Philosophy of Science 66 (3):145 (1999)
|Abstract||Much controversy surrounds the question of what ought to be the proper definition of 'singularity' in general relativity, and the question of whether the prediction of such entities leads to a crisis for the theory. I argue that a definition in terms of curve incompleteness is adequate, and in particular that the idea that singularities correspond to 'missing points' has insurmountable problems. I conclude that singularities per se pose no serious problem for the theory, but their analysis does bring into focus several problems of interpretation at the foundation of the theory often ignored in the philosophical literature|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
J. Earman & J. Eisenstaedt (1999). Einstein and Singularities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 30 (2):185-235.
James Mattingly (2001). Singularities and Scalar Fields: Matter Theory and General Relativity. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S395-.
John Earman & John D. Norton (1993). Forever is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes. Philosophy of Science 60 (1):22-42.
Erik Curiel (2009). General Relativity Needs No Interpretation. Philosophy of Science 76 (1):44-72.
Cristi Stoica, Interpretation of Singularities in General Relativity and the Information Loss Paradox.
Vincent Lam (2007). The Singular Nature of Spacetime. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):712-723.
Cristi Stoica, Interpretation of Singularities in General Relativity and the Information Loss Paradox (Version 2).
Kent Bach (1987). Thought and Reference. Oxford University Press.
John Byron Manchak (forthcoming). Is Spacetime Hole-Free? General Relativity and Gravitation.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #40,824 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?