Absolute objects and counterexamples: Jones--Geroch dust, Torretti constant curvature, tetrad-spinor, and scalar density
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37:347-71 (2006)
James L. Anderson analyzed the novelty of Einstein's theory of gravity as its lack of "absolute objects." Michael Friedman's related work has been criticized by Roger Jones and Robert Geroch for implausibly admitting as absolute the timelike 4-velocity field of dust in cosmological models in Einstein's theory. Using the Rosen-Sorkin Lagrange multiplier trick, I complete Anna Maidens's argument that the problem is not solved by prohibiting variation of absolute objects in an action principle. Recalling Anderson's proscription of "irrelevant" variables, I generalize that proscription to locally irrelevant variables that do no work in some places in some models. This move vindicates Friedman's intuitions and removes the Jones-Geroch counterexample: some regions of some models of gravity with dust are dust-free and so naturally lack a timelike 4-velocity, so diffeomorphic equivalence to (1,0,0,0) is spoiled. Torretti's example involving constant curvature spaces is shown to have an absolute object on Anderson's analysis, viz., the conformal spatial metric density. The previously neglected threat of an absolute object from an orthonormal tetrad used for coupling spinors to gravity appears resolvable by eliminating irrelevant fields. However, given Anderson's definition, GTR itself has an absolute object (as Robert Geroch has observed recently): a change of variables to a conformal metric density and a scalar density shows that the latter is absolute.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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.
Citations of this work BETA
Antonio Vassallo (forthcoming). Can Bohmian Mechanics Be Made Background Independent? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.
Adán Sus (2014). On the Explanation of Inertia. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 45 (2):293-315.
J. Brian Pitts (2012). The Nontriviality of Trivial General Covariance: How Electrons Restrict 'Time' Coordinates, Spinors (Almost) Fit Into Tensor Calculus, and of a Tetrad is Surplus Structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 43 (1):1-24.
Similar books and articles
Harvey R. Brown (1997). On the Role of Special Relativity in General Relativity. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (1):67 – 81.
Ori Belkind (2007). Newton's Conceptual Argument for Absolute Space. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):271 – 293.
David Farrell Krell (2002). Three Ends of the Absolute: Schelling on Inhibition, Hölderlin on Separation, and Novalis on Density. Research in Phenomenology 32 (1):60-85.
J. Brian Pitts (2006). Absolute Objects and Counterexamples: Jones–Geroch Dust, Torretti Constant Curvature, Tetrad-Spinor, and Scalar Density. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (2):347-371.
J. Brian Pitts, The Relevance of Irrelevance: Absolute Objects and the Jones-Geroch Dust Velocity Counterexample, with a Note on Spinors.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #180,066 of 1,725,158 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #167,174 of 1,725,158 )
How can I increase my downloads?