Arial};}{\f87\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek{\*\falt Arial};}{\f88\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur{\*\falt Arial};} {\f89\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew){\*\falt Arial};}{\f90\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic){\*\falt Arial};}{\f91\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic{\*\falt Arial};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255; \red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0; \red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\upr{\stylesheet{\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa480\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs48\lang1049\langfe1049\kerning32\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{ \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{ \s3\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel2\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs26\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 3;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 footnote text;}{\*\cs16 \additive \f0\super \sbasedon10 footnote reference;} {\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \snext17 Iau?iue;}{\s18\qc \fi567\li-142\ri-483\sl480\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-483\lin-142\itap0 \b\fs32\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Title;}{\s19\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \tqc\tx4677\tqr\tx9355\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext19 footer;}{\*\cs20 \additive \f0 \sbasedon10 page number;}{\s21\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \tqc\tx4819\tqr\tx9638\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext21 header;}}{\*\ud\uc0{\stylesheet{\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa480\sl360\slmult1 \keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs48\lang1049\langfe1049\kerning32\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1 \keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\s3\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1 \keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel2\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs26\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 3;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{ \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 footnote text;}{\*\cs16 \additive \f0\super \sbasedon10 footnote reference;}{ \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \snext17 {\uc1\u206 I\u225 a\u251 u\u247 ?\u237 i\u251 u\u233 e};}{\s18\qc \fi567\li-142\ri-483\sl480\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-483\lin-142\itap0 \b\fs32\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Title;}{\s19\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \tqc\tx4677\tqr\tx9355\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext19 footer;}{\*\cs20 \additive \f0 \sbasedon10 page number;}{\s21\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \tqc\tx4819\tqr\tx9638\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 \sbasedon0 \snext21 header;}}}}{\info{\title A}{\author filsb}{\operator Iska}{\creatim\yr2008\mo1\dy31\hr18\min26} {\revtim\yr2008\mo1\dy31\hr18\min26}{\printim\yr2007\mo10\dy5\hr16\min39}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages20}{\nofwords7547}{\nofchars-32766}{\*\company homePC}{\nofcharsws0}{\vern8249}}\paperw11906\paperh16838\margl1134\margr1134\margt1701\margb1134 \deftab1304\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz425\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1134\dgvorigin1701\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery709\footery709\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl {\header \pard\plain \s21\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tqc\tx4819\tqr\tx9638\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\b\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Invited Paper for }{\b\i\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Sats \endash Nordic Journal of Philosophy}{\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 8.1, pp. 5-26}{ \b\i\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \tab \tab }{\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\langnp1033 15}}}{ \b\i\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \tab }{\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par By Arkadiy Lipkin. \par }}{\footer \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tqc\tx4677\tqr\tx9355\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs20 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof 15}}}{\cs20 \par }\pard \s19\qj \fi567\li0\ri360\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tqc\tx4677\tqr\tx9355\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0 { \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s1\qc \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa480\sl360\slmult1 \keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs48\lang1049\langfe1049\kerning32\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Object Theoretic Operational\'94 View of Natural Science \par }\pard\plain \s3\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel2\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs26\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 A}{ \lang1030\langfe1049\langnp1030 rkadiy}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Lipkin}{\lang1030\langfe1049\langnp1030 \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Abstract}{ \i0\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li567\ri567\sb120\sa120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin567\lin567\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 In this paper, I argue that the conceptual changes that occurred in the structure of physical knowledge during the second half of the 19}{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century, are reflected by the concept of the \'93primary ideal object\'94 (PIO) and its implicit definition within appropriate systems of statements, called a \'93}{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 nucleus of a branch of physics\'94 (NBP). Within an NBP focus shifts away from discovering }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 law}{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 s}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 of nature\'94 to }{ \i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 observations of }{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 a physical object (system) and its states,}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp2057 }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 while }{ \i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp2057 the }{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 distinct notion of }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 measurable\'94 }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 replaces}{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 the}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp2057 }{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 vague notion }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 observable\'94. }{\i\f1\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 On}{\i\f1\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the basis of this notion, }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the roles of physical models and measurements within physics, different kinds of work, experiments, and laws are }{\i\f1\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 discussed. Next follows a }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 discussion of different levels of change in science, after which this distinction is compared to Kuhn\rquote s model. }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Finally, I present a new combination of }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{ \i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 realism\'94 and }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 constructivism\'94, which differs from both the }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{ \i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 constructive empiricism\'94 of van Fraassen and from different }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 empirical realisms\'94.}{\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 1. Introduction \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Most philosophy of science takes as its starting point the revolution in physics that occurred in the beginning of the 20}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century. By beginning here, however, one may fail to reflect the deeper changes in the structure of physical knowledge that had occu rred about half a century earlier. This structure can be found in modern courses of theoretical physics like, for instance, that of Landau and Lifshitz (1977). The earlier and often underestimated transformation was characterized by the appearance of the first theoretical physics departments at Universities by the end of 19}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century. Scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and Euler were searching for the laws of motion, since, to them, what should count as objects of motion seemed obvious. But this situation changed in the middle of 19}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th} {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century. Within the field(s) of electrodynamics (and thermodynamics), there now arose problems with the }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 object}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of motion as well. As a result, the representation of a dynamical phenomenon as the transition of a physical system (object) }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 A}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 from state (}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 S}{ \b\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (1)}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ) to state (}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 S}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (2}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 )) was established }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 theoretical physics}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . That is, the }{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 physical system}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (the object) and }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 its states}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 has since then been seen as central, whereas the }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 law of motion\'94 (a law of Nature) became a feature of the physical system. Such descriptions in theoretical physics became an adequate way of creating new physical essences in the 20} {\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century. This kind of representation, with its new structure of physical knowledge and with its specific combination of constructivism and realism, of rationalism and empiricism, is essential to the new theoretical physics. This change in representation, however, was not reflected in the philosophy and methodology of science. My }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93theoretical physics primary ideal object\'94 view is an attempt to describe and properly }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 acknowledge this structure. \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The basic statements of my view are presented in Section 2. On the basis of these, I discuss the role}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in physics of physical models and mathematics (}{\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Section 3); }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 different kinds of work, experiment and laws (}{\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Section 4); and the very important question about}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the role of measurement (}{\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Section 5). My view suggests }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 4 levels of Conceptual Changes in Natural Sciences, two of which are compared to two levels of Kuhn\rquote s model }{\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Section 6). Finally, the last Section is devoted to an analysis of}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the combination of constructivism and realism}{\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 which is fundamental to this view (Section 7).}{\b\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 2. The Basic Statements of the \'93Theoretical Physics Primary Ideal Object (PIO)\'94 View \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 It is an important feature of the \'93 The Theoretical Physics Primary ideal Object View\'94 that it includes a two level hierarchy consisting of physical objects, which can be seen in analogy to the hierarchy that exists between geometrical objects. In geometr y (as well as in this view), there exist primary and secondary ideal objects. The }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 secondary ideal objects}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \endash }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 SIOs}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (such as a figure in geometry or an electrical discharge in electrodynamics) \endash are constructed (or defined) using }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 primary ideal objects \endash PIOs}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (such as a point, a straight line, and other }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 primitive geometrical concepts}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ; and such as a charged particle and an electromagnetic field in electrodynamics). This is the essence (and definition) of an SIO: An }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 SIO is defined explicitly through PIOs}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . PIOs ar e thus to be defined in a different manner. Until the middle of the 19}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century, PIOs were assumed to be indeterminable but uncontroversial concepts in both geometry and physics. This situation, however, changed with the appearance of non-Euclidean geometry and Maxwell\rquote s electrodynamics (the concept of an electromagnetic field was hard to comprehend by means of simple abstraction, the way }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 material point\'94 is perceived in mechanics). In geometry, D. }{\cf6\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 H}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ilbert suggested the solution to this problem through an implicit definition of PIOs by using a geometrical axiomatic system. This }{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 implicit definition}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 consists of a fixed number of statements with every statement containing more than one defined concept (e.g. }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 through any two }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 points;}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 only one }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 straight line}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 can be drawn\'94 ). If there is a sufficient number of such statements, then all the concepts can be defined unambiguously. (This implicit kind of definition has some resemblance with a system of equations \{f}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 k}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (x}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 1}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , \'85 , x}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 k}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ) = 0\}, where x}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 1}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , \'85, x}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 k}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 resemble defined concepts, including PIOs.) \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The same procedure, although initially without sufficient reflection, was applied in physics, which aimed at a level of strictness equal to the one in mathematics. Consequently, significant changes occurred in the way the structure of the basis of physics was construed. In the frame of contemporary theoretical physics, this structure has received a much clearer representation. As a result, theoretical physics today consists of }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 separate branches}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (such as classical and quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, etc., which can be found in theoretical physics courses like (Landau and Lifshitz 1977)), each with }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 their own foundation.}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 These foundations each consist of an appropriate system of statements, which define the basic concepts, including PIOs and procedures for building SIOs using PIOs}{\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 . }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 We will name each such appropriate system of statements a }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 nucleus of a branch of physics}{\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 \'94}{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 (NBP)}{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 . }{\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 The NBP }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 implements the unambiguous definitions of the PIOs in the branch. \par The common structure of the NBP for all branches of physics is represented in Fig. 1. Here, S}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 is a }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 state}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of a }{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 physical system}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 A, }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \{S}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 M }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 is }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 its }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 mathematical image}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , EM is the }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 equation of motion}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 which describes the connection between states,
are }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 operations of preparing}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the system and its initial state, and }{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 operations of measuring}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (its essence is }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 comparison with standards}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ) for measurable quantities (measurables). (It should be noted that there is a difference between ideal and real operations (ideal and real smooth ramps, solid meter, etc.), which is not shown in Fig. 1.) \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The procedures used in building SIOs}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 out of PIOs enter into the NBP too (building a many-particle system in classical mechanics using Newton\rquote s 3}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 rd}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 law is the simplest example, while another example could be how this production is used for }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 one-particle\'94 SIOs like an}{\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 electron, proton, neutron, or different liquids which are }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 building by}{\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 assigning a specific set of measurables to the corresponding PIO). \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 There may exist a concept of }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 external action}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 F, like force in classical mechanics (and interaction in the case of a many-particle system}{ \cs16\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super \chftn }{ \lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 The case of }{\i\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 force}{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 in classical mechanics presents us with an interesting situation. In its NBP the external force acting on a particle is defi ned first. Then, with Newton\rquote s 3}{\lang1033\langfe1033\super\langnp1033 rd}{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 law this definition is generalized for the multi-particle systems as interaction between particles.}}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ), too, which need to be represented in the model and whose mathematical images enter into the equation of motion (for the sake of simplicity this isn\rquote t represented in Fig. 1). \par \page }{\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1620\shptop0\shpright7380\shpbottom3240\shpfhdr0\shpbxcolumn\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz0\shplid1026 {\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 202}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lTxid}{\sv 65536}}{\sp{\sn hspNext}{\sv 1026}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}{\shptxt \pard\plain \s17\qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 THEORETICAL PART (T) \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 EM \par }\pard \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Mathem: \{S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (1)\}}{ \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 M }{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (2)\}}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 M \par \par \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Model: S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (1) S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{ \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (2) \par \par }\pard \s17\qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (simplest A= Primary Ideal Object (PIO))}{\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard\plain \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxcolumn\dobypara\dodhgt8192\dptxbx\dptxlrtb{\dptxbxtext\pard\plain \s17\qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 { \b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 THEORETICAL PART (T) \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 EM \par }\pard \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Mathem: \{S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (1)\}}{ \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 M }{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (2)\}}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 M \par \par \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Model: S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (1) S}{\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 A}{ \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (2) \par \par }\pard \s17\qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (simplest A= Primary Ideal Object (PIO))}{\fs24\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard\plain \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }}\dpx1620\dpy0\dpxsize5760\dpysize3240\dpfillfgcr255\dpfillfgcg255\dpfillfgcb255\dpfillbgcr255\dpfillbgcg255\dpfillbgcb255\dpfillpat1\dplinew15\dplinecor0\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par \par }{\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft3780\shptop180\shpright5400\shpbottom180\shpfhdr0\shpbxcolumn\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz1\shplid1027 {\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn shapePath}{\sv 4}}{\sp{\sn fFillOK}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineEndArrowhead}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fArrowheadsOK}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxcolumn\dobypara\dodhgt8193\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx1620\dppty0\dpx3780\dpy180\dpxsize1620\dpysize0\dplinew15\dplinecor0\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }{\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft5580\shptop0\shpright5580\shpbottom720\shpfhdr0\shpbxcolumn\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz3\shplid1028 {\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn shapePath}{\sv 4}}{\sp{\sn fFillOK}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineEndArrowhead}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fArrowheadsOK}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxcolumn\dobypara\dodhgt8195\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx0\dppty720\dpx5580\dpy0\dpxsize0\dpysize720\dplinew15\dplinecor0\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}} {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft2880\shptop0\shpright2880\shpbottom720\shpfhdr0\shpbxcolumn\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz2\shplid1029{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn shapePath}{\sv 4}}{\sp{\sn fFillOK}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineEndArrowhead}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fArrowheadsOK}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxcolumn\dobypara\dodhgt8194 \dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx0\dppty720\dpx2880\dpy0\dpxsize0\dpysize720\dplinew15\dplinecor0\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }{\fs40\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\b\fs40\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033
}{ \fs40\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard \qj \li567\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin567\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Fig. 1: A Nucleus of a Branch of Physics (NBP) \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par Any branch of physics consists of an NBP, its PIOs, SIOs, and its consequent theories. The SIO is an ideal ontological object model from which, since the theoretical description of PIOs is known, theory ensue. That\rquote s why \endash on the one hand \endash Fig. 1 describes an NBP and defines the PIO if A is the PIO (i.e. the simplest system of the branch), and why \endash on the other hand \endash the central part of the scheme describes the theory of behavior of an SIO, i.e. a phenomenon, if A is an SIO. Furthermore, one should bear in mind that an SIO can be built using PIOs from different branches of physics (the motion of a charged body in liquid can, for instance, be described using PIOs from mechanics, hydrodynamics, and electrodynamics). Different branches of physics differ from each other in that their system A and its states differ in kind. Consensus on this issue was reached in physics in the secon d half of the 19}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century, but since then it has become easy to extend this view onto previous physics, because Euclid\rquote s geometry functions both as a paradigm for the theoretical description for the physics of Galileo and Newton, and for this new kind of theoretical physics. \par The }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 concept of state}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 is the most difficult concept there. This is a concept which describes the motion (process) of a system and gives us opportunity to answer every question concerning the system\rquote s behavior that is possible within }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 this}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 branch of physics}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . }{\lang3081\langfe1049\langnp3081 This definition partly coincides with van Fraassen\rquote s: \'93 if we knew the state, then we would know all there is to know about how the system will develop if left alone and how it will react if acted upon\'94 (van Fraassen 1980, p. 275). The main difference between the two definitions is the exclusion from my view of measurement as the variable of such \lquote action-upon\rquote .}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 In dynamics, a state is connected to a moment of time (this is the reason why \lquote time\rquote plays a special role in dynamics in comparison to other measurable quantities), but this isn\rquote t necessarily so. There may be other parameters, which order states. Stationary states are, for example, ordered by energy levels and other integrals of motion, and in thermodynamics temperature or other parameters play this role}{ \cs16\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super \chftn }{ \lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 In (Lipkin 2001a), I have tried to show that thermodynamics has its own model of a System and its state. Thus, thermodynamics should be thought of as a normal branch of physics with its own NBP, and not a \lquote phenomenological theory\rquote , as it is often labeled.}}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Lipkin 2001a). One can speak evenly about only the initial and final states which exist in any physical process}{\cs16\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super \chftn }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 There have been attempts to place a \lquote physical process\rquote (which consists of preparation, a propagation by means of some experimental arrangement, and an outcome (the terms detection, registration, and measurement are also used)) instead of a physical system and its states as the basic concept (Stachel 1995). I am not claiming that this is impossible, but I insist tha t it isn\rquote t necessary, and that the concept of a physical system and its states works well in the \lquote new physics\rquote of the 20}{\lang1033\langfe1033\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 century. From this point of view, Feynman\rquote s integral made up by trajectories and so on are different new mathematical representations in our scheme instead of being ontological objects of J. Stachel\rquote s. On the other hand, J. Stachel associates his concept of \'93process\'94 with Feynman\rquote s use of \'93process\'94, which in its turn \'93is similar to Bohr\rquote s use of \'93phenomenon\'94, which consists of the entire experimental set-up, including specification of the preparation of the system, of all intermediate physical interactions, and of the registration of the final outcome, constitutes a phenomenon, a whole that cannot be subdivided\'94 (Stachel 1995, p. 247, 254). But this use of \'93phenomenon\'94 , which Bohr makes, is one of the formulas of his famous complementarity principle, which is rather vague. (One should bear in mind that after 25 years discussion with Bohr, A. Einstein said that he had \'93been unable to achieve its \'93sharp formulation \'94 despite much effort he had expended on it (Einstein 1949, p. 674).) The complementarity principle isn\rquote t used in real physical work (Klyshko and Lipkin 2000). The theoretical description of a physical process as a change of states of physical system is simple and works well in relativistic and quantum physics (Lipkin 2001a, 2001b; Klyshko and Lipkin 2000).}}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . \par Now, let\rquote s look at main features and consequences of this view.}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 3. The Role of Physical Models and Mathematics in Physics \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Ac cording to my "theoretical physics PIO-view", mathematics can be considered an element of the NBP-structure. It is included as mathematical representations, and the central role played in physics by mathematics is ascribed to physical models. The latter, however, fall outside of the positivistic views of physics which has been (and often still is) the starting point for both physicists and philosophers in the 20}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century}{ \cs16\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super \chftn }{ \lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 One should bear in mind that the concept of model is a difficult one, and that its meaning in mathematics and logic differs from its meaning in physics (see Wartofsky 1979). In the structuralistic view, where one assert \'93things about models of the theory rather than to talk directly and explicitly about the sentences of the theory\'94 (Suppes 1969, p. 58), the first variant of the concept is being used. Models in physics are touched upon in Ronald Giere\rquote s paper \lquote How Models Are Used to Represent Reality\rquote (Giere 2004). In this paper, Giere talks about SIO-type work, from the viewpoint of my conception of SIO, and his \'93principles\'94 correspond to my PIOs.}}}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . Actually, there exists only two levels in such positivistic views: the mathematical (consisting of equations) and the empirical (consisting of measurements or observations). \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 In his lectures on quantum mechanics, the famous Soviet theoretical physicist L.I. Mandlstam spoke of the structure of any physical theory. \'93A bit schematically,\'94 he said, \par }\pard \qj \li567\ri567\sb120\sa120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin567\lin567\itap0 {\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 one can say that any physical theory consists of }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 two}{ \f78\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 complementary parts [which corresponds very precisely to the Math-level and the level of measurement in our NBP]. I begin with the second part. These are theoretical equations \endash Maxwell\rquote s equations, Newton\rquote s equations, Schr\'f6dinger\rquote s equation, and so }{\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 on. Equations simply form a mathematical apparatus (device). Some symbols enter into these equations: x, y, z, and t, vectors E and H, and so on. The first part of the physical theory is that which forms the connection between these symbols (values) and t he physical objects, to which they are connected via the representation. This connection is realized by concrete cookies (concrete things such as standards and concrete measurement processes \endash the finding of coordinates, time and so on by using of rules, c locks, and so on). I.e., at first we have transition from objects to figures (numbers) by cookies and then goes mathematics and thereafter inverse transition to express the achieved result as physical\'94 [Mandlstam 1972, pp. 326-327].}{ \fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Thus, in Mandlstam\rquote s scheme, there exist only }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 two}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 levels: a mathematical one, which is represented by equations of motion, and the one consisting of measurements, which are procedures of comparison with standards. \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The covering up of the model level is a result of the popular opi nion that the distinctive features of modern physics lies in experimentation (which is often identified with measurement), and in mathematics. A view of this kind resembles very closely the instrumentalist view, which was formed in connection to the posit ivistic philosophy of E. Mach, A. Poincare, and others. In the pathos of the struggle with the mechanicists, Mach and his sympathizers \endash including many of the originators of the new physics \endash began to deny that models played any role in physics. In this context, the huge success of Einstein\rquote s Special Theory of Relativity, which consisted of only two important levels \endash one of equations, and one of measurements, was seen as a token of the victory of the instrumentalists. The instrumentalist view was therefore inherited by the major part of the following generation of theoreticians within the physical sciences. \par The same situation has occurred, although at a later point in time, in philosophy of science. Thus, according to the \'93Received View\'94 (RV), which \'93occupies a central place in logical positivism\'94 we have statements such as this: \par }\pard \qj \li567\ri567\sb120\sa120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin567\lin567\itap0 {\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 A scientific theory is to be axiomatized in mathematical logic (first order predicate calculus with equality). }{\fs22\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 The terms of the logical axiomatizatioon are to be divided into three sorts: (1) logical and mathematical terms; (2) theoretical terms; and (3) observational terms which are given a phenomenal or observational interpretation. }{\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The axioms of the theory are formulations of scientific laws, and specify relationships holding between the theoretical terms. }{\i\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Theoretical terms are merely abbreviations for phenomenal descriptions}{ \fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . (Suppe 1974, p. 12; italics added). \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (We see the same two levels of description in a later, more structuralistic view, where P. Suppes in his paper \lquote What is a Scientific Theory\rquote describes what he calls \lquote the standard sketch of scientific theories\rquote as follows: \'93 A scientific theory consists of two parts. One part is an abstract logical calculus. In addition to the vocabulary of logic, this calculus includes the primitive symbols of the theory, \'85 The second part of the theory is a set of rules that assign an empirical content to the logical calculus\'94 (Suppes 1969, p.56).) And \'93it is little exaggeration,\'94 wrote F. Suppe, \'93to say that virtually every significant resul t obtained in philosophy of science between the 1920s and 1950 either employed or tacitly assumed the Received View\'94 (Suppe 1974, pp. 3-4). \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 The model }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 level }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 in Fig. 1 is the central part}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of the scheme}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 . }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The modeling, i.e. the making of models on the basis of phenomena, is the primary kind of work in physics. }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 The }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 claim}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 that theoretical physics }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 can (and should) be identified with }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 mathematical physics}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 is the result of }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 a }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 positivistic aberration. Of course }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 mathematical }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 kind }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 of work is widespread in theoretical physics}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 and }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of course it }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 is very important, but without a model of phenomena we do not achieve a sufficient level of understanding, although }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 we }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 can describe the results. \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The central role played by physical models in physics is manifested by asking: \'93What is the concept of \'93understanding\'94 in Physics?\'94 In his paper, \lquote What is the concept of \'93understanding\'94 in Physics?\rquote (Heisenberg 1969), Heisenberg discussed what the word \'93understanding\'94 could mean in theoretical physics. There isn\rquote t just one simple answer to this question. But we can find many examples. In all cases, \'93understanding \'94 in physics is constrained by the construction of an ontological model. I am here thinking of examples such as planetary motion, turbulent motion of fluids, and superconductivit y. What these examples testify is that the feeling of having arrived at some form of \'93understanding\'94 of a phenomenon, appears only after the construction of an ontological model of the physical phenomenon. We can see the same ideas present in statements such as this: \'93 We have understood a group of phenomena when we have found the right concepts for describing these phenomena\'94 Or this: \'93By constructing simplified models and by demonstrating that these models do show the characteristic features of the phenome na, we convince ourselves that the concepts are correct (e.g., in the theory of superconductivity), that we have \'93understood\'94 the phenomena\'94. \par }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 The }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 level at which models exist}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 is manifested in classical and quantum mechanics }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 by }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 using different }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 mathematical representations\'94 for the same physical problem such as Newtons\rquote s, Lagrange\rquote s, and Hamiltons\rquote s in classical mechanics; and Schroedinger\rquote s and Heisenberg\rquote s schemes in quantum mechanics.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 4. Different Kinds of Work, Experiment, and Laws in Physics \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The next poi nt concerns the presence of two types of objects: PIOs and SIOs. The discerning of these }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 two types }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of ideal objects}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \endash }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \lquote }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 primary}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \rquote and}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \lquote }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 secondary}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \rquote }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \endash is one of the theoretical cornerstones of the PIO-view of science. This leads to the existence of }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 two kinds of scientific work}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 :}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the PIO-kind of work, which creates new PIOs, and the SIO-kind of work, which makes use of the existing PIOs for explaining and predicting the occurrence of phenomena by means of modeling.}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 These two kinds of work resemble closely, on the one hand, T. Kuhn\rquote s concepts of \'93scientific revolution\'94 and \'93normal science\'94 and, on the other, Einstein\rquote s \'93principal\'94 and \'93constructive \'94 theories. \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Which one of the two approaches one chooses is the existential choice of any scientist. To illus trate this point, we can make use of a very interesting case from the history of electrodynamics. The case I have in mind is the one where Faraday and Maxwell, in order to fulfill their intentions of ordering the known set of empirical laws, had to create a new PIO such as the electromagnetic field by doing the PIO-type of work. Meanwhile, their German colleagues tried to get along relying only on the SIO-type of work. The latter kind of work was successful until the end of the 19}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century, when electromagnetic waves were discovered. \par These two kinds of work correspond to two kinds of experiment. There is, on the one hand, the PIO-experiment associated with the PIO-kind of work, and there is, on the other, the SIO-experiment associated with the SIO-kind of work. To be able to differentiate these two types of work, I will make use of E. Hutten\rquote s distinction between two types of models: \'93}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 models OF}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'94}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (something existing) and \'93}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 models FOR}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'94}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (something not yet existing). In a PIO-experiment, the PIO, which is created }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 de novo}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , is approached through the empirical object. The PIO functions as a }{ \b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 model FOR}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the empirical object, which consequently in this sense hasn\rquote t existed before the creation of its corresponding ideal object. In an SIO-experiment, the SIO functions as a }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 model OF }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 an already}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 existing empirical object. In this case it is the approach of the empirical object that is primary. \par An SIO-experiment can exist both in a natural (material) and in a mental form, i.e. in thought. A thought experiment is possible due t o the fact that SIOs are built using PIOs, whose behaviour is known via a theoretical description. This is the reason why thought experiments are widely used by theorists. (In case the equation of motion becomes too complex, it can be solved by computer f or many different values of different quantities. This is the essence of the \'93computer experiment\'94 or \'93mathematical modeling simulation\'94). \par The essence of a PIO-experiment is the realization of the PIO, whose design is up to this point only theoretical. Actu ally producing a PIO-experiment is more complicated than the mere idealization of some experiment. One of the main concepts of my PIO-view is the concept of the PIO-experiment, which becomes connected to PIO-kind of work as new PIOs are created. At exactl y this point, then, one sees a complex interweaving of theoretical and operational elements, which makes the common positivist dichotomy \'93empirical \endash theoretical\'94 or \'93observable \endash non-observable\'94 inadequate. \par The theory of falling bodies in Galileo\rquote s }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Discourses}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 can act as a standard example of the PIO-kind of work, where new PIO are created, i.e. vacuum in this case}{ \b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 If we look at Galileo\rquote s original texts, we discover that his arguments were not in general based on empirical observation (as F. Bacon thought) , but rather on the theoretical belief that \'93 Nature tries to use the simplest and the easiest means in all of its devices... Therefore, when I note that a stone set in motion and falling from a considerable altitude acquires more and more velocity, should not I assume,\'94 he says, \'93 that this increment takes place in the simplest form? If we examine the phenomenon more closely, we will find that there is no simpler incrementation than one which occurs uniformly\'94 (Galilei 1900). Galileo\rquote s ability to reasoning p hysically is well demonstrated in a long digression on the problem of a thrown body, which takes place on the \'93fourth\'94 day of }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Discourses}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . First of all, the law of motion is presented, namely that bodies fall at a constant acceleration (on the \'93third\'94 and \'93fourth\'94 days), and as a result of mental experiments, the three aspects of the process are separated, viz., body, vacuum, and medium. The concept of a body remains invariable (evidently because the moving stars of the sky, the movement of which have been d iscussed by astronomers ever since ancient times, have clearly defined images), and because the elements of the physical model to be created are \lquote vacuum\rquote and \lquote medium\rquote . Galileo introduced the vacuum as the ideal medium, in which the ideal (the imagined) and the real (the actual) fall of a body will be identical. The medium thus becomes the cause of any deviation of real from ideal motion (this should be seen in contrast to the view held by Aristotle, who saw the medium as the source of the motion}{ \cs16\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ). The conscious nature of Galileo\rquote s rationalistic approach is confirmed by one of his letters to Baliani (from the 7}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of January 1639), where he claims that it doesn\rquote t matter to him if some features of his picture of movement of falling bodies do not correspond to real bodies falling, since nobody reproaches Archimedes for the absence in Nature of bodies that move in accordance with Archimedes\rquote spiral (Galilei 1906, t. XVIII, p. 11-12). \par Allow me to briefly note that the pair \'93vacuum \endash medium\'94 }{\cf6\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 can}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 never been falsified (in the Popperian sense). }{\fs23\expnd-1\expndtw-5\cf6\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 However}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Galileo looked at his model like an engineer would look at a project, and he linked his notion of vacuum to real material by introducing into his theory such \lquote structural elements\rquote as smooth ramps and other structural components (which later became real, as Torichelli actually managed to pump the air out of a tube). Thus, via his }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Discourses}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , Galileo in reality introduced the engineering approach into physics. Consequently, through the operations of preparing and me asurement there appear procedures for the material realization of ideal elements. In addition to this, Galileo was the first to achieve success by making an observation objective, thus giving rise to the modern physical experiment. Experimentation and mea s urements are thus separated from the individual scientist and whatever sensations he or she may have is transformed to a description of procedures. Only such an objective approach to experimentation allows us to use different devices to amplify our knowle dge, in the same way that mechanical devices (levers, pulleys, etc.) serve to intensify force. \par We find this rational and engineering-like creation of the fundamental physical theories in Newton, Maxwell, and the other creators of new branches of physics. (C uriously, though, it remains absent in the accounts of many physicists and philosophers.) It is however a typical trend in physics. Thus the constructive link within classical mechanics, such as \'93straight line in motion and force\'94 in Newton\rquote s }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 first}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 law, and \'93inertial reference system\'94 as Newton\rquote s }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 second}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 law is made. For instance, the definition of the notion of force makes use of the notion of an inertial frame, but how do we actually find such an inertial frame? This is only possible if we independently o f the criteria laid down by the Newtonian laws retain some criteria of existence or absence of force or if we find a sufficiently good realization of an inertial frame (e.g., the line: Earth, Sun, system of remote stars represents such attempt). \par Theory plays the leading role in the PIO- and SIO-kinds of work and experiment. But there is a }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 third kind of work, namely the experimental study}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of empirical phenomena X (objects or processes) beyond the region of mental experiments, which is of the form
, where X takes the place of }{\fs22\cf6\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 "Theoretical part"}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in Fig. 1. (There exists a phenomenon X without a sufficiently distinct theoretical model, i.e. SIO). \par This kind of work, which is reflected in courses of \'93General Physics\'94 (by contrast to courses of \'93Theoretical Physics\'94) is often seen by many physicists and philosophers (e.g. by empiricists and positivists) as the main or perhaps even the only possible kind of work in physics. Thus, distinguished physicist and educator Richard Feynman in his lectures, \lquote The character of Physical Law\rquote (Feynman 1965), takes a look at the process of the appearance of a law as a \'93guessing game\'94 (p. 54) or as a \'93generalization achieved by the human mind\'94 (p. 14). He suggests that from \'93 this idea to look at the thing, to record details and to hope that in the information thus obtained there might lay a clue to one or another theoretical interpretation.\'94 First here, the \'93true understanding of Nature\'94 begins and that this idea is the key of modern science\'94 (p. 15). \par This view very closely resembles the Duhemiam picture of F. Bacon\rquote s method of generalization by means of empirical induction, which can be described by the following standard sequence: \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\chbrdr\brdrs\brdrw10 \langnp1033 Empirical facts}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 232 \\f "Wingdings" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f14\fs24}}}{ \b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\chbrdr\brdrs\brdrw10 \langnp1033 Empirical generalizations }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 232 \\f "Wingdings" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f14\fs24}}}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\chbrdr\brdrs\brdrw10 \langnp1033 Theoretical laws}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (1) \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 I will call this the \'93Standard Empirical View\'94. The majority of philosophical views on science theory are of this empirical kind and derive from the same kind of sequence. }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'93 Empiricism has always been a main philosophical guide in the study of nature,\'94 says Bas van Fraassen (van Fraassen 1980, p. 3). }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 In a large time scale, }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 empiricism}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 characterizes the development of science in the following way: \par }\pard \qj \li567\ri567\sb120\sa120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin567\lin567\itap0 {\fs22\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 [I]nitially science consists of empirical generalizations formulated by using observation terms. Later, as the science advances, theoretical terms are introduced by definition and theoretical laws or generalizations are formulated in terms of theoretical terms. Thus science proceeds \'93upward\'94 from particular facts to theoretical generalizations about phenomena, and this upward process proceeds in an essentially Baconian fashion. (Suppe 1974, p. 15). \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Thus, we can discern two kinds of laws: empirical laws and theoretical laws. The classical example of the Baconian process of arriving at an empirical law by empirical generalization is Boyle\rquote s law for an ideal gas. But since such an empirical law claims universal validity, it becomes exposed to Hume\rquote s problem. Why don\rquote t scientists, then, take notice of this problem? I think that one should employ \'93Galileo\rquote s procedure \'94 in physics in this case as well: What is an ideal gas? According to the physical definition, it is a gas, which is subject to the known laws of ideal gases, including the one formulated by Boyle. Otherwise it doesn\rquote t qua lify as an ideal gas. (A.J. Ayer pointed this out using as examples the definition of loadstone and the definition of water as H}{\lang1033\langfe1049\sub\langnp1033 2}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 O as a logical problem (Curd and Cover 1998, p. 812).) This is how the concept of an ideal gas is introduced into thermodynamics in the same manner as Galileo\rquote s vacuum was. The problem lies in its realization, which can be solved by using a sufficiently rarefied gas in the experiment. (In molecular (i.e. statistical) physics, we have another situation, because here an ideal gas is defined by means of its molecular model, but this is another branch of physics.) \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 However, we can discern such \lquote empirical laws\rquote from \lquote theoretical laws\rquote (such as Newton\rquote s laws of dynamics or gravitation). The first kind of laws, the empirical ones, operate only with quantities, which can be measured in experiments (e.g. \lquote pressure\rquote , \lquote volume\rquote , and \lquote temperature\rquote ), whereas the latter kind, the theoretical laws, make use of new \lquote theoretical\rquote entities (e.g. \lquote force of gravitation\rquote , and \lquote mass\rquote ), which are absent in , for instance, the empirical data of Tycho Brahe and the generalizations (empirical laws) discovered by Kepler. \par One of the problems often discussed in philosophy of science is the question \'93What sort of things }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 laws}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 are?\'94 (Curd and Cover 1998, p. 805). M. Curd and J.A. Cover discuss \'93 two important and influential ways of understanding law \endash the regularity approach and the necessitarian approach.\'94 The first way to conceive of laws is represented by A.J. Ayer and conceives of laws as \lquote generalisation about events\rquote (Curd and Cover 1998, p. 806), while the second way, represented by F. Dretske, connects laws to a \lquote relationship between properties or magnitudes\rquote and the modality \lquote must\rquote (\'93Laws tell us what\'85 must happen\'94 ) (Curd and Cover 1998, p. 838). At this point, I should mention that this discussion concerns a very difficult logical question: What is the }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 logical}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 status of a \lquote law of nature \rquote ? My claim, on the other hand, concerns the }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 physical}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 status of laws in physics, and it basically says that physical laws dete rmine a number of quantitative relations which hold between qualities of objects and processes. \lquote }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Generalization}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \rquote thus becomes close to being the description of the central process of deriving }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 empirical laws}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (but one should note that in order to transform a hypothesis formed on the basis of Bacon's way of \lquote generalizing into a law\rquote , it is necessary to add to this Galileo\rquote s procedure). \lquote N}{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ecessity}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \rquote }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 then \endash as opposed to \lquote generalization\rquote \endash can be used in the cases concerning \lquote }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 theoretical}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \rquote laws, which are elements of an NBP and the result of PIO-kind of work. \par The existence of two (PIO- and SIO-)levels in the PIO-view renders a number of difficult questions superfluous. Thus, for instance, it avoids N. Cartwright\rquote s problem that truth and explanation exclude each ot her and that fundamental Laws of Nature do not describe \'93facts about reality\'94 (Curd and Cover 1998, p. 866). The point is that while the PIO belongs to some definite branch of physics, the SIO can be built using PIOs from different branches of physics. The motion of a charged body (with gravitational mass), for instance, can be described using PIOs from mechanics plus gravitation theory and electrodynamics. This is discussed by N. Cartwright as a \'93composite case\'94 from a Laws of Nature point of view (Curd and Cover 1998, p. 865-877): \'93We explain certain complex phenomena to be the result of the interplay of simple, fundamental laws,\'94 she says (Curd and Cover 1998, p. 875). However, she faces a problem in this composite case. This is because, according to her, \'93gravitation and electric forces are both produced, yet neither exist,\'94 since \'93 no charged object will behave just as the law of universal gravitation says; and any massive object will constitute a counter example to Coulomb\rquote s law\'85 In order to be true i n the composite case, the law must describe one effect (the effect which actually happens); but to be explanatory, it must describe another\'94 (Curd and Cover 1998, pp. 870, 868, 869). \par How does this problem, then, come into view in the theoretical physics PIO-view? First of all, according to the PIO-view, complex phenomena are considered to be the result of the compositions of PIOs (in an SIO), not \'93of the interplay of laws\'94 (theoretical laws in N. Cartwright\rquote s examples). Thus, with regard to the first part of Cartwright\rquote s claim, her laws are to be replaced by SIOs. According to the PIO-view, \'93theoretical\'94 laws of nature describe PIOs, which are in one sense real, yet in another artificial. Every law and every PIO thus belongs to only one branch of physics (this, by the way, is the reason why Cartwright\rquote s example of the SIO-like massive charged objects cannot \'93constitute a counter example to Coulomb\rquote s law\'94). The laws Cartwright lays out as different parts of her claim (\'93fundamental\'94 and \'93explanatory\'94 laws) are in fact different entities, which belong to different levels: to the SIO-level, and to the PIO-level, respectively. Since she mixes them up, she ends up with a paradox, which physicists needn\rquote t bother with. \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 5. The Role of Measurement in Physics \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The \'93[g]eneral positivist view that what can\rquote t be seen can\rquote t be\'94 (Needham }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 2004) leads to the }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93Observational-Theoretical Term Distinction\'94 of the Received View and to B. van Fraassen\rquote s empiricist \'93 observable \endash non-observable\'94 distinction. }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 These distinctions }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 are considered to be }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 one of the central points }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 contemporary philosophy of science. But what }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 precisely }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 one should }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 count }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 as }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 observable\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 is not at all clear }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 (}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 much debate, for instance,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 therefore surrounds }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 question}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 s}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 concerning whether}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 such object}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 s}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 as }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 paramecia or m itochondria }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 should be counted as }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 observable or not (see Suppe 1974, pp. 80-85; Alspector-Kelly}{\b\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 2004). }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 According to my \'93theoretical physics primary ideal object\'94 view, there is yet another distinction to be made: namely that between the \'93theoretical\'94 part and the operations of measurement (and preparation). \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Thus, i}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 nstead of }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 having to rely on the }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 vague }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 concept }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'93observable\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 one }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 is able to use the much}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 clear}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 er concepts}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'93preparable\'94 and \'93measurable\'94, i.e. concepts of \'93measurable quantity\'94 or \'93measurability\'94 (as}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , for instance,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 a }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 distinctive trait }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 of a system or its states), which }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 are}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 based on a distinct standard associated with operations of comparison }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 to }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 it, as well as clear operations of prepar}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ation} {\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 of }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 a }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 physical system and its states. }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 As such, for example, an }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 electron is }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 unobservable\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , yet it is still}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'93preparable\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 In addition, }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 all }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 its }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 distinctive traits}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 (including such unclassical }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 characteristics }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 as}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , for instance,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 spin) are }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 measurable\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , whereas they would be highly}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 questionable}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , w ere they conceived of as }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'93observable\'94. I w}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 would like}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 to }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 stress the fact }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 that for some quantities (such as magnetic field}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 s}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in electrodynamical theory }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 or }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93} {\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 charm}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 s}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'94 in quark-theory)}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 it is doubtful if they are }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 indeed }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'93observable\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . Nevertheless,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 they are surely }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 measurable\'94. \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 There exist different kinds of measurable values. One of these kinds, exemplified by position and velocity in classical mechanics, exists external to the NBP, i.e. is imported from outside it. T here exists the problem of accuracy of standards, e.g. dependence from temperature, and so on. This problem is a subject of present-day physical theories, but is really external to Newtonian mechanics. There are theories imported from the outside which ar e not questioned within the frames of Newtonian mechanics itself. In Newtonian mechanics there exists the problem of the inertial frame, but this doesn\rquote t mean that there are any internal problems concerning measurements of position, time, and velocity withi n Newtonian mechanics. The imports influence the theoretical part but are not influenced by the latter. The other part, including such entities as mass and force in classical mechanics,}{\cs16\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1049\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super \chftn }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033 Mass (and momentum) appears inside the NBP simultaneously with other new notions. A measurement of mass (and momentum) is based on Newton\rquote s laws of motion or the law of conservation of momentum and operations of a comparison with standard, i.e., one takes some body as a standard, gives some definite velocity to it and coll ides it with the body under measurement of mass or momentum). Then one gets the value of mass or momentum with the help of the laws mentioned above. We have the same situation concerning the force.}}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 and spine in quantum mechanics, has an existence internal to the NBP. They influence the theoretical part and are influenced by it in turn. Some of the measurable values, such as position and velocity in classical mechanics, characterize the state of a system; others, such as mass, characterize the system itsel f . In any case, though, a measurement must be considered a measurement, not an action on a system. The meaning of acting on a system, i.e., to change its state, and of measuring, i.e., exhibiting or visualizing the state, are principally different. Of cour se one can consider (in a general sense) any complex system consisting of the initial system and a part of the initial measurement device as a \lquote test body\rquote . In this case, one ends up with another system and another measurement. One cannot, however, remove the measurement by such procedure at all. (In quantum mechanics one is faced by a similar situation (Klyshko & Lipkine 2000).) \par Thus, in my \'93theoretical physics primary ideal object\'94 view, the positivist \'93Theoretical \endash Observational\'94 distinction is replaced by a new \'93}{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Theoretical \endash Operational}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'94 }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 distinction}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , which is one of the characteristic features of the view. What this distinction means is that }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 measurements and preparations }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 are to be considered as special }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 operations}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 that are used (like material for building) to create the NBP and the PIO. \par The role played by measurement postulates in the NBP thus becomes very important. (If, for example, we base our postulates on the solid meter standard and clocks coherent with it, we will arrive at the Galilean transforma tion rules. If, however, we base our postulates on the \lquote solid\rquote light velocity standard (the 2}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 nd}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of Einstein\rquote s postulates in his Special Theory of Relativity) and clocks coherent with it (known as \lquote light clocks\rquote constructed from two parallel mirrors and an impulse of light moving between them, sort of like a pendulum) (Feynman, Leighton & Sands 2006), we will arrive at Lorentz\rquote transformation rules for intervals of time, space, and relativity of simultaneity for different points in space. But }{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the measuring and preparing operations cannot be considered as objects of a physical theory}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in the same way that phenomena and actions are. The boundary between the central \'93 theoretical\'94 part and the operations is a very important feature of the}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93Theoretical Physics Primary Ideal Object\'94 View. S}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 uch a boundary appears in (Fock 1958, p. 166) as well.}{ \f30\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 It is t}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 hese operations, which are essential to a kind of experimentation that }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 differentiates present-day natural science from conceptual (i.e. speculative) natural philosophy}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . Before Galileo, there existed some form of }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 mathematized}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 natural philosophy (paradigmatically expressed in the metaphor of \'93a book of Nature written in the language of mathematics\'94), and technical mechanics. Ever since Antiquity, science has concerned itsel f with natural philosophy, including Aristotelian physics, in the form of descriptions of motion or change. Technical mechanics, on the other hand, has always been concerned with human operations and has thus always belonged to a different world from that of philosophy and science. The operations of preparation and measurement were borrowed from the world of technical mechanics by Galileo (as evidenced by his theory of a falling body as found in his }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Discourses}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ). PIO- or SIO conceptual models were materially realized through them. These human operations weren\rquote t to be considered proper phenomena for science. They were very specific elements and there was a principle boundary between these operations and the phenomenon. The latter was considered an object of theory, whereas the operations were not}{ \fs22\cf6\lang1033\langfe1049\highlight7\langnp1033 to be,}{\cf6\lang1033\langfe1049\highlight7\langnp1033 }{\cf6\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the same way as}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 a man and his operations are not, accordingly, objects of physical theory. Once we take this distinction and accept the heterogeneous (theoretical-operational) character of any description of physical phenomena, many \'93paradoxes of quantum mechanics\'94 disappear immediately. This distinction between the theoretical and the operational was lost to Laplaceian mechanical natural philosophy, where PIOs have lost their operational parts, and has become e lements in a natural philosophy. Informed by such natural philosophy, a transformation of some physical PIOs (like, for instance, field) played a role in the building of models in other sciences. It is important, however, in order to avoid mistakes of Lap lace\rquote s type, to be able to discern the difference of meaning of the same term in different contexts. Laplace proclaimed that since all things (including human beings) consist of nothing but atoms, and since atoms can be described by mechanics, then everythi}{ \f78\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ng can be described by the laws of mechanics. This boundary had no influence on classical physics, but with the creation of a \'93new\'94 quantum mechanics, the situation changed. I. von Neumann, E. Schr\'f6 dinger (with his famous \'93cat\'94), and others adopted the log}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ic of Laplace\rquote s mechanical natural philosophy (in which quantum mechanics is used instead of Newtonian mechanics). Whilst that boundary was lost to them, they began to see operations of measurements as phenomena and thus as subjects of a theory. Thus, \'93par adoxes of measurement\'94 appeared that are on our view nonexistent (see Klyshko & Lipkine 2000; Lipkin, 2001b). \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 6. Different Levels of Conceptual Change in the Natural Sciences and in Kuhn's Model \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Though the PIO-view concerns the structure of physical knowle dge, it has a number of consequences for how we view the development of physics and natural science in general. Using Fig. 1 as reference, we can discern 4 levels of Conceptual Change within the Natural Sciences. \par }\pard \qj \li284\ri284\sb120\sa120\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin284\lin284\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The first level is the level of different SIOs. An example of conceptual change on this level is the theory of superconductivity. \par The second level is the level of different PIOs, NBPs, and branches of physics, i.e. the different content that fill out the structure depicted in Fig. 1. On this level, the difference between classical and quantum mechanics can serve as an example. \par The third level is the level of different sciences or disciplines, i.e. the level of the different structures of the theoretical part of Fig. 1. An example of this kind of conceptual change is the difference between physics and chemistry. \par The fourth level is the level of the scientific revolution of the 17}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century, where the structure of the NBP conceived as
was born. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 On the first two levels, detailed examples can be found in physics. These two levels can be compared to T. Kuhn\rquote s concepts of \'93normal science\'94 and \'93scientific revolutions\'94 (Kuhn 1962). \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The limitation for SIO-type of work, which is that in order to create theories of phenomena. One can only use existi ng PIOs, resembles Kuhn\rquote s \'93impression\'94 that research in normal science is not about discovering the unknown, but rather \'93a strenuous and devoted attempt to force Nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education.\'94}{ \f1\fs20\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Thus, the first level of the PIO-view is very similar to Kuhn\rquote s conception of \'93normal science\'94, and the NBP can be compared to the main part of Kuhn\rquote s \'93 paradigm\'94. The second level is the level of PIO-type of work under creation of new NBPs which corresponds to creation of new paradigm and Scientific Revolution in Kuhn\rquote s model. These two views are complementary to each other. At the center of Kuhn\rquote s view, there is an interaction of ideas and community which can be applied to a very wide domain. The PIO-view says nothing about a com munity; it is centered on the structure of physical knowledge and can be applied to some other natural sciences (such as chemistry and synergetics (Lipkin 2001a)). \par It is interesting to note that a consequence of this comparison in the region of physics is a claim to the effect that the main type of work in \'93normal science\'94 is not solving puzzles but building SIO-models of PIOs, which is like assembling a variety of structures from a small number of details. \par Another feature of Kuhn\rquote s model, which should be modified, is his concept of \lquote non-cumulativity\rquote . If we take a look at the history of modern physics, we can see that new branches of physics have appeared in three different ways. In the 17}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 and 18}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century, new branches of physics (such as Newtonian mech anics, and hydrodynamics) were created through the process of solving different concrete problems. At the center of these problems was the phenomenon of motion (of a falling body, a planet, or a liquid). In the middle of the 19}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century (as evidenced by electrodynamics), new branches of physics were created through the process of trying to create order among the set of known \lquote empirical laws\rquote . In the 20}{\lang1033\langfe1049\super\langnp1033 th}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 century, new branches of physics (such as the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics) arose from paradoxes. In every case, the different branches of physics are in some sense additive: once an NBP is formed it doesn\rquote t change, and it doesn\rquote t disappear. Revolutions understood as answers to existing paradoxes lead to the creation of new NBPs and branches of physics. Thus, the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) doesn\rquote t eliminate Newtonian mechanics, because their domains only intersect. STR can consider only collision of particles and interaction of charged particles and electromagnetic fields. Many proble ms typical for Newton mechanics, connected with a variety of forces (e.g. elasticity), fall outside its domain. A similar claim can be made concerning classical and quantum mechanics, and concerning thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 7. A Compositio n of Constructivism and Realism in the \'93Theoretical Physics Primary Ideal Object\'94 View \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The PIO view of physics is derived from an analysis of different branches of theoretical physics. It is, as it was shown above through an examination of the PIO-kind of work, a rationalistic approach to physics. (Qua rationalistic it is not disturbed by Hume\rquote s problem, which is one of the most difficult problems for empiricism to cope with.) Furthermore, it is in reality a complex composition consisting of constructivist and realist elements on two levels: the PIO-level and the SIO-level. \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 On the PIO-level it may contain }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 realistic}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (\lquote Plato-like\rquote ) and }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 constructive(ist)}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 modifications. Both are compatible with the PIO-view, but I prefer the latter case. My basic idea is that PIOs are }{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 artificial, but real}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , just like bricks. People }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 make}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 bricks and use them to build buildings, and both bricks and buildings are manufactured, but real. In the case of PIOs and the theories (theoretical models) built from them, we have a similar situation. PIOs, then, should be likened to Kant\rquote s notion of }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 a priori}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 forms, since there exist no other physical elements except PIOs (this view does not lay far from the view of the Neokantians). Thus, from my point of view, the entities treated by scientific theories do in fact exist in an ontological sense, and the }{ \i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 basic ontological elements are real, but artificial PIOs}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (this also counts for \'93one-partical\'94 SIOs such as an}{\lang1033\langfe1049\cgrid0\langnp1033 electron, a proton, or different liquids (see Section 2 above}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 )), and their reality is guaranteed by the operations of preparation and measurement. Thus, there exists a }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 constructivist}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (but not conventional) kind of work }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 on the PIO-level}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (in periods of \'93scientific revolutions\'94) and }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 realistic on the SIO-level}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (in periods of \'93normal scientific conduct\'94). \par }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 However}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , the}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 constructivist view lead to a }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 difficult}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 question }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 concerning the}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 intersection between the \lquote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 historical time}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \rquote where theories, PIOs and their creators are born and become alive in some culture, and the \lquote }{\i\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 time of trajectories}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \rquote , which is connected }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 to }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 physical dynamics. The latter }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 kind }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 is unhistorical }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 essence. }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 According to classical }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 mechanics, }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 when }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 a body moves }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 through space and in }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 time, }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 time stretches toward }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 infinity in both directions. }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The concept of time in classical mechanics}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 is }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 time of Kant\rquote s phenomenal world\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , where no such things as}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 freedom, creativity, and history}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 exist}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 . That\rquote s why}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 according to the }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \lquote time of trajectories\rquote }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 of physics,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 all PIOs are considered }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 to be }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 existing always. }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 In PIO-constructivism we suppose that PIOs are }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 a priori}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 forms, which can be used to transform }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Chaos into Cosmos}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , i.e. Nature can be ordered by physics. }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Physical cosmological models like }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the \lquote }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Big Bang}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Model\rquote }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 are attempts of the same }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 kind, although}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 with more complex physical ordering}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 including process ordering. }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Thus, in cultural history, i.e. in historical time, modern physics appeared in European modern culture as a cultural phenomenon with an unhistorical internal structure. }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Therefore}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 the answer }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 to }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 questions like \'93Was there electromagnetic field }{\i\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 before}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 electrodynamics theory?\'94 in histor}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ical}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 time }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 must be }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 negative: }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 phenomenon }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 that we call an }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 electromagnetic field }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 only emerged out of}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Chaos with }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the birth of }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 electrodynamic}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 al}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 theory. }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 And in the unhistorical \lquote }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 time of trajectories}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \rquote , we }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 should}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 essentially ignore this kind of historical question as a wrong question to ask in the context of physics. }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Such }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 historical }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 questions }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 fit harmoniously within, for instance,}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Laplace\rquote s Picture of the Univer}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 s}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 e, }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 founded in natural philosophy, }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 but the latter is rejected by }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 philosophy of science of }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 20}{\lang2057\langfe1049\super\langnp2057 th}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 c}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 entury}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 (}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 although it }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 is }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 still }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 popular among physicists).}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 8. Conclusion \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Thus}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , the}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \'93}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 theoretical physics primary ideal object\'94 view gives new structure }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 to}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 physical knowledge, which }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 it sees as}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 organized in new units \endash branches of physics - e}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ach}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 of which has its own foundations integrated in a heterogeneous theoretic-operational \'93nuclear of branch of physics\'94 (NBP)}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , complete}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 with its own \'93primary ideal objects\'94 (PIOs). The core of }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 any }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 theory is its physical model. This structure has two main levels, which correspond to Kuhn\rquote s levels of \'93scientific revolution\'94 and \'93normal science \'94.}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Though the two models are devoted to different aspects, }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 PIO-model }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 speaks only }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 about }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 structure of physical knowledge (and tells }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 us }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 nothing about interaction of ideas and people), they do }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 share }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 some\~common }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ground }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 in physics. That}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 i}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 s why a comparison of these two complementary models }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 lets us make }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 some interesting adjustments to Kuhn\rquote s model. }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The PIO-view opens up the opportunity for us to give new answers to a great deal of questions in philosophy of science concerning measurement. }{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 Instead of }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 the }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 vague }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 notion }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'93observable\'94}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ,}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 one }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 is here in possession of }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 a clear concept of \'93measurable quantity\'94 (\'93measurab}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 ility}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \'94), which is based on a distinct standard and operations of comparison associated with clear operations of preparing of physical system and its states}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 for measurement}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 . }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 In comparison with the view of van Frassen, t}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 his view }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 furthermore }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 gives }{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 us }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 new answers to the debate }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 between }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 realism and constructivism: }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 I}{ \lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 t is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 constructivist}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 on the PIO-level}{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 \~and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 realistic on the SIO-level, }{\lang2057\langfe1049\langnp2057 and it throws new light on the status of laws of nature. \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Acknowledgements \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 This article is the outcome of a number of projects supported by The Fulbright Grant and by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research. \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f1\fs28\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 References \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049 {\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Alspector-Kelly, M. (2004): \'93 Seeing the Unobservable: Van Frassen and the Limits of Experience\'94. In: }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Synthese}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 140}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (3): 331-53 \par Curd, M. and J.A. Cover (eds.) (1998): }{\i\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co. \par }{\lang1031\langfe1049\langnp1031 Einstein, A. (1949), in: }{\i\lang1031\langfe1049\langnp1031 Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist}{\lang1031\langfe1049\langnp1031 (Evanston) \par }\pard \qj \fi567\li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1031\langfe1049\langnp1031 EINSTEIN A. (1949) in: }{\b\lang1031\langfe1049\langnp1031 Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist}{ \lang1031\langfe1049\langnp1031 (Evanston). \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 FEYNMAN, R. (1965) }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The Character of Physical Law}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Cambr., London). \par FEYNMAN, R.P., LEIGHTON. R.B., SANDS, M. (2006) }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The Feynman lectures on physics }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in 3 vol. (San Francisco) \par FOCK, V.A. (1958) Criticism of Bohr's outlook on quantum mechanics, in: }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Moscow) \par FRAASSEN, van B. C. (1980) }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The Scientific Image}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . (Oxf.). \par GALILEI G. Discorsi e demonstrazioni matematiche, intorno 'a due nuoe scienze Attenti alla Mecanica \\& Moviment i Locali, In: }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Galileo Galiley Opere}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Salany editore, Vol. 4). \par GALILEI, G. (1909) }{\b\f1\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Discorsi e demonstrazioni matematiche, intorno 'a due nuoe scienze Attenti alla Mecanica & Movimenti Locali}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in: Opere (Fienze)}{\lang9\langfe1049\langnp9 \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 GIERE, R. (2004) How Models Are Used to Represent Reality, in }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Philosophy of Science}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 . }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Proceedings of the 2002 Biennal meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , v. 71, N 5, pp. 742-752. \par HEISENBERG, W. (1969) In: }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Properties of mater under unusual conditions. Interscience,}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (N.Y.-L.), pp. 7-10. \par HUTTEN, E.H. (1953-54) The Role of Models in Physics, in: }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 British Journal for the Philosophy of Science}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , 4, pp. 285-301 . \par KLYSHKO, D.N. , LIPKINE A.I. (2000) About the "reduction of wave function", quantum theory of measurement, and incomprehension' of quantum mechanics, in: }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 "Electronic Journal "Investigated in Russia"}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , 53\'e5, p. 703-735 \line }{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\ul\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 HYPERLINK "http://zhurnal.ape.relarn.ru/articles/2000/053e.pdf"}{\ul\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b6800000068007400740070003a002f002f007a006800750072006e0061006c002e006100700065002e00720065006c00610072006e002e00720075002f00610072007400690063006c00650073002f00320030003000 30002f0030003500330065002e007000640066000000000000000000000000}}}{\fldrslt {\ul\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 http://zhurnal.ape.relarn.ru/articles/2000/053e.pdf}}}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par KUHN, T. (1962) }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Chicago) \par LANDAU, L.D., LIFSHITZ, E.M. (1977) }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Course of Theoretical Physics}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 V. 1-10. \par LIPKIN, A.I. (2001 a) }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Foundations of Modern Natural Science. Model View on Physics, Synergetics, Chemistry}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Moscow). \par LIPKIN, A.I. (2001 b) Does the wave function reduction phenomenon occur in quantum measurement? In }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Physics-Uspekhi, Vol. 44 (4), 417-421. \par }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 MANDLSTAM, L.I. (1972) Lestures on optics, theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics. Moscow. \par Needham, P. (}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 2004) }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 W}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 hen did atoms begin to do any explanatory work in chemistry?}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 in: }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 I}{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 nternational Studies in the Philosophy of Science}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 , 18, Numbers 2-3, pp. 199 \endash 219.}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 \par STACHEL, J. (199(5)) Feynman Paths and Quantum Entanglement: Is There any More Mystery?, in: }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Potentiality, Entanglement, and Passion-at-a-distance (quantum mechanical studies for Abner Shimony, vol. 2)}{ \lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Dordrecht/Boston/London). \par SUPPE, F. (1974) The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theories, in }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 The Structure of Scientific Theories}{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Edited with a Critical Introduction by Frederick Suppe) (Urbana, Chicago, London), pp. 3-241. \par SUPPES, P. (1969) }{\b\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Sciences }{\lang1033\langfe1049\langnp1033 (Selected papers from 1951 to 1969) (Dordrecht, Reidel). \par WARTOFSKY, M.W. (1979) Models. Representation and the Scientific Understanding (Dordrecht, Boston, London). \par \par }}