The Geometry of Conventionality

Philosophy of Science 81 (2):233-247 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There is a venerable position in the philosophy of space and time that holds that the geometry of spacetime is conventional, provided one is willing to postulate a “universal force field.” Here we ask a more focused question, inspired by this literature: in the context of our best classical theories of space and time, if one understands “force” in the standard way, can one accommodate different geometries by postulating a new force field? We argue that the answer depends on one’s theory. In Newtonian gravitation the answer is yes; in relativity theory, it is no

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,271

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Conventionalism and general relativity.I. W. Roxburgh & R. K. Tavakol - 1978 - Foundations of Physics 8 (3-4):229-237.
The epistemology of geometry.Clark Glymour - 1977 - Noûs 11 (3):227-251.
Geometry and special relativity.Geoffrey Joseph - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (3):425-438.
Time, topology and physical geometry.Tim Maudlin - 2010 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 84 (1):63-78.
Charge, Geometry, and Effective Mass.Gerald E. Marsh - 2008 - Foundations of Physics 38 (3):293-300.
Relativity and geometry.Roberto Torretti - 1983 - New York: Dover Publications.
Space, time, & stuff.Frank Arntzenius - 2012 - New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Edited by Cian Seán Dorr.
Thomas Reid’s geometry of visibles and the parallel postulate.Giovanni B. Grandi - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):79-103.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-05-20

Downloads
148 (#122,901)

6 months
43 (#88,885)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Jb Manchak
University of California, Irvine
James Weatherall
University of California, Irvine