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.     

Einstein׳s Equations for Spin 2 Mass 0 from Noether׳s Converse Hilbertian Assertion

An overlap between the general relativist and particle physicist views of Einstein gravity is uncovered. Noether׳s 1918 paper developed Hilbert׳s and Klein׳s reflections on the conservation laws. Energy-momentum is just a term proportional to the field equations and a ‘curl’ term with identically zero divergence. Noether proved a converse “Hilbertian assertion”: such “improper” conservation laws imply a generally covariant action.Later and independently, particle physicists derived the nonlinear Einstein equations assuming the absence of negative-energy degrees of freedom (“ghosts”) for stability, along with universal coupling: all energy-momentum including gravity׳s serves as a source for gravity. Those assumptions (all but) imply (for 0 graviton mass) that the energy-momentum is only a term proportional to the field equations and a symmetric “curl,” which implies the coalescence of the flat background geometry and the gravitational potential into an effective curved geometry. The flat metric, though useful in Rosenfeld׳s stress-energy definition, disappears from the field equations. Thus the particle physics derivation uses a reinvented Noetherian converse Hilbertian assertion in Rosenfeld-tinged form.The Rosenfeld stress-energy is identically the canonical stress-energy plus a Belinfante curl and terms proportional to the field equations, so the flat metric is only a convenient mathematical trick without ontological commitment. Neither generalized relativity of motion, nor the identity of gravity and inertia, nor substantive general covariance is assumed. The more compelling criterion of lacking ghosts yields substantive general covariance as an output. Hence the particle physics derivation, though logically impressive, is neither as novel nor as ontologically laden as it has seemed.     

On geometric objects,the non-existence of a gravitational stress-energy tensor,and the uniqueness of the Einstein field equation

The question of the existence of gravitational stress-energy in general relativity has exercised investigators in the field since the inception of the theory. Folklore has it that no adequate definition of a localized gravitational stress-energetic quantity can be given. Most arguments to that effect invoke one version or another of the Principle of Equivalence. I argue that not only are such arguments of necessity vague and hand-waving but, worse, are beside the point and do not address the heart of the issue. Based on a novel analysis of what it may mean for one tensor to depend in the proper way on another, which, en passant, provides a precise characterization of the idea of a “geometric object”, I prove that, under certain natural conditions, there can be no tensor whose interpretation could be that it represents gravitational stress-energy in general relativity. It follows that gravitational energy, such as it is in general relativity, is necessarily non-local. Along the way, I prove a result of some interest in own right about the structure of the associated jet bundles of the bundle of Lorentz metrics over spacetime. I conclude by showing that my results also imply that, under a few natural conditions, the Einstein field equation is the unique equation relating gravitational phenomena to spatiotemporal structure, and discuss how this relates to the non-localizability of gravitational stress-energy. The main theorem proven underlying all the arguments is considerably stronger than the standard result in the literature used for the same purposes (Lovelock's theorem of 1972): it holds in all dimensions (not only in four); it does not require an assumption about the differential order of the desired concomitant of the metric; and it has a more natural physical interpretation.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

It ain't necessarily so: Gravitational waves and energy transport

I review and critically examine the four textbook arguments commonly taken to establish that gravitational waves (GWs) carry energy-momentum: 1. the increase in kinetic energy that a GW confers on a ring of test particles, 3.Bondi/Feynman's Sticky Bead Argument of a GW heating up a detector, 3. nonlinearities within perturbation theory, construed as the gravity's contribution to its own source, and 4. the Noether Theorems, linking symmetries and conserved quantities. As it stands, each argument is found to be either contentious, or incomplete in that it presupposes substantive assumptions which the standard exposition glosses over. I finally investigate the standard interpretation of binary systems, according to which orbital decay is explained by the system's energy being dissipated via GW energy-momentum transport. I contend that for the textbook treatment of binary systems an alternative interpretation, drawing only on the general-relativistic equations of motions and the Einstein Equations, is available. It's argued to be even preferable to the standard interpretation. Thereby an inference to the best explanation for GW energy-momentum is blocked. I conclude that a defence of the claim that GWs carry energy can't rest on the standard arguments.     

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.     

Laws and meta-laws of nature: Conservation laws and symmetries

Symmetry principles are commonly said to explain conservation laws—and were so employed even by Lagrange and Hamilton, long before Noether's theorem. But within a Hamiltonian framework, the conservation laws likewise entail the symmetries. Why, then, are symmetries explanatorily prior to conservation laws? I explain how the relation between ordinary (i.e., first-order) laws and the facts they govern (a relation involving counterfactuals) may be reproduced one level higher: as a relation between symmetries and the ordinary laws they govern. In that event, symmetries are meta-laws; they are not mere byproducts of the dynamical and force laws. Symmetries then explain conservation laws whereas conservation laws lack the modal status to explain symmetries. I elaborate the variety of natural necessity that meta-laws would possess. Proposed metaphysical accounts of natural law should aim to accommodate the distinction between meta-laws and mere byproducts of the laws just as they must accommodate the distinction between laws and accidents.     

Is there just one possible world? Contingency vs the bootstrap

As an example of what might be considered a candidate for an interesting and significant development in the methodology of recent science, I examine some of the epistemological and ontological commitments of the bootstrap conjecture of high energy theoretical physics. This conjecture holds that a well defined but infinite set of self-consistency conditions determines uniquely the entities or paticles which can exist. That is, once we are given any partial information about the actually existing world, nothing else about that world is contingent or arbitrarily adjustable. This almost Leibnizian idea is implemented in S-matrix theory through a unitarity equation, which is a statement of conservation of probability. The S-matrix program is contrasted with quantum field theory which does have arbitrarily assignable quantities. In spite of the highly constrained structure of S-matrix theory, that theory makes far fewer ontological and epistemological assumptions than does quantum field theory.     

Is electromagnetic field momentum due to the flow of field energy?

Momentum and energy conservation require electromagnetic field momentum and energy to be treated as physically real, even in static fields. This motivates the conjecture that field momentum might be due to the flow of a relativistic mass density (defined as energy density divided by the square of the speed of light).This article investigates the velocity of such a mass flow and finds a conflict between two different definitions of it, both of which originally seem plausible if the flow is to be taken as real. This investigation is careful to respect the transformation rules of special relativity throughout.The paper demonstrates that the consensus definition of the flow velocity of electromagnetic energy is inconsistent with the transformation rules of special relativity, and hence is incorrect. A replacement flow velocity is derived which is completely consistent with those transformation rules.The conclusion is that these conflicting definitions of flow velocity cannot be resolved in a way that is consistent with special relativity and also allows electromagnetic field momentum density to be the result of relativistic mass flow. Though real, field momentum density cannot be explained as the flow of a relativistic mass density.As a byproduct of the study, it is also shown that there is a comoving system in which the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is reduced to a simple diagonal form, with two of its diagonal elements equal to the energy density and the other two diagonal elements equal to plus and minus a single parameter derived from the electromagnetic field values, a result that places constraints on possible fluid models of electromagnetism.     

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.     

Dark matter,the Equivalence Principle and modified gravity

Dark matter (DM) is an essential ingredient of the present Standard Cosmological Model, according to which only 5% of the mass/energy content of our universe is made of ordinary matter. In recent times, it has been argued that certain cases of gravitational lensing represent a new type of evidence for the existence of DM. In a recent paper, Peter Kosso attempts to substantiate that claim. His argument is that, although in such cases DM is only detected by its gravitational effects, gravitational lensing is a direct consequence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP) and therefore the complete gravitational theory is not needed in order to derive such lensing effects. In this paper I critically examine Kosso's argument: I confront the notion of empirical evidence involved in the discussion and argue that EEP does not have enough power by itself to sustain the claim that gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster constitutes evidence for the DM Hypothesis. As a consequence of this, it is necessary to examine the details of alternative theories of gravity to decide whether certain empirical situations are indeed evidence for the existence of DM. It may well be correct that gravitational lensing does constitute evidence for the DM Hypothesis—at present it is controversial whether the proposed modifications of gravitation all need DM to account for the phenomenon of gravitational lensing and if so, of which kind—but this will not be a direct consequence of EEP.     

Einstein and Singularities

Except for a few brief periods, Einstein was uninterested in analysing the nature of the spacetime singularities that appeared in solutions to his gravitational field equations for general relativity. The existence of such monstrosities reinforced his conviction that general relativity was an incomplete theory which would be superseded by a singularity-free unified field theory. Nevertheless, on a number of occasions between 1916 and the end of his life, Einstein was forced to confront singularities. His reactions show a strange asymmetry: he tended to be more disturbed by (what today we would call) merely apparent singularities and less disturbed by (what we would call) real singularities. Einstein had strong a priori ideas about what results a correct physical theory should deliver. In the process of searching through theoretical possibilities, he tended to push aside technical problems and jump over essential difficulties. Sometimes this method of working produced brilliant new ideas—such as the Einstein–Rosen bridge—and sometimes it lead him to miss important implications of his theory of gravity—such as gravitational collapse.     

Tuning up mind's pattern to nature's own idea: Eddington's early twenties case for variational derivatives

This paper sets out to show how Eddington's early twenties case for variational derivatives significantly bears witness to a steady and consistent shift in focus from a resolute striving for objectivity towards “selective subjectivism” and structuralism. While framing his so-called “Hamiltonian derivatives” along the lines of previously available variational methods allowing to derive gravitational field equations from an action principle, Eddington assigned them a theoretical function of his own devising in The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (1923). I make clear that two stages should be marked out in Eddington's train of thought if the meaning of such variational derivatives is to be adequately assessed. As far as they were originally intended to embody the mind's collusion with nature by linking atomicity of matter with atomicity of action, variational derivatives were at first assigned a dual role requiring of them not only to express mind's craving for permanence but also to tune up mind's privileged pattern to “Nature's own idea”. Whereas at a later stage, as affine field theory would provide a framework for world-building, such “Hamiltonian differentiation” would grow out of tune through gauge-invariance and, by disregarding how mathematical theory might precisely come into contact with actual world, would be turned into a mere heuristic device for structural knowledge.     

Causation and gravitation in George Cheyne's Newtonian natural philosophy

This paper analyzes the metaphysical system developed in Cheyne’s Philosophical Principles of Religion. Cheyne was an early proponent of Newtonianism and tackled several philosophical questions raised by Newton’s work. The most pressing of these concerned the causal origin of gravitational attraction. Cheyne rejected the occasionalist explanations offered by several of his contemporaries in favor of a model on which God delegated special causal powers to bodies. Additionally, he developed an innovative approach to divine conservation. This allowed him to argue that Newton’s findings provided evidence for God’s existence and providence without the need for continuous divine intervention in the universe.     

The role of key residues in structure, function, and stability of cytochrome-c

Cytochrome-c (cyt-c), a multi-functional protein, plays a significant role in the electron transport chain, and thus is indispensable in the energy-production process. Besides being an important component in apoptosis, it detoxifies reactive oxygen species. Two hundred and eighty-five complete amino acid sequences of cyt-c from different species are known. Sequence analysis suggests that the number of amino acid residues in most mitochondrial cyts-c is in the range 104?±?10, and amino acid residues at only few positions are highly conserved throughout evolution. These highly conserved residues are Cys14, Cys17, His18, Gly29, Pro30, Gly41, Asn52, Trp59, Tyr67, Leu68, Pro71, Pro76, Thr78, Met80, and Phe82. These are also known as “key residues”, which contribute significantly to the structure, function, folding, and stability of cyt-c. The three-dimensional structure of cyt-c from ten eukaryotic species have been determined using X-ray diffraction studies. Structure analysis suggests that the tertiary structure of cyt-c is almost preserved along the evolutionary scale. Furthermore, residues of N/C-terminal helices Gly6, Phe10, Leu94, and Tyr97 interact with each other in a specific manner, forming an evolutionary conserved interface. To understand the role of evolutionary conserved residues on structure, stability, and function, numerous studies have been performed in which these residues were substituted with different amino acids. In these studies, structure deals with the effect of mutation on secondary and tertiary structure measured by spectroscopic techniques; stability deals with the effect of mutation on T _m (midpoint of heat denaturation), ?G _D (Gibbs free energy change on denaturation) and folding; and function deals with the effect of mutation on electron transport, apoptosis, cell growth, and protein expression. In this review, we have compiled all these studies at one place. This compilation will be useful to biochemists and biophysicists interested in understanding the importance of conservation of certain residues throughout the evolution in preserving the structure, function, and stability in proteins.     

General Relativity and the Standard Model: Why evidence for one does not disconfirm the other

General Relativity and the Standard Model often are touted as the most rigorously and extensively confirmed scientific hypotheses of all time. Nonetheless, these theories appear to have consequences that are inconsistent with evidence about phenomena for which, respectively, quantum effects and gravity matter. This paper suggests an explanation for why the theories are not disconfirmed by such evidence. The key to this explanation is an approach to scientific hypotheses that allows their actual content to differ from their apparent content. This approach does not appeal to ceteris-paribus qualifiers or counterfactuals or similarity relations. And it helps to explain why some highly idealized hypotheses are not treated in the way that a thoroughly refuted theory is treated but instead as hypotheses with limited domains of applicability.