Why general relativity does need an interpretation

Philosophy of Science 63 (3):88 (1996)
Abstract
There is a widespread impression that General Relativity, unlike Quantum Mechanics, is in no need of an interpretation. I present two reasons for thinking that this is a mistake. The first is the familiar hole argument. I argue that certain skeptical responses to this argument are too hasty in dismissing it as being irrelevant to the interpretative enterprise. My second reason is that interpretative questions about General Relativity are central to the search for a quantum theory of gravity. I illustrate this claim by examining the interpretative consequences of a particular technical move in canonical quantum gravity.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289939
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 22,037
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Erik Curiel (forthcoming). On the Existence of Spacetime Structure. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axw014.
Dean Rickles (2005). A New Spin on the Hole Argument. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 36 (3):415-434.
Gordon Belot (1999). Rehabilitating Relationalism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (1):35 – 52.
Alexander Afriat & Ermenegildo Caccese (2010). The Relativity of Inertia and Reality of Nothing. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41 (1):9-26.
D. P. Rickles (2005). A New Spin on the Hole Argument. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36 (3):415-434.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

79 ( #56,688 of 1,934,422 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

8 ( #66,302 of 1,934,422 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.