Active diffeomorphisms create physically distinct but equally possible situations, a stance the paper calls Newton Equivalence, which aims to escape the Earman-Norton substantivalism dilemma.
Validity of the Einstein Hole Argument
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Arguing from his "hole" thought experiment, Einstein became convinced that, in cases in which the energy-momentum-tensor source vanishes in a spacetime hole, a solution to his general relativistic field equation cannot be uniquely determined by that source. After reviewing the definition of active diffeomorphisms, this paper uses them to outline a mathematical proof of Einstein's result. The relativistic field equation is shown to have multiple solutions, just as Einstein thought. But these multiple solutions can be distinguished by the different physical meaning that each metric solution attaches to the local coordinates used to write it. Thus the hole argument, while formally correct, does not prohibit the subsequent rejection of spurious solutions and the selection of a physically unique metric. This conclusion is illustrated using the Schwarzschild metric. It is suggested that the Einstein hole argument therefore cannot be used to argue against substantivalism.
fields
physics.hist-ph 1years
2019 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Leibniz Equivalence, Newton Equivalence, and Substantivalism
Active diffeomorphisms create physically distinct but equally possible situations, a stance the paper calls Newton Equivalence, which aims to escape the Earman-Norton substantivalism dilemma.