Search

Teleparallel gravity shares many qualitative features with general relativity, but differs from it in the following way: whereas in general relativity, gravitation is a manifestation of space-time curvature, in teleparallel gravity, spacetime is (always) flat. Gravitational effects in this theory arise due to spacetime torsion. It is often claimed that teleparallel gravity is an equivalent reformulation of general relativity. In this paper we question that view. We argue that the theories are not equivalent, by the criterion of categorical equivalence and any stronger criterion, and that teleparallel gravity posits strictly more structure than general relativity., Comment: 21 pages

We consider two simple criteria for when a physical theory should be said to be "generally covariant", and we argue that these criteria are not met by Yang-Mills theory, even on geometric formulations of that theory. The reason, we show, is that the bundles encountered in Yang-Mills theory are not natural bundles; instead, they are gauge-natural. We then show how these observations relate to previous arguments about the significance of solder forms in assessing disanalogies between general relativity and Yang-Mills theory. We conclude by suggesting that general covariance is really about functoriality., Comment: 26 pages, no figures

We consider conservation of momentum in AQUAL, a field-theoretic extension to Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). We show that while there is a sense in which momentum is conserved, it is only if momentum is attributed to the gravitational field, and thus Newton's third law fails as usually understood. We contrast this situation with that of Newtonian gravitation on a field theoretic formulation. We then briefly discuss the situation in TeVeS, a relativistic theory that has AQUAL as a classical limit., Comment: We have become aware of a serious error in the arguments of section III.B. This error is such that the main claim of that section does not follow. Since these arguments are integral to the thesis of the manuscript, we withdraw the manuscript at this time while working on corrections. The authors are grateful to Moti Milgrom for kindly pointing out the error

We consider the duality between General Relativity and the theory of Einstein algebras, in the extended setting where one permits non-Hausdorff manifolds. We show that the duality breaks down, and then go on to discuss a sense in which general relativity, formulated using non-Hausdorff manifolds, exhibits excess structure when compared to Einstein algebras. We discuss how these results bear on a class of algebraically-motivated deflationist views about spacetime ontology. We conclude with a conjecture concerning non-Hausdorff spacetimes with no bifurcate curves., Comment: 24 pages, including appendix; 1 table. Forthcoming in the British Journal for Philosophy of Science

We consider some of the epistemic benefits of exploring "theory space" in the context of modifications of general relativity with intended applications in cosmology. We show how studying modifications of general relativity can help in assessing the robustness of empirical inferences, particularly in inaccessible regimes. We also discuss challenges to sharply distinguishing apparently distinct directions in theory space., Comment: 13 pages, 2 figures; Philosophy of Science Association symposium paper (presented Nov. 2022)

Teleparallel gravity, an empirically equivalent counterpart to General Relativity, represents the influence of gravity using torsional forces. It raises questions about theory interpretation and underdetermination. To better understand the torsional forces of Teleparallel gravity, we consider a context in which forces are better understood: classical spacetimes. We propose a method of incorporating torsion into the classical spacetime context that yields a classical theory of gravity with a closed temporal metric and spacetime torsion. We then prove a result analogous to the Trautman degeometrization theorem, that every model of Newton-Cartan theory gives rise, non-uniquely, to a model of this theory.

This white paper outlines the plans of the History Philosophy Culture Working Group of the Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration., Comment: 23 pages, 1 figure

In this two-part essay, we distinguish several senses in which general relativity has been regarded as "locally special relativistic". In Part 1, we focused on senses in which a relativistic spacetime may be said to be "locally (approximately) Minkowskian". Here, in Part 2, we consider what it might mean to say that a matter theory is "locally special relativisitc". We isolate and evaluate three criteria in the literature and show that they are incompatible: matter theories satisfying one will generally violate others. We then consider what would happen if any of those criteria failed for a given theory., Comment: Part 2 of 2. 34 pages

In this two-part essay, we distinguish several senses in which general relativity has been regarded as "locally special relativistic". Here, in Part 1, we focus on senses in which a relativistic spacetime has been said to be "locally (approximately) Minkowskian". After critiquing several proposals in the literature, we present a result capturing a substantive sense in which every relativistic spacetime is locally approximately Minkowskian. We then show that Minkowski spacetime is not distinguished in this result: every relativistic spacetime is locally approximately every other spacetime in the same sense. In Part 2, we will consider "locally specially relativistic" matter theories., Comment: 32 pages. Part 1 of 2

Wilhelm (2021) has recently defended a criterion for comparing structure of mathematical objects, which he calls Subgroup. He argues that Subgroup is better than SYM * , another widely adopted criterion. We argue that this is mistaken; Subgroup is strictly worse than SYM *. We then formulate a new criterion that improves on both SYM * and Subgroup, answering Wilhelm's criticisms of SYM * along the way. We conclude by arguing that no criterion that looks only to the automorphisms of mathematical objects to compare their structure can be fully satisfactory., Comment: 13 pages, 1 figure (depicting a giraffe)

It is widely accepted by physicists and philosophers of physics alike that there are certain contexts in which general relativity will "break down". In such cases, one expects to need some as-yet undiscovered successor theory. This paper will discuss certain pathologies of general relativity that might be taken to signal that the theory is breaking down, and consider how one might expect a successor theory to do better. The upshot will be an unconventional interpretation of the "Strong Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis"., Comment: 15 pages

We argue that several apparently distinct responses to the hole argument, all invoking formal or mathematical considerations, should be viewed as a unified "mathematical response". We then consider and rebut two prominent critiques of the mathematical response before reflecting on what is ultimately at issue in this literature.

I critically discuss two dogmas of the "dynamical approach" to spacetime in general relativity, as advanced by Harvey Brown [Physical Relativity (2005) Oxford:Oxford University Press] and collaborators. The first dogma is that positing a "spacetime geometry" has no implications for the behavior of matter. The second dogma is that postulating the "Strong Equivalence Principle" suffices to ensure that matter is "adapted" to spacetime geometry. I conclude by discussing "spacetime functionalism". The discussion is presented in reaction to and sympathy with recent work by James Read ["Explanation, geometry, and conspiracy in relativity theory"(20??) Thinking about Spacetime. Boston: Birkauser]., Comment: 33 pages

In this paper I bring the recent philosophical literature on theoretical equivalence to bear on dualities in physics. Focusing on electromagnetic duality, which is a simple example of S-duality in string theory, I will show that the duality fits naturally into at least one framework for assessing equivalence---that of categorical equivalence---but that it fails to meet a necessary condition for equivalence on that account. The reason is that the duality does not preserve "empirical content" in the required sense; instead, it takes models to models with "dual" empirical content. I conclude by discussing how one might react to this., Comment: 15 pages; given as part of a symposium at the 2018 PSA meeting. This version corrects an error in the previous version wherein a quote was misattributed to Polchinski (2017)

We address a recent proposal concerning 'surplus structure' due to Nguyen et al. ['Why Surplus Structure is Not Superfluous.' Br. J. Phi. Sci. Forthcoming.] We argue that the sense of 'surplus structure' captured by their formal criterion is importantly different from---and in a sense, opposite to---another sense of 'surplus structure' used by philosophers. We argue that minimizing structure in one sense is generally incompatible with minimizing structure in the other sense. We then show how these distinctions bear on Nguyen et al.'s arguments about Yang-Mills theory and on the hole argument., Comment: 35 pages, forthcoming in Foundations of Physics

Why do people who disagree about one subject tend to disagree about other subjects as well? In this paper, we introduce a model to explore this phenomenon of "epistemic factionization". Agents attempt to discover the truth about multiple propositions by testing the world and sharing evidence gathered. But agents tend to mistrust evidence shared by those who do not hold similar beliefs. This mistrust leads to the endogenous emergence of factions of agents with multiple, highly correlated, polarized beliefs., Comment: 23 pages, 10 figures. Forthcoming in Synthese

The celu of the philosophical literature on the hole argument is the 1987 paper by Earman \& Norton ["What Price Space-time Substantivalism? The Hole Story" Br. J. Phil. Sci.]. This paper has a well-known back-story, concerning work by Stachel and Norton on Einstein's thinking in the years 1913-15. Less well-known is a connection between the hole argument and Earman's work on Leibniz in the 1970s and 1980s, which in turn can be traced to an argument first presented in 1975 by Howard Stein. Remarkably, this thread originates with a misattribution: the argument Earman attributes to Stein, which ultimately morphs into the hole argument, was not the argument Stein gave. The present paper explores this episode and presents some reflections on how it bears on the subsequent literature., Comment: 28 pages. Forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

In recent years philosophers of science have explored categorical equivalence as a promising criterion for when two (physical) theories are equivalent. On the one hand, philosophers have presented several examples of theories whose relationships seem to be clarified using these categorical methods. On the other hand, philosophers and logicians have studied the relationships, particularly in the first order case, between categorical equivalence and other notions of equivalence of theories, including definitional equivalence and generalized definitional (aka Morita) equivalence. In this article, I will express some skepticism about this approach, both on technical grounds and conceptual ones. I will argue that "category structure" (alone) likely does not capture the structure of a theory, and discuss some recent work in light of this claim., Comment: 36 pages. Forthcoming in "Hajnal Andreka and Istvan Nemeti on Unity of Science"

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. (forthcoming)], 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., Comment: 26 pages, 1 figure. Forthcoming in a future volume of the Einstein Studies series

I review the philosophical literature on the question of when two physical theories are equivalent. This includes a discussion of empirical equivalence, which is often taken to be necessary, and sometimes taken to be sufficient, for theoretical equivalence; and "interpretational" equivalence, which is the idea that two theories are equivalent just in case they have the same interpretation. It also includes a discussion of several formal notions of equivalence that have been considered in the recent philosophical literature, including (generalized) definitional equivalence and categorical equivalence. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the relationship between equivalence and duality., Comment: 24 pages

We provide a novel perspective on "regularity" as a property of representations of the Weyl algebra. In Part I, we critiqued a proposal by Halvorson [2004, "Complementarity of representations in quantum mechanics", Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35(1), pp. 45--56], who advocates for the use of the non-regular "position" and "momentum" representations of the Weyl algebra. Halvorson argues that the existence of these non-regular representations demonstrates that a quantum mechanical particle can have definite values for position or momentum, contrary to a widespread view. In this sequel, we propose a justification for focusing on regular representations, pace Halvorson, by drawing on algebraic methods., Comment: 35 pages, Part II of a series

Scientists are generally subject to social pressures, including pressures to conform with others in their communities, that affect achievement of their epistemic goals. Here we analyze a network epistemology model in which agents, all else being equal, prefer to take actions that conform with those of their neighbors. This preference for conformity interacts with the agents' beliefs about which of two (or more) possible actions yields the better outcome. We find a range of possible outcomes, including stable polarization in belief and action. The model results are sensitive to network structure. In general, though, conformity has a negative effect on a community's ability to reach accurate consensus about the world., Comment: 22 pages, 9 figures. Forthcoming in Synthese

We discuss some recent work by Tim Maudlin concerning Black Hole Information Loss. We argue, contra Maudlin, that there is a paradox, in the straightforward sense that there are propositions that appear true, but which are incompatible with one another. We discuss the significance of the paradox and Maudlin's response to it., Comment: 18 pages; 8 figures. Forthcoming in Foundations of Physics

In their recent book Merchants of Doubt [New York:Bloomsbury 2010], Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway describe the "tobacco strategy", which was used by the tobacco industry to influence policy makers regarding the health risks of tobacco products. The strategy involved two parts, consisting of (1) promoting and sharing independent research supporting the industry's preferred position and (2) funding additional research, but selectively publishing the results. We introduce a model of the Tobacco Strategy, and use it to argue that both prongs of the strategy can be extremely effective--even when policy makers rationally update on all evidence available to them. As we elaborate, this model helps illustrate the conditions under which the Tobacco Strategy is particularly successful. In addition, we show how journalists engaged in "fair" reporting can inadvertently mimic the effects of industry on public belief., Comment: 26 pages, 9 figures, forthcoming in the British Journal for Philosophy of Science

Contemporary societies are often "polarized", in the sense that sub-groups within these societies hold stably opposing beliefs, even when there is a fact of the matter. Extant models of polarization do not capture the idea that some beliefs are true and others false. Here we present a model, based on the network epistemology framework of Bala and Goyal ["Learning from neighbors", \textit{Rev. Econ. Stud.} \textbf{65}(3), 784-811 (1998)], in which polarization emerges even though agents gather evidence about their beliefs, and true belief yields a pay-off advantage. The key mechanism that generates polarization involves treating evidence generated by other agents as uncertain when their beliefs are relatively different from one's own., Comment: 22 pages, 5 figures, author final version

We consider various curious features of general relativity, and relativistic field theory, in two spacetime dimensions. In particular, we discuss: the vanishing of the Einstein tensor; the failure of an initial-value formulation for vacuum spacetimes; the status of singularity theorems; the non-existence of a Newtonian limit; the status of the cosmological constant; and the character of matter fields, including perfect fluids and electromagnetic fields. We conclude with a discussion of what constrains our understanding of physics in different dimensions., Comment: 31 pages, 1 figure

I discuss several issues related to "classical" spacetime structure. I review Galilean, Newtonian, and Leibnizian spacetimes, and briefly describe more recent developments. The target audience is undergraduates and early graduate students in philosophy; the presentation avoids mathematical formalism as much as possible., Comment: 20 pages, 3 figures. Prepared for the Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics, edited by Eleanor Knox and Alastair Wilson

We consider the motion of small bodies in general relativity. The key result captures a sense in which such bodies follow timelike geodesics (or, in the case of charged bodies, Lorentz-force curves). This result clarifies the relationship between approaches that model such bodies as distributions supported on a curve, and those that employ smooth fields supported in small neighborhoods of a curve. This result also applies to "bodies" constructed from wave packets of Maxwell or Klein-Gordon fields. There follows a simple and precise formulation of the optical limit for Maxwell fields., Comment: 30 pages, forthcoming in Communications in Mathematical Physics

I provide an alternative characterization of a "standard of rotation" in the context of classical spacetime structure that does not refer to any covariant derivative operator., Comment: 13 pages

There are well-known problems associated with the idea of (local) gravitational energy in general relativity. We offer a new perspective on those problems by comparison with Newtonian gravitation, and particularly geometrized Newtonian gravitation (i.e., Newton-Cartan theory). We show that there is a natural candidate for the energy density of a Newtonian gravitational field. But we observe that this quantity is gauge dependent, and that it cannot be defined in the geometrized (gauge-free) theory without introducing further structure. We then address a potential response by showing that there is an analogue to the Weyl tensor in geometrized Newtonian gravitation., Comment: 30 pages; derived from a paper presented at the 2016 UK/EU Foundations of Physics Conference in London, UK