Weyl symmetry of the classical bosonic string Lagrangian is broken by quantization, with profound consequences described here. Reimposing symmetry requires that the background space-time satisfy the equations of general relativity: general relativity, hence classical space-time as we know it, arises from string theory. We investigate the logical role of Weyl symmetry in this explanation of general relativity: it is not an independent physical postulate but required in quantum string theory, so from a certain (...) point of view it plays only a formal role in the explanation. (shrink)

We consider an oscillator subjected to a sudden change in equilibrium position or in effective spring constant, or both—to a “squeeze” in the language of quantum optics. We analyze the probability of transition from a given initial state to a final state, in its dependence on final-state quantum number. We make use of five sources of insight: Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization via bands in phase space, area of overlap between before-squeeze band and after-squeeze band, interference in phase space, Wigner (...) function as quantum update of B-S band and near-zone Fresnel diffraction as mockup Wigner function. (shrink)

Stemming from our energy localization hypothesis that energy in general relativity is localized in the regions of the energy-momentum tensor, we had devised a test with the classic Eddington spinning rod. Consistent with the localization hypothesis, we found that the Tolman energy integral did not change in the course of the motion. This implied that gravitational waves do not carry energy in vacuum, bringing into question the demand for the quantization of gravity. Also if information is conveyed (...) by the waves, the traditional view that information transfer demands energy is challenged. Later, we showed that the “body” angular momentum changed at a rate indicating that the moment of inertia increased to higher order, contrary to traditional expectations. We consider the challenges facing the development of a localized expression for the total angular momentum of the body including the contribution from gravity. We find that Komar's expression does not lead to an adequate formulation of localized angular momentum. (shrink)

This paper presents a qualitative comparison of opposing views of elementary matter—the Copenhagen approach in quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity. It discusses in detail some of their main conceptual differences, when each theory is fully exploited as a theory of matter, and it indicates why each of these theories, at its presently accepted state, is incomplete without the other. But it is then argued on logical grounds that they cannot be fused, thus indicating the need (...) for a third revolution in contemporary physics. Toward this goal, the approach discussed is one of further generalizing the theory of general relativity in a way that incorporates the inertial manifestations of matter in covariant fashion, with quantum mechanics serving as a low-energy, linear approximation. Such a theoretical extension of general relativity will be discussed, with applications in elementary particle physics, such as the appearance of mass spectra in the microdomain, as an asymptotic feature of matter, mass doublets (electron-muon and proton-heavy proton), the explanation of pair annihilation and creation from a deterministic field theory, charge quantization, and features of pions. (shrink)

We examine the time discontinuity in rotating space–times for which the topology of time is S1. A kinematic restriction is enforced that requires the discontinuity to be an integral number of the periodicity of time. Quantized radii emerge for which the associated tangential velocities are less than the speed of light. Using the de Broglie relationship, we show that quantum theory may determine the periodicity of time. A rotating Kerr–Newman black hole and a rigidly rotating disk of dust are also (...) considered; we find that the quantized radii do not lie in the regions that possess CTCs. (shrink)

We discuss the meaning and prove the accordance of general relativity, wave mechanics, and the quantization of Einstein's gravitation equations themselves. Firstly, we have the problem of the influence of gravitational fields on the de Broglie waves, which influence is in accordance with Eeinstein's weak principle of equivalence and the limitation of measurements given by Heisenberg's uncertainty relations. Secondly, the quantization of the gravitational fields is a “quantization of geometry.” However, classical and quantum gravitation have (...) the same physical meaning according to limitations of measurements given by Einstein's strong principle of equivalence and the Heisenberg uncertainties for the mechanics of test bodies. (shrink)

We point out a fundamental problem that hinders the quantization of general relativity: quantum mechanics is formulated in terms of systems, typically limited in space but infinitely extended in time, while general relativity is formulated in terms of events, limited both in space and in time. Many of the problems faced while connecting the two theories stem from the difficulty in shoe-horning one formulation into the other. A solution is not presented, but a list of (...) desiderata for a quantum theory based on events is laid out. (shrink)

The paper discusses from a metaphysical standpoint the nature of the dependence relation underpinning the talk of mutual action between material and spatiotemporal structures in general relativity. It is shown that the standard analyses of dependence in terms of causation or grounding are ill-suited for the general relativistic context. Instead, a non-standard analytical framework in terms of structural equation modeling is exploited, which leads to the conclusion that the kind of dependence encoded in the Einstein field equations (...) is a novel one. (shrink)

A classic problem in general relativity, long studied by both physicists and philosophers of physics, concerns whether the geodesic principle may be derived from other principles of the theory, or must be posited independently. In a recent paper [Geroch & Weatherall, "The Motion of Small Bodies in Space-Time", Comm. Math. Phys. ], Bob Geroch and I have introduced a new approach to this problem, based on a notion we call "tracking". In the present paper, I situate the main (...) results of that paper with respect to two other, related approaches, and then make some preliminary remarks on the interpretational significance of the new approach. My main suggestion is that "tracking" provides the resources for eliminating "point particles"---a problematic notion in general relativity---from the geodesic principle altogether. (shrink)

Arnold Sommerfeld was among the most important students of the so-called ‘older’ quantum theory. His many contributions included papers in 1915 and 1916 extending Niels Bohr’s ‘planetary’ model of the atom beyond circular orbits and his incorporation of relativistic corrections in order to explain hydrogenic fine structure. Originally a realist in his use of Bohr’s model, Sommerfeld became increasingly disillusioned with model-building in general in the late nineteen-teens and early nineteen-twenties. This paper explores Sommerfeld’s (...) use of the term Zahlenmysterium as a self-description of his physical methodology. Rather than reading talk of mysticism as mere pandering to irrationalist forces in Weimar Germany, as some have suggested, I argue that one should see it as a genuine description of the scientific method Sommerfeld increasingly advocated throughout this period. That is, Sommerfeld drew upon and modified talk of Mystik as a means of expressing his own ideas on the importance of aesthetics in what might otherwise be cast as mere guesswork in his phenomenological spectroscopy. Mysticism, properly defined, was an integral part of what Sommerfeld termed die Technik der Quanten.Keywords: Quantum theory; Arnold Sommerfeld; Theoretical physics; Spectroscopy; Phenomenology; Theoretical practice. (shrink)

In the early phase of the new history of physics that emerged at about 1970 and was pioneered by John Heilbron, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Forman, and others, the quantum and atomic theories of the first three decades of the twentieth century played a central role. Since then, interest in the area has continued, but for the last few decades at a slower rate. While other areas of the new physics—such as the general theory of relativity—have attracted much attention, (...) only relatively little has been written about the quantum revolution. Given this situation, Suman Seth’s comprehensive and innovative Crafting the Quantum is a welcome publication that provides the field with fresh blood and new perspectives. The title derives from a letter to Einstein of January 1922, in which Arnold Sommerfeld wrote that “I can only advance the craft of the quantum, you have to make its philosophy.” In spite of its title, Seth’s book is neither restricted to the new quantum theory nor to Sommerfeld’s role in the tr. (shrink)

Here we briefly review the concept of "prediction" within the context of classical relativity theory. We prove a theorem asserting that one may predict one's own future only in a closed universe. We then question whether prediction is possible at all (even in closed universes). We note that interest in prediction has stemmed from considering the epistemological predicament of the observer. We argue that the definitions of prediction found thus far in the literature do not fully appreciate this predicament. (...) We propose a more adequate alternative and show that, under this definition, prediction is essentially impossible in general relativity. (shrink)

The quantization of gravity represents an important attempt at reconciling the two seemingly incompatible frameworks that lie at the base of modern physics, quantum theory and general relativity. The dissertation begins by looking at the incompatibilities between the two frameworks. The incompatibility with quantum theory, it is argued, is rooted in the profound differences between general relativity and ordinary field theories. The dissertation goes on to look at how, in practice, these incongruities are treated in (...) the canonical quantization program, and argues that their treatment is such that it is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory physical theory. The dissertation concludes by arguing that quantum theory only makes sense when embedded in a classical theory. Thus the reconciliation of quantum theory and general relativity suggests that we look outside the bounds of ordinary quantum theory for the proper theoretical framework. (shrink)

Conformal rescalings of spinors are considered, in which the factor Ω, inε AB ↦Ωε AB, is allowed to be complex. It is argued that such rescalings naturally lead to the presence of torsion in the space-time derivative▽ a. It is further shown that, in standard general relativity, a circularly polarized gravitational wave produces a (nonlocal) rotation effect along rays intersecting it similar to, and apparently consistent with, the local torsion of the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory. The results of these deliberations (...) are suggestive rather than conclusive. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the `Lorentzian Pedagogy' defended by J.S. Bell in his essay ``How to teach special relativity'', and to explore its consistency with Einstein's thinking from 1905 to 1952. Some remarks are also made in this context on Weyl's philosophy of relativity and his 1918 gauge theory. Finally, it is argued that the Lorentzian pedagogy---which stresses the important connection between kinematics and dynamics---clarifies the role of rods and clocks in general (...) class='Hi'>relativity. (shrink)

It is often claimed that the geodesic principle can be recovered as a theorem in general relativity. Indeed, it is claimed that it is a consequence of Einstein's equation (or of the conservation principle that is, itself, a consequence of that equation). These claims are certainly correct, but it may be worth drawing attention to one small qualification. Though the geodesic principle can be recovered as theorem in general relativity, it is not a consequence of Einstein's (...) equation (or the conservation principle) alone. Other assumptions are needed to drive the theorems in question. One needs to put more in if one is to get the geodesic principle out. My goal in this short note is to make this claim precise (i.e., that other assumptions are needed). (shrink)

Change and local spatial variation are missing in canonical General Relativity's observables as usually defined, an aspect of the problem of time. Definitions can be tested using equivalent formulations of a theory, non-gauge and gauge, because they must have equivalent observables and everything is observable in the non-gauge formulation. Taking an observable from the non-gauge formulation and finding the equivalent in the gauge formulation, one requires that the equivalent be an observable, thus constraining definitions. For massive photons, the (...) de Broglie-Proca non-gauge formulation observable A_{\mu} is equivalent to the Stueckelberg-Utiyama gauge formulation quantity A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu} \phi, which must therefore be an observable. To achieve that result, observables must have 0 Poisson bracket not with each first-class constraint, but with the Rosenfeld-Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints, in accord with the Pons-Salisbury-Sundermeyer definition of observables. The definition for external gauge symmetries can be tested using massive gravity, where one can install gauge freedom by parametrization with clock fields X^A. The non-gauge observable g^{\mu\nu} has the gauge equivalent X^A,_{\mu} g^{\mu\nu} X^B,_{\nu}. The Poisson bracket of X^A,_{\mu} g^{\mu\nu} X^B,_{\nu} with G turns out to be not 0 but a Lie derivative. This non-zero Poisson bracket refines and systematizes Kuchař's proposal to relax the 0 Poisson bracket condition with the Hamiltonian constraint. Thus observables need covariance, not invariance, in relation to external gauge symmetries. The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian for massive gravity are those of General Relativity + \Lambda + 4 scalars, so the same definition of observables applies to General Relativity. Local fields such as g_{\mu\nu} are observables. Thus observables change. Requiring equivalent observables for equivalent theories also recovers Hamiltonian-Lagrangian equivalence. (shrink)

In General Relativity in Hamiltonian form, change has seemed to be missing, defined only asymptotically, or otherwise obscured at best, because the Hamiltonian is a sum of first-class constraints and a boundary term and thus supposedly generates gauge transformations. Attention to the gauge generator G of Rosenfeld, Anderson, Bergmann, Castellani et al., a specially _tuned sum_ of first-class constraints, facilitates seeing that a solitary first-class constraint in fact generates not a gauge transformation, but a bad physical change in (...) electromagnetism or General Relativity. The change spoils the Lagrangian constraints, Gauss's law or the Gauss-Codazzi relations describing embedding of space into space-time, in terms of the physically relevant velocities rather than auxiliary canonical momenta. But the resemblance between the gauge generator G and the Hamiltonian H leaves still unclear where objective change is in GR. Insistence on Hamiltonian-Lagrangian equivalence, a theme emphasized by Castellani, Sugano, Pons, Salisbury, Shepley and Sundermeyer among others, holds the key. Taking objective change to be ineliminable time dependence, one recalls that there is change in vacuum GR just in case there is no time-like vector field xi^a satisfying Killing's equation L_xi g_mn=0, because then there exists no coordinate system such that everything is independent of time. Throwing away the spatial dependence of GR for convenience, one finds explicitly that the time evolution from Hamilton's equations is real change just when there is no time-like Killing vector. The inclusion of a massive scalar field is simple. No obstruction is expected in including spatial dependence and coupling more general matter fields. Hence change is real and local even in the Hamiltonian formalism. The considerations here resolve the Earman-Maudlin standoff over change in Hamiltonian General Relativity: the Hamiltonian formalism is helpful, and, suitably reformed, it does not have absurd consequences for change and observables. Hence the classical problem of time is resolved. The Lagrangian-equivalent Hamiltonian analysis of change in General Relativity is compared to Belot and Earman's treatment. The more serious quantum problem of time, however, is not automatically resolved due to issues of quantum constraint imposition. (shrink)

The problem of motion in general relativity is about how exactly the gravitational field equations, the Einstein equations, are related to the equations of motion of material bodies subject to gravitational fields. This article compares two approaches to derive the geodesic motion of matter from the field equations: the ‘T approach’ and the ‘vacuum approach’. The latter approach has been dismissed by philosophers of physics because it apparently represents material bodies by singularities. I argue that a careful interpretation (...) of the approach shows that it does not depend on introducing singularities at all and that it holds at least as much promise as the T approach. (shrink)

The existence of a definite tangent space structure (metric with Lorentzian signature) in the general theory of relativity is the consequence of a fundamental assumption concerning the local validity of special relativity. There is then at the heart of Einstein's theory of gravity an absolute element which depends essentially on a common feature of all the non-gravitational interactions in the world, and which has nothing to do with space-time curvature. Tentative implications of this point for the significance (...) of the vacuum solutions in general relativity, and for the issue of quantising gravity, are briefly examined. (shrink)

Elementary particles, regarded as the constituents of quarks and leptons, are described classically in the framework of the general relativity theory. There are neutral particles and particles having charges±1/3e. They are taken to be spherically symmetric and to have mass density, pressure, and (if charged) charge density. They are characterized by an equation of state P=−ρ suggested by earlier work on cosmology. The neutral particle has a very simple structure. In the case of the charged particle there is (...) one outstanding model described by a simple analytic solution of the field equations. (shrink)

Malament-Hogarth spacetimes are the sort of models within general relativity that seem to allow for the possibility of supertasks. There are various ways in which these spacetimes might be considered physically problematic. Here, we examine these criticisms and investigate the prospect of escaping them.

The social reaction to the recent detection of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves provided evidence that public interest in modern physics has reached a high point. Although these modern physics topics are being introduced into the upper secondary physics curricula in a growing number of countries, their potential for teaching various aspects of scientific practice have yet to be explored. This article responds to this call by providing an analysis of new South Korean high school physics textbooks’ representations of (...) nature of science, particularly as reflected in their general relativity theory section. Chapters from textbooks by five publishers are analyzed through the lens of the expanded family resemblance conceptualization of NOS. The results indicate that textbooks’ references to NOS are concentrated on aspects related to scientific knowledge, scientific practice, scientific methods, and professional activities of scientists, whereas the characteristics of science as a social-institutional system are underrepresented. In addition to this generic description, we also present a closer examination of how physics textbooks portray the story of the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration’s gravitational-wave detection in 2015, and discuss implications for how the affordances of contemporary scientific domains such as general relativity and gravitational-wave physics for NOS instruction should be substantiated and supported by textbooks. (shrink)

All change involves temporal variation of properties. There is change in the physical world only if genuine physical magnitudes take on different values at different times. I defend the possibility of change in a general relativistic world against two skeptical arguments recently presented by John Earman. Each argument imposes severe restrictions on what may count as a genuine physical magnitude in general relativity. These restrictions seem justified only as long as one ignores the fact that genuine change (...) in a relativistic world is frame-dependent. I argue on the contrary that there are genuine physical magnitudes whose values typically vary with the time of some frame, and that these include most familiar measurable quantities. Frame-dependent temporal variation in these magnitudes nevertheless supervenes on the unchanging values of more basic physical magnitudes in a general relativistic world. Basic magnitudes include those that realize an observer's occupation of a frame. Change is a significant and observable feature of a general relativistic world only because our situation in such a world naturally picks out a relevant class of frames, even if we lack the descriptive resources to say how they are realized by the values of basic underlying physical magnitudes. (shrink)

Change and local spatial variation are missing in Hamiltonian general relativity according to the most common definition of observables as having 0 Poisson bracket with all first-class constraints. But other definitions of observables have been proposed. In pursuit of Hamiltonian–Lagrangian equivalence, Pons, Salisbury and Sundermeyer use the Anderson–Bergmann–Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints. Kuchař waived the 0 Poisson bracket condition for the Hamiltonian constraint to achieve changing observables. A systematic combination of the two reforms (...) might use the gauge generator but permit non-zero Lie derivative Poisson brackets for the external gauge symmetry of General Relativity. Fortunately one can test definitions of observables by calculation using two formulations of a theory, one without gauge freedom and one with gauge freedom. The formulations, being empirically equivalent, must have equivalent observables. For de Broglie-Proca non-gauge massive electromagnetism, all constraints are second-class, so everything is observable. Demanding equivalent observables from gauge Stueckelberg–Utiyama electromagnetism, one finds that the usual definition fails while the Pons–Salisbury–Sundermeyer definition with G succeeds. This definition does not readily yield change in GR, however. Should GR’s external gauge freedom of general relativity share with internal gauge symmetries the 0 Poisson bracket, or is covariance sufficient? A graviton mass breaks the gauge symmetry, but it can be restored by parametrization with clock fields. By requiring equivalent observables, one can test whether observables should have 0 or the Lie derivative as the Poisson bracket with the gauge generator G. The latter definition is vindicated by calculation. While this conclusion has been reported previously, here the calculation is given in some detail. (shrink)

General relativity poses serious problems for counterfactual propositions peculiar to it as a physical theory. Because these problems arise solely from the dynamical nature of spacetime geometry, they are shared by all schools of thought on how counterfactuals should be interpreted and understood. Given the role of counterfactuals in the characterization of, inter alia, many accounts of scientific laws, theory confirmation and causation, general relativity once again presents us with idiosyncratic puzzles any attempt to analyze and (...) understand the nature of scientific knowledge must face. (shrink)

The conservation of energy and momentum have been viewed as undermining Cartesian mental causation since the 1690s. Modern discussions of the topic tend to use mid-nineteenth century physics, neglecting both locality and Noether’s theorem and its converse. The relevance of General Relativity has rarely been considered. But a few authors have proposed that the non-localizability of gravitational energy and consequent lack of physically meaningful local conservation laws answers the conservation objection to mental causation: conservation already fails in GR, (...) so there is nothing for minds to violate. This paper is motivated by two ideas. First, one might take seriously the fact that GR formally has an infinity of rigid symmetries of the action and hence, by Noether’s first theorem, an infinity of conserved energies-momenta. Second, Sean Carroll has asked how one should modify the Dirac–Maxwell–Einstein equations to describe mental causation. This paper uses the generalized Bianchi identities to show that General Relativity tends to exclude, not facilitate, such Cartesian mental causation. In the simplest case, Cartesian mental influence must be spatio-temporally constant, and hence 0. The difficulty may diminish for more complicated models. Its persuasiveness is also affected by larger world-view considerations. The new general relativistic objection provides some support for realism about gravitational energy-momentum in GR. Such realism also might help to answer an objection to theories of causation involving conserved quantities, because energies-momenta would be conserved even in GR. (shrink)

Several authors have claimed that prediction is essentially impossible in the general theory of relativity, the case being particularly strong, it is said, when one fully considers the epistemic predicament of the observer. Each of these claims rests on the support of an underdetermination argument and a particular interpretation of the concept of prediction. I argue that these underdetermination arguments fail and depend on an implausible explication of prediction in the theory. The technical results adduced in these arguments (...) can be related to certain epistemic issues, but can only be misleadingly or mistakenly characterized as related to prediction. (shrink)

The article investigates the relations between Hausdorff and non-Hausdorff manifolds as objects of general relativity. We show that every non-Hausdorff manifold can be seen as a result of gluing together some Hausdorff manifolds. In the light of this result, we investigate a modal interpretation of a non-Hausdorff differential manifold, according to which it represents a bundle of alternative space-times, all of which are compatible with a given initial data set.

We approach the physics of \emph{minimal coupling} in general relativity, demonstrating that in certain circumstances this leads to violations of the \emph{strong equivalence principle}, which states that, in general relativity, the dynamical laws of special relativity can be recovered at a point. We then assess the consequences of this result for the \emph{dynamical perspective on relativity}, finding that potential difficulties presented by such apparent violations of the strong equivalence principle can be overcome. Next, we (...) draw upon our discussion of the dynamical perspective in order to make explicit two `miracles' in the foundations of relativity theory. We close by arguing that the above results afford us insights into the nature of special relativity, and its relation to general relativity. (shrink)

In publications in 1914 and 1918, Einstein claimed that his new theory of gravity in some sense relativizes the rotation of a body with respect to the distant stars and the acceleration of the traveler with respect to the stay-at-home in the twin paradox. What he showed was that phenomena seen as inertial effects in a space-time coordinate system in which the non-accelerating body is at rest can be seen as a combination of inertial and gravitational effects in a space-time (...) coordinate system in which the accelerating body is at rest. Two different relativity principles play a role in these accounts: the relativity of non-uniform motion, in the weak sense that the laws of physics are the same in the two space-time coordinate systems involved; what Einstein in 1920 called the relativity of the gravitational field, the notion that there is a unified inertio-gravitational field that splits differently into inertial and gravitational components in different coordinate systems. I provide a detailed reconstruction of Einstein's rather sketchy accounts of the twins and the bucket and examine the role of these two relativity principles. I argue that we can hold on to but that is either false or trivial. (shrink)

An attempt is made to remove singularities arising in general relativity by modifying it so as to take into account the existence of a fundamental rest frame in the universe. This is done by introducing a background metric γμν (in addition to gμν) describing a spacetime of constant curvature with positive spatial curvature. The additional terms in the field equations are negligible for the solar system but important for intense fields. Cosmological models are obtained without singular states but (...) simulating the “big bang.” The field of a particle differs from the Schwarzschild field only very close to, and inside, the Schwarzschild sphere. The interior of this sphere is unphysical and impenetrable. A star undergoing gravitational collapse reaches a state in which it fills the Schwarzschild sphere with uniform density (and pressure) and has the geometry of a closed Einstein universe. Any charge present is on the surface of the sphere. Elementary particles may have similar structures. (shrink)

Within the context of general relativity, we consider one definition of a “time machine” proposed by Earman, Smeenk, and Wüthrich. They conjecture that, under their definition, the class of time machine spacetimes is not empty. Here, we prove this conjecture. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Box 353350, Seattle, WA 98195‐3350; e‐mail: manchak@uw.edu.

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. (shrink)

I argue that, contrary to the recent claims of physicists and philosophers of physics, general relativity requires no interpretation in any substantive sense of the term. I canvass the common reasons given in favor of the alleged need for an interpretation, including the difficulty in coming to grips with the physical significance of diffeomorphism invariance and of singular structure, and the problems faced in the search for a theory of quantum gravity. I find that none of them shows (...) any defect in our comprehension of general relativity as a physical theory. I conclude by comparing general relativity with quantum mechanics, a theory that manifestly does stand in need of an interpretation in an important sense. Although many aspects of the conceptual structure of general relativity remain poorly understood, it suffers no incoherence in its formulation as a physical theory that only an ‘interpretation’ could resolve. *Received November 2007; revised February 2009. †To contact the author, please write to: Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 817 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; e‐mail: erik@strangebeautiful.com . When science starts to be interpretive it is more unscientific even than mysticism. (D. H. Lawrence, “Self‐Protection”). (shrink)

In publications in 1914 and 1918, Einstein claimed that his new theory of gravity somehow relativizes the rotation of a body with respect to the distant stars and the acceleration of the traveler with respect to the stay-at-home in the twin paradox. What he showed was that phenomena seen as inertial effects in a space-time coordinate system in which the non-accelerating body is at rest can be seen as a combination of inertial and gravitational effects in a space-time coordinate system (...) in which the accelerating body is at rest. Two different relativity principles play a role in these accounts: the relativity of non-uniform motion, in the weak sense that the laws of physics are the same in the two space-time coordinate systems involved; what Einstein in 1920 called the relativity of the gravitational field, the notion that there is a unified inertio-gravitational field that splits differently into inertial and gravitational components in different coordinate systems. I provide a detailed reconstruction of Einstein's rather sketchy accounts of the twins and the bucket and examine the role of these two relativity principles. I argue that we can hold on to but that is either false or trivial. (shrink)

Harvey Brown believes it is crucially important that the "geodesic principle" in general relativity is an immediate consequence of Einstein's equation and, for this reason, has a different status within the theory than other basic principles regarding, for example, the behavior of light rays and clocks, and the speed with which energy can propagate. He takes the geodesic principle to be an essential element of general relativity itself, while the latter are better seen as contingent facts (...) about the particular matter fields we happen to encounter. The situation seems much less clear and clean to me. There certainly is a sense in which the geodesic principle can be recovered as a theorem in general relativity. But one needs more than Einstein's equation to drive the theorems in question. Other assumptions are needed. One needs to put more in if one is to get the geodesic principle out. My goal in this note is to make this claim precise, i.e., that other assumptions are needed. (shrink)

Intertheoretic reduction in physics aspires to be both to be explanatory and perfectly general: it endeavors to explain why an older, simpler theory continues to be as successful as it is in terms of a newer, more sophisticated theory, and it aims to relate or otherwise account for as many features of the two theories as possible. Despite often being introduced as straightforward cases of intertheoretic reduction, candidate accounts of the reduction of general relativity to Newtonian gravitation (...) have either been insufficiently general or rigorous, or have not clearly been able to explain the empirical success of Newtonian gravitation. Building on work by Ehlers and others, I propose a different account of the reduction relation that is perfectly general and meets the explanatory demand one would make of it. In doing so, I highlight the role that a topology on the collection of all spacetimes plays in defining the relation, and how the selection of the topology corresponds with broader or narrower classes of observables that one demands be well-approximated in the limit. (shrink)

I discuss the ontological assumptions and implications of General Relativity. I maintain that General Relativity is a theory about gravitational fields, not about space-time. The latter is a more basic ontological category, that emerges from physical relations among all existents. I also argue that there are no physical singularities in space-time. Singular space-time models do not belong to the ontology of the world: they are not things but concepts, i.e. defective solutions of Einstein’s field equations. I (...) briefly discuss the actual implication of the so-called singularity theorems in General Relativity and some problems related to ontological assumptions of Quantum Gravity. (shrink)

The problem of energy and its localization in general relativity is critically re-examined. The Tolman energy integral for the Eddington spinning rod is analyzed in detail and evaluated apart from a single term. It is shown that a higher order iteration is required to find its value. Details of techniques to solve mathematically challenging problems of motion with powerful computing resources are provided. The next phase of following a system from static to dynamic to final quasi-static state is (...) described. (shrink)