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.     

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.     

The Loss of Coherence in Quantum Cosmology

I analyse two different methods for the retrieval of a classical notion of spacetime from the theory of quantum cosmology in terms of the different means they employ to bring about the necessary loss of coherence. One method employs a direct coarse graining of the appropriate phase space, whereas the other method is based on decohering the system by the interaction with an environment. Although these methods are equivalent on a phenomenological level, I argue that conceptually the decoherence approach is superior. The coarse graining approach construes the necessary loss of coherence in epistemic terms, whereas the method based on decohering the system by interaction with an environment provides a dynamical explanation for the emergence of classical notions of spacetime. On the latter account the emergence of classical behaviour is an objective property of the physical system under consideration, in contradistinction with the subjective coarse graining account of the retrieval of a classical spacetime in terms of measurements made by an observer.     

Space and Time in Particle and Field Physics

Textbooks present classical particle and field physics as theories of physical systems situated in Newtonian absolute space. This absolute space has an influence on the evolution of physical processes, and can therefore be seen as a physical system itself; it is substantival. It turns out to be possible, however, to interpret the classical theories in another way. According to this rival interpretation, spatiotemporal position is a property of physical systems, and there is no substantival spacetime. The traditional objection that such a relationist view could not cope with the existence of inertial effects and other manifestations of the causal efficacy of spacetime can be answered successfully. According to the new point of view, the spacetime manifold of classical physics is a purely representational device. It represents possible locations of physical objects or events; but these locations are physical properties inherent in the physical objects or events themselves and having no existence independently of them. In relativistic quantum field theory the physical meaning of the spacetime manifold becomes even less tangible. Not only does the manifold lose its status as a substantival container, but also its function as a representation of spacetime properties possessed by physical systems becomes problematic. ‘Space and time’ become ordering parameters in the web of properties of physical systems. They seem to regain their traditional meaning only in the non-relativistic limit in which the classical particle concept becomes approximately applicable.     

The curvature argument

Dasgupta (2015) has recently put forward a novel argument, which he calls the ‘curvature argument’, that aims to show that Galilean spacetime is not an ideal setting for our classical theory of motion. This paper examines the curvature argument and argues that it is not sound. The discussion yields a remark about the conditions under which a ‘symmetry argument’ demonstrates that a particular spacetime is a non-ideal setting for our theory of motion.     

Have we lost spacetime on the way? Narrowing the gap between general relativity and quantum gravity

Important features of space and time are taken to be missing in quantum gravity, allegedly requiring an explanation of the emergence of spacetime from non-spatio-temporal theories. In this paper, we argue that the explanatory gap between general relativity and non-spatio-temporal quantum gravity theories might significantly be reduced with two moves. First, we point out that spacetime is already partially missing in the context of general relativity when understood from a dynamical perspective. Second, we argue that most approaches to quantum gravity already start with an in-built distinction between structures to which the asymmetry between space and time can be traced back.     

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.     

Suppressing spacetime emergence

One of the primary tasks in building a quantum theory of gravity is discovering how to save spatiotemporal phenomena using a theory which, putatively, does not include spacetime. Some have taken this task a step further and argue for the actual emergence of spacetime from a non-spatiotemporal ontology in the low-energy regime. In this paper, it is argued that the account of spacetime emergence presented in Huggett and Wüthrich (2013) and then assumed in Baron (2019), Crowther (2016), Wüthrich (2017), and Wüthrich and Lam (2018) fails to accomplish the task to which it is set. There is a prima facie contradiction between the scale-independent ontology of spacetime in GR and the scale-dependent account of emergence proposed by this literature. One can avoid this contradiction but only at the cost of changing the target of emergence and by endorsing a perspectival theory of ontology – a view I call “ontic-perspectivism”. Though this paper explicitly addresses spacetime emergence, many of the following arguments are applicable to other accounts where objects of ontology, or their properties, are claimed to emerge in the low-energy regime.     

Theory (In-)Equivalence and conventionalism in f(R) gravity

f(R) Gravity is the most natural extension of General Relativity within Riemannian Geometry. Due to (inter alia) its potential capacity for a unified treatment of early and late-time cosmic expansion, it has enjoyed recent attention in astrophysics and cosmology. I critically examine three inter-related claims found in the pertinent physics literature, of general interest to the philosopher of science. 1. f(R) Gravity is equivalent to a particular Brans-Dicke Theory. 2. The spacetime geometry underpinning f(R) Gravity has substantial conventional elements. 3. f(R) Gravity is an instance of a theory in which the distinction between matter and spacetime is conventional. Whilst the first claim can be vindicated in precise terms, the remaining two claims, I submit, are unwarranted – at least for the reasons usually adduced. On different grounds, though, the case for conventionalism about spacetime geometry in f(R) Gravity (as well as General Relativity) turns out to be considerably stronger.     

A brief comment on Maxwell(/Newton)[-Huygens] spacetime

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.     

Weyling the time away: the non-unitary implementability of quantum field dynamics on curved spacetime

The simplest case of quantum field theory on curved spacetime—that of the Klein–Gordon field on a globally hyperbolic spacetime—reveals a dilemma: In generic circumstances, either there is no dynamics for this quantum field, or else there is a dynamics that is not unitarily implementable. We do not try to resolve the dilemma here, but endeavour to spell out the consequences of seizing one or the other horn of the dilemma.     

Emergence in holographic scenarios for gravity

‘Holographic’ relations between theories have become an important theme in quantum gravity research. These relations entail that a theory without gravity is equivalent to a gravitational theory with an extra spatial dimension. The idea of holography was first proposed in 1993 by Gerard ׳t Hooft on the basis of his studies of evaporating black holes. Soon afterwards the holographic ‘AdS/CFT’ duality was introduced, which since has been intensively studied in the string theory community and beyond. Recently, Erik Verlinde has proposed that even Newton׳s law of gravitation can be related holographically to the ‘thermodynamics of information’ on screens. We discuss these scenarios, with special attention to the status of the holographic relation in them and to the question of whether they make gravity and spacetime emergent. We conclude that only Verlinde׳s scheme straightforwardly instantiates emergence. However, assuming a non-standard interpretation of AdS/CFT may create room for the emergence of spacetime and gravity there as well.     

Spacetime without Reference Frames: An Application to the Velocity Addition Paradox

Much conceptualisation in contemporary physics is bogged down by unnecessary assumptions concerning a specific choice of coordinates which often leads to misunderstandings and paradoxes. Considering an absolute (coordinate-free) formulation of special relativistic spacetime, we show clearly that the velocity addition paradox emerged because the use of coordinates obscures that the space of relativistic observers is ‘more relative’ than the space of non-relativistic observers.     

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.     

Would two dimensions be world enough for spacetime?

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.     

Einstein,Nordström and the early demise of scalar,Lorentz-covariant theories of gravitation

Conclusion The advent of the general theory of relativity was so entirely the work of just one person — Albert Einstein — that we cannot but wonder how long it would have taken without him for the connection between gravitation and spacetime curvature to be discovered. What would have happened if there were no Einstein? Few doubt that a theory much like special relativity would have emerged one way or another from the researchers of Lorentz, Poincaré and others. But where would the problem of relativizing gravitation have led? The saga told here shows how even the most conservative approach to relativizing gravitation theory still did lead out of Minkowski spacetime to connect gravitation to a curved spacetime. Unfortunately we still cannot know if this conclusion would have been drawn rapidly without Einstein's contribution. For what led Nordström to the gravitational field dependence of lengths and times was a very Einsteinian insistence on just the right version of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Unceasingly in Nordström's ear was the persistent and uncompromising voice of Einstein himself demanding that Nordström see the most distant consequences of his own theory.     

The quantum liar experiment in Cramer's transactional interpretation

Cramer's Transactional Interpretation (TI) is applied to the “quantum liar experiment” (QLE). It is shown how some apparently paradoxical features can be explained naturally, albeit nonlocally (since TI is an explicitly nonlocal interpretation, at least from the vantage point of ordinary spacetime). At the same time, it is proposed that in order to preserve the elegance and economy of the interpretation, it may be necessary to consider offer and confirmation waves as propagating in a “higher space” of possibilities.     

Spacetime Models for the World

In this paper I take a sceptical view of the standard cosmological model and its variants, mainly on the following grounds: (i) The method of mathematical modelling that characterises modern natural philosophy—as opposed to Aristotle's—goes well with the analytic, piecemeal approach to physical phenomena adopted by Galileo, Newton and their followers, but it is hardly suited for application to the whole world. (ii) Einstein's first cosmological model (1917) was not prompted by the intimations of experience but by a desire to satisfy Mach's Principle. (iii) The standard cosmological model—a Friedmann–Lemaı̂tre–Robertson–Walker spacetime expanding with or without end from an initial singularity—is supported by the phenomena of redshifted light from distant sources and very nearly isotropic thermal background radiation provided that two mutually inconsistent physical theories are jointly brought to bear on these phenomena, viz the quantum theory of elementary particles and Einstein's theory of gravity. (iv) While the former is certainly corroborated by high-energy experiments conducted under conditions allegedly similar to those prevailing in the early world, precise tests of the latter involve applications of the Schwarzschild solution or the PPN formalism for which there is no room in a Friedmann–Lemaı̂tre–Robertson–Walker spacetime.     

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.