Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Validity of the Einstein Hole Argument

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1907.01614 v2 pith:CVZY2BHJ submitted 2019-07-02 physics.hist-ph

classification physics.hist-ph
keywords einsteinholeargumentmetricsolutionscannotequationfield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Leibniz Equivalence, Newton Equivalence, and Substantivalism

    physics.hist-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools