Energy Conservation in GTR

The topics of gravitational field energy and energy-momentum conservation in General Relativity theory have been unjustly neglected by philosophers. If the gravitational field in space free of ordinary matter, as represented by the metric g_ab itself, can be said to carry genuine energy and momentum, this is a powerful argument for adopting the substantivalist view of spacetime.This paper explores the standard textbook account of gravitational field energy and argues that (a) so-called stress-energy of the gravitational field is well-defined neither locally nor globally; and (b) there is no general principle of energy-momentum conservation to be found in General Relativity. I discuss the nature and justification of the zero-divergence law for ordinary stress-energy, and its possible connection with the failure of General Relativity to realise Mach's principle.     

Fantastic Beasts and where (not) to find them: Local gravitational energy and energy conservation in general relativity

This paper critically examines energy-momentum conservation and local (differential) notions of gravitational energy in General Relativity (GR). On the one hand, I argue that energy-momentum of matter is indeed locally (differentially) conserved: Physical matter energy-momentum 4-currents possess no genuine sinks/sources. On the other hand, global (integral) energy-momentum conservation is contingent on spacetime symmetries. Local gravitational energy-momentum is found to be a supererogatory notion. Various explicit proposals for local gravitational energy-momentum are investigated and found wanting. Besides pseudotensors, the proposals considered include those of Lorentz and Levi-Civita, Pitts and Baker. It is concluded that the ontological commitment we ought to have towards gravitational energy in GR mimics the natural anti-realism/eliminativism towards apparent forces in Newtonian Mechanics.     

OV or TOV?

The well-known equation for hydrostatic equilibrium in a static spherically symmetric spacetime supported by an isotropic perfect fluid is referred to as the Oppenheimer–Volkoff (OV) equation or the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff (TOV) equation in various General Relativity textbooks or research papers. We scrutinize the relevant original publications to argue that the former is the more appropriate terminology.     

Explanation,analyticity and constitutive principles in spacetime theories

Much discussion was inspired by the publication of Harvey Brown's book Physical Relativity and the so-called dynamical approach to Special Relativity there advocated. At the center of the debate there is the question about the nature of the relation between spacetime and laws or, more specifically, between spacetime symmetries and the symmetries of laws. Originally, the relation was mainly assumed to be explanatory and the dispute expressed in terms of the arrow of explanation – whether it goes from spacetime (symmetries) to (symmetries of) laws or vice-versa. Not everybody agreed with a setting that involves leaving ontology out. In a recent turn, the relation has been claimed to be analytical or definitional. In this paper I intend to examine critically this claim and propose a way to generally understand the relation between spacetime symmetries and symmetries of laws as deriving from constitutive principles.     

Why Einstein did not believe that general relativity geometrizes gravity

I argue that, contrary to folklore, Einstein never really cared for geometrizing the gravitational or (subsequently) the electromagnetic field; indeed, he thought that the very statement that General Relativity geometrizes gravity “is not saying anything at all”. Instead, I shall show that Einstein saw the “unification” of inertia and gravity as one of the major achievements of General Relativity. Interestingly, Einstein did not locate this unification in the field equations but in his interpretation of the geodesic equation, the law of motion of test particles.     

Background independence: Lessons for further decades of dispute

Background independence begins life as an informal property that a physical theory might have, often glossed as ‘doesn't posit a fixed spacetime background’. Interest in trying to offer a precise account of background independence has been sparked by the pronouncements of several theorists working on quantum gravity that background independence embodies in some sense an essential discovery of the General Theory of Relativity, and a feature we should strive to carry forward to future physical theories. This paper has two goals. The first is to investigate what a world must be like in order to be truly described by a background independent theory given extant accounts of background independence. The second is to argue that there are no non-empirical reasons to be more confident in theories that satisfy extant accounts of background independence than in theories that don't. The paper concludes by drawing a general moral about a way in which focussing primarily on mathematical formulations of our physical theories can adversely affect debates in the metaphysics of physics.     

Space–time philosophy reconstructed via massive Nordström scalar gravities? Laws vs. geometry,conventionality, and underdetermination

What if gravity satisfied the Klein–Gordon equation? Both particle physics from the 1920–30s and the 1890s Neumann–Seeliger modification of Newtonian gravity with exponential decay suggest considering a “graviton mass term” for gravity, which is algebraic in the potential. Unlike Nordström׳s “massless” theory, massive scalar gravity is strictly special relativistic in the sense of being invariant under the Poincaré group but not the 15-parameter Bateman–Cunningham conformal group. It therefore exhibits the whole of Minkowski space–time structure, albeit only indirectly concerning volumes. Massive scalar gravity is plausible in terms of relativistic field theory, while violating most interesting versions of Einstein׳s principles of general covariance, general relativity, equivalence, and Mach. Geometry is a poor guide to understanding massive scalar gravity(s): matter sees a conformally flat metric due to universal coupling, but gravity also sees the rest of the flat metric (barely or on long distances) in the mass term. What is the ‘true’ geometry, one might wonder, in line with Poincaré׳s modal conventionality argument? Infinitely many theories exhibit this bimetric ‘geometry,’ all with the total stress–energy׳s trace as source; thus geometry does not explain the field equations. The irrelevance of the Ehlers–Pirani–Schild construction to a critique of conventionalism becomes evident when multi-geometry theories are contemplated. Much as Seeliger envisaged, the smooth massless limit indicates underdetermination of theories by data between massless and massive scalar gravities—indeed an unconceived alternative. At least one version easily could have been developed before General Relativity; it then would have motivated thinking of Einstein׳s equations along the lines of Einstein׳s newly re-appreciated “physical strategy” and particle physics and would have suggested a rivalry from massive spin 2 variants of General Relativity (massless spin 2, Pauli and Fierz found in 1939). The Putnam–Grünbaum debate on conventionality is revisited with an emphasis on the broad modal scope of conventionalist views. Massive scalar gravity thus contributes to a historically plausible rational reconstruction of much of 20th–21st century space–time philosophy in the light of particle physics. An appendix reconsiders the Malament–Weatherall–Manchak conformal restriction of conventionality and constructs the ‘universal force’ influencing the causal structure.Subsequent works will discuss how massive gravity could have provided a template for a more Kant-friendly space–time theory that would have blocked Moritz Schlick׳s supposed refutation of synthetic a priori knowledge, and how Einstein׳s false analogy between the Neumann–Seeliger–Einstein modification of Newtonian gravity and the cosmological constant Λ generated lasting confusion that obscured massive gravity as a conceptual possibility.     

On the status of the geodesic principle in Newtonian and relativistic physics

A theorem due to Geroch and Jang (1975) provides a sense in which the geodesic principle has the status of a theorem in General Relativity. I have recently shown that a similar theorem holds in the context of geometrized Newtonian gravitation (Newton–Cartan theory) (Weatherall, J.O., 2011). Here I compare the interpretations of these two theorems. I argue that despite some apparent differences between the theorems, the status of the geodesic principle in geometrized Newtonian gravitation is, mutatis mutandis, strikingly similar to the relativistic case.     

Newton–Cartan theory and teleparallel gravity: The force of a formulation

It is well-known that Newtonian gravity, commonly held to describe a gravitational force, can be recast in a form that incorporates gravity into the geometry of the theory: Newton–Cartan theory. It is less well-known that general relativity, a geometrical theory of gravity, can be reformulated in such a way that it resembles a force theory of gravity; teleparallel gravity does just this. This raises questions. One of these concerns theoretical underdetermination. I argue that these theories do not, in fact, represent cases of worrying underdetermination. On close examination, the alternative formulations are best interpreted as postulating the same spacetime ontology. In accepting this, we see that the ontological commitments of these theories cannot be directly deduced from their mathematical form. The spacetime geometry involved in a gravitational theory is not a straightforward consequence of anything internal to that theory as a theory of gravity. Rather, it essentially relies on the rest of nature (the non-gravitational interactions) conspiring to choose the appropriate set of inertial frames.     

Theories of Newtonian gravity and empirical indistinguishability

In this essay, I examine the curved spacetime formulation of Newtonian gravity known as Newton–Cartan gravity and compare it with flat spacetime formulations. Two versions of Newton–Cartan gravity can be identified in the physics literature—a “weak” version and a “strong” version. The strong version has a constrained Hamiltonian formulation and consequently a well-defined gauge structure, whereas the weak version does not (with some qualifications). Moreover, the strong version is best compared with the structure of what Earman (World enough and spacetime. Cambridge: MIT Press) has dubbed Maxwellian spacetime. This suggests that there are also two versions of Newtonian gravity in flat spacetime—a “weak” version in Maxwellian spacetime, and a “strong” version in Neo-Newtonian spacetime. I conclude by indicating how these alternative formulations of Newtonian gravity impact the notion of empirical indistinguishability and the debate over scientific realism.     

On the time reversal invariance of classical electromagnetic theory

David Albert claims that classical electromagnetic theory is not time reversal invariant. He acknowledges that all physics books say that it is, but claims they are “simply wrong” because they rely on an incorrect account of how the time reversal operator acts on magnetic fields. On that account, electric fields are left intact by the operator, but magnetic fields are inverted. Albert sees no reason for the asymmetric treatment, and insists that neither field should be inverted. I argue, to the contrary, that the inversion of magnetic fields makes good sense and is, in fact, forced by elementary geometric considerations. I also suggest a way of thinking about the time reversal invariance of classical electromagnetic theory—one that makes use of the invariant four-dimensional formulation of the theory—that makes no reference to magnetic fields at all. It is my hope that it will be of interest in its own right, Albert aside. It has the advantage that it allows for arbitrary curvature in the background spacetime structure, and is therefore suitable for the framework of general relativity. The only assumption one needs is temporal orientability.     

Principle or constructive relativity

Appealing to Albert Einstein's distinction between principle and constructive theories, Harvey Brown has argued for an interpretation of the theory of relativity as a dynamic and constructive theory. Brown's view has been challenged by Michel Janssen and in this paper I investigate their dispute. I argue that their disagreement appears larger than it actually is due to the two frameworks used by Brown and Janssen to express their respective views: Brown's appeal to Einstein's principle–constructive distinction and Janssen's framing of the disagreement as one over the question whether relativity provides a kinematic or a dynamic constraint. I appeal to a distinction between types of theories drawn by H. A. Lorentz two decades before Einstein's distinction to argue that Einstein's distinction represents a false dichotomy. I argue further that the disagreement concerning the kinematics–dynamics distinction is a disagreement about labels but not about substance. There remains a genuine disagreement over the explanatory role of spacetime geometry and here I agree with Brown arguing that Janssen sees a pressing need for an explanation of Lorentz invariance where no further explanation is needed.     

Linear structures,causal sets and topology

Causal set theory and the theory of linear structures (which has recently been developed by Tim Maudlin as an alternative to standard topology) share some of their main motivations. In view of that, I raise and answer the question how these two theories are related to each other and to standard topology. I show that causal set theory can be embedded into Maudlin׳s more general framework and I characterise what Maudlin׳s topological concepts boil down to when applied to discrete linear structures that correspond to causal sets. Moreover, I show that all topological aspects of causal sets that can be described in Maudlin׳s theory can also be described in the framework of standard topology. Finally, I discuss why these results are relevant for evaluating Maudlin׳s theory. The value of this theory depends crucially on whether it is true that (a) its conceptual framework is as expressive as that of standard topology when it comes to describing well-known continuous as well as discrete models of spacetime and (b) it is even more expressive or fruitful when it comes to analysing topological aspects of discrete structures that are intended as models of spacetime. On one hand, my theorems support (a). The theory is rich enough to incorporate causal set theory and its definitions of topological notions yield a plausible outcome in the case of causal sets. On the other hand, the results undermine (b). Standard topology, too, has the conceptual resources to capture those topological aspects of causal sets that are analysable within Maudlin׳s framework. This fact poses a challenge for the proponents of Maudlin׳s theory to prove it fruitful.     

世界引力波探测发展

引力波是广义相对论的重要推论之一。引力波探测将有可能打开又一扇天文观测的窗口，上世纪至今，世界少数发达国家倾注大量的人力，物力，财力于引力波的实验探测。改进的共振棒探测器已组成一个棒天线阵在运行中。在室内模型激光干涉引力波探测器的基础上，几个野外大型激光干涉引力波探测器正在紧张地建设中，其中美国的LIGO项目进展引人瞩目，太空引力波探测器的设想已被付诸实施。     

Karl Pearson's mathematization of inheritance: from ancestral heredity to Mendelian genetics (1895-1909)

Long-standing claims have been made for nearly the entire twentieth century that the biometrician, Karl Pearson, and colleague, W. F. R. Weldon, rejected Mendelism as a theory of inheritance. It is shown that at the end of the nineteenth century Pearson considered various theories of inheritance (including Francis Galton's law of ancestral heredity for characters underpinned by continuous variation), and by 1904 he 'accepted the fundamental idea of Mendel' as a theory of inheritance for discontinuous variation. Moreover, in 1909, he suggested a synthesis of biometry and Mendelism. Despite the many attempts made by a number of geneticists (including R. A. Fisher in 1936) to use Pearson's chi-square (X2, P) goodness-of-fit test on Mendel's data, which produced results that were 'too good to be true', Weldon reached the same conclusion in 1902, but his results were never acknowledged. The geneticist and arch-rival of the biometricians, Williams Bateson, was instead exceptionally critical of this work and interpreted this as Weldon's rejection of Mendelism. Whilst scholarship on Mendel, by historians of science in the last 18 years, has led to a balanced perspective of Mendel, it is suggested that a better balanced and more rounded view of the hereditarian-statistical work of Pearson, Weldon, and the biometricians is long overdue.     

信息几何理论与应用研究进展

信息几何是在Riemann流形上采用现代微分几何方法来研究统计学问题的基础性、前沿性学科,被誉为是继Shannon开辟现代信息理论之后的又一新的理论变革,在信息科学与系统理论研究领域展现出了巨大的发展潜力．本文首先从参数化概率分布族的内蕴几何结构特征与信息的几何性质出发,精炼了信息几何的科学内涵,指出信息几何相比于经典统计学与信息论的理论优势与方法的革新．然后简要阐述了信息几何与微分几何的联系,综述了信息几何理论的发展历史与近20年来信息几何在神经网络、统计推断、通信编码、系统理论、物理学和医学成像等各领域应用的研究现状,归纳和总结了其中所体现的信息几何的基本原理和基本方法,并对信息几何的发展给予注记．特别地,对信息几何在信号处理领域中的应用成果进行了较全面的总结和概括,阐述了信息几何在信号检测、参数估计与滤波等方面的最新研究成果．最后,展望信息几何的发展前景,提出了信息几何在信号处理领域中的若干开放性问题．     

Models as interpreters (with a case study from pain science)

Most philosophical accounts of scientific models assume that models represent some aspect, or some theory, of reality. They also assume that interpretation plays only a supporting role. This paper challenges both assumptions. It proposes that models can be used in science to interpret reality. (a) I distinguish these interpretative models from representational ones. They find new meanings in a target system’s behaviour, rather than fit its parts together. They are built through idealisation, abstraction and recontextualisation. (b) To show how interpretative models work, I offer a case study on the scientific controversy over foetal pain. It highlights how pain scientists use conflicting models to interpret the human foetus and its behaviour, and thereby to support opposing claims about whether the foetus can feel pain. (c) I raise a sceptical worry and a methodological challenge for interpretative models. To address the latter, I use my case study to compare how interpretative and representational models ought to be evaluated.     

Self-organised criticality—what it is and what it isn’t

The last decade and a half has seen an ardent development of self-organised criticality (SOC), a new approach to complex systems, which has become important in many domains of natural as well as social science, such as geology, biology, astronomy, and economics, to mention just a few. This has led many to adopt a generalist stance towards SOC, which is now repeatedly claimed to be a universal theory of complex behaviour. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I provide a brief and non-technical introduction to SOC. Second, I critically discuss the various bold claims that have been made in connection with it. Throughout, I will adopt a rather sober attitude and argue that some people have been too readily carried away by fancy contentions. My overall conclusion will be that none of these bold claims can be maintained. Nevertheless, stripped of exaggerated expectations and daring assertions, many SOC models are interesting vehicles for promising scientific research.     

Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance: The cart and the horse or two sides of a single coin?

Michel Janssen and Harvey Brown have driven a prominent recent debate concerning the direction of an alleged arrow of explanation between Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance of dynamical laws in special relativity. In this article, I critically assess this controversy with the aim of clarifying the explanatory foundations of the theory. First, I show that two assumptions shared by the parties—that the dispute is independent of issues concerning spacetime ontology, and that there is an urgent need for a constructive interpretation of special relativity—are problematic and negatively affect the debate. Second, I argue that the whole discussion relies on a misleading conception of the link between Minkowski spacetime structure and Lorentz invariance, a misconception that in turn sheds more shadows than light on our understanding of the explanatory nature and power of Einstein׳s theory. I state that the arrow connecting Lorentz invariance and Minkowski spacetime is not explanatory and unidirectional, but analytic and bidirectional, and that this analytic arrow grounds the chronogeometric explanations of physical phenomena that special relativity offers.