John D. Norton
{{short description|Australian philosopher of physics (born 1953)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{Infobox scientist
| name = John Daniel Norton
| image = John D. Norton in front of a blackboard.jpg
| caption = Norton at the University of Pittsburgh's Cathedral of Learning
| birth_date = {{Birth year and age|1953}}
| birth_place = Sydney, Australia[https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html Homepage]
| field = Philosophy of physics
| known_for = Norton's dome
| workplaces = University of Pittsburgh
| alma_mater = University of New South Wales
| thesis_title = The Historical Foundation of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
| thesis_url = https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/7335
| thesis_year = 1981
| doctoral_advisor = John Saunders
| website = {{URL|https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html}}
}}
John Daniel Norton (born 1953) is an Australian philosopher of physics and distinguished professor of the history and philosophy of science at the University of Pittsburgh.
Biography
He had originally studied chemical engineering at the University of New South Wales (1971–1974). After working at the Shell Oil Refinery at Clyde, Sydney for two years, he decided to switch fields, beginning doctoral studies in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of New South Wales (1978–1981). His dissertation was titled "The Historical Foundation of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity." After finishing his dissertation, he worked at the Princeton University Press on the Einstein Papers Project (1982–1983) under the direction of John Stachel. From 1983 until the present, he has been in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, first as a visiting faculty member, then (from 1997) as a full professor, serving as Chair of the department from 2000 to 2005. He is currently Director of the Center for Philosophy of Science.{{cite web|title=John Norton: Approximation and Idealization|url=http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/event/john-norton-approximation-idealization/|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501033205/http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/event/john-norton-approximation-idealization/|archivedate=1 May 2018|website=The Rotman Institute of Philosophy|publisher=Western University - Canada}}{{cite web|title=Brief History, page 2|url=http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/About/history/history_2.htm|website=Center for the Philosophy of Science|publisher=University of Pittsburgh|accessdate=1 May 2018 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171122192924/http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/About/history/history_2.htm |archivedate=22 November 2017}}
Norton is considered an authority on the science of Albert Einstein and the philosophy of science. He has published on general relativity, special relativity, the relationship between thermodynamics and information processing, quantum physics, and the genesis of scientific theories. He is well known for his analysis of Einstein's "Zurich Notebook", a small, brown notebook which contains Einstein's private day-to-day calculations during a critical period (1912–1913) in his development of general relativity.{{cite web|title=Understanding Einstein's greatest discovery|url=http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2015-news/Frontiers1-2015-2|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171027070447/http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2015-news/Frontiers1-2015-2|archivedate=27 October 2017|website=Penn State Science|publisher=The Pennsylvania State University|accessdate=30 April 2018}} The trio of Einstein scholars, John Norton, John Stachel, and John Earman, have sometimes been jokingly referred to as {{math|John3 {{=}} John Norton × John Stachel × John Earman.}}{{cite web|last1=Norton|first1=John D.|title=The Hole Argument|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University|accessdate=1 May 2018 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423155436/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ |archivedate=23 April 2018}}
A central theme of his work on Einstein is that Einstein's fundamental contributions to the "old" quantum theory have been largely forgotten because of his well-known criticism of the "new" quantum mechanics and its statistical interpretation. In the field of information science, Norton has criticized the claim by Rolf Landauer and others that schemes exist whereby digital computers can store data in a logically and physically reversible manner that, until the data are erased, represent an apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.{{cite web|title=John Norton|url=http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/norton/|website=The Information Philosopher |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130816015358/http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/norton/ |archive-date=16 August 2013}}{{cite journal |last1=Norton |first1=John D. |year=2013 |title=The End of the Thermodynamics of Computation: A No-Go Result |url=https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/No_Go_final.pdf |journal=Philosophy of Science |volume=80 |issue=5 |pages=1182–1192 |doi=10.1086/673714 |s2cid=14060542 |access-date=18 January 2019}} {{refn|group=note|In 1982, Charles H. Bennett proposed a re-interpretation of Maxwell's demon, attributing its inability to break the second law of thermodynamics to the cost of destroying, rather than acquiring, information.{{Cite journal |last1=Bennett |first1=C. H. |title=The thermodynamics of computation—a review |doi=10.1007/BF02084158 |journal=International Journal of Theoretical Physics |volume=21 |issue=12 |pages=905–940 |year=1982 |bibcode=1982IJTP...21..905B |url=https://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/nano/documents/Bennett%20-%20The%20Thermodynamics%20Of%20Computation.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130718220418/http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/nano/documents/Bennett%20-%20The%20Thermodynamics%20Of%20Computation.pdf/ |archivedate=18 July 2013 |citeseerx=10.1.1.655.5610 |s2cid=17471991 }} Rolf Landauer extended Bennett's proposal to argue for the possibility of reversible computational processes.}} In the philosophical debate about thought experiments, Norton has taken the position that all thought experiments (without exception) can be reconstructed as straightforward arguments.{{cite journal|last1=Fehige|first1=Yiftach|last2=Stuart|first2=Michael T.|title=Thought Experiments in Science: Four Blind Spots (Introduction)|journal=Perspectives on Science|date=2014|volume=22|issue=2|pages=167–178 |url=http://michaeltstuart.com/pdfs/POSC_e_00126-Introduction.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501043546/http://michaeltstuart.com/pdfs/POSC_e_00126-Introduction.pdf |archivedate=1 May 2018|accessdate=1 May 2018|doi=10.1162/POSC_e_00126}}
Norton's name is also attached to Norton's dome, a thought experiment showing nondeterminism in Newtonian physics.
Notes
{{Reflist|group=note}}
References
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
External links
- [https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/44816 Oral History Interview with John D. Norton by David Zierler on June 5, 2020, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics]
{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Norton, John D.}}
Category:Scientists from Sydney
Category:University of Pittsburgh faculty
Category:Australian philosophers of science
Category:21st-century Australian philosophers