Einstein insisted throughout his life that the signal achievement of his general theory of relativity was its general covariance. How are we to reconcile this with the now common view that general covariance merely expresses a definition, our freedom to label events with any set of numbers we like? There is, I believe, a natural reading for Einstein's claims that does make perfect sense. It requires us to adopt a physical interpretation of relativity theory that is now no longer popular, so the natural reading will no longer have intrinsic interest. It will, however, allow us to make sense of Einstein's claims and his program.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Forgotten Tradition: How the Logical Empiricists Missed the Philosophical Significance of the Work of Riemann, Christoffel and Ricci.Marco Giovanelli - 2013 - Erkenntnis 78 (6):1219-1257.
Similar books and articles
Spacetime Substantivalism and Einstein's Cosmological Constant.David J. Baker - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1299-1311.
Einstein's Search for General Covariance, 1912--1915.John Stachel - 1989 - In D. Howard & John Stachel (eds.), Einstein and the History of General Relativity. Birkhäuser. pp. 1--63.
A Conjecture on Einstein, the Independent Reality of Spacetime Coordinate Systems and the Disaster of 1913.John Norton - 2005 - In .
Einstein, Newton and the Empirical Foundations of Space Time Geometry.Robert DiSalle - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.
Did Einstein Stumble? The Debate Over General Covariance.John D. Norton - 1995 - Erkenntnis 42 (2):223 - 245.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #227,988 of 2,146,257 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #386,504 of 2,146,257 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.