The Hole Argument and Some Physical and Philosophical Implications

IF 26.3 2区 物理与天体物理 Q1 PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS
John Stachel
{"title":"The Hole Argument and Some Physical and Philosophical Implications","authors":"John Stachel","doi":"10.12942/lrr-2014-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is a historical-critical study of the hole argument, concentrating on the interface between historical, philosophical and physical issues. Although it includes a review of its history, its primary aim is a discussion of the contemporary implications of the hole argument for physical theories based on dynamical, background-independent space-time structures.</p><p>The historical review includes Einstein’s formulations of the hole argument, Kretschmann’s critique, as well as Hilbert’s reformulation and Darmois’ formulation of the general-relativistic Cauchy problem. The 1970s saw a revival of interest in the hole argument, growing out of attempts to answer the question: Why did three years elapse between Einstein’s adoption of the metric tensor to represent the gravitational field and his adoption of the Einstein field equations?</p><p>The main part presents some modern mathematical versions of the hole argument, including both coordinate-dependent and coordinate-independent definitions of covariance and general covariance; and the fiber bundle formulation of both natural and gauge natural theories. By abstraction from continuity and differentiability, these formulations can be extended from differentiable manifolds to any set; and the concepts of permutability and general permutability applied to theories based on relations between the elements of a set, such as elementary particle theories.</p><p>We are closing with an overview of current discussions of philosophical and physical implications of the hole argument.</p>","PeriodicalId":686,"journal":{"name":"Living Reviews in Relativity","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":26.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12942/lrr-2014-1","citationCount":"64","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Living Reviews in Relativity","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 64

Abstract

This is a historical-critical study of the hole argument, concentrating on the interface between historical, philosophical and physical issues. Although it includes a review of its history, its primary aim is a discussion of the contemporary implications of the hole argument for physical theories based on dynamical, background-independent space-time structures.

The historical review includes Einstein’s formulations of the hole argument, Kretschmann’s critique, as well as Hilbert’s reformulation and Darmois’ formulation of the general-relativistic Cauchy problem. The 1970s saw a revival of interest in the hole argument, growing out of attempts to answer the question: Why did three years elapse between Einstein’s adoption of the metric tensor to represent the gravitational field and his adoption of the Einstein field equations?

The main part presents some modern mathematical versions of the hole argument, including both coordinate-dependent and coordinate-independent definitions of covariance and general covariance; and the fiber bundle formulation of both natural and gauge natural theories. By abstraction from continuity and differentiability, these formulations can be extended from differentiable manifolds to any set; and the concepts of permutability and general permutability applied to theories based on relations between the elements of a set, such as elementary particle theories.

We are closing with an overview of current discussions of philosophical and physical implications of the hole argument.

洞论及其物理和哲学意义
这是对洞论的历史批判研究,集中在历史、哲学和物理问题之间的界面。虽然它包括对其历史的回顾,但它的主要目的是讨论基于动态的、背景无关的时空结构的物理理论的空穴论证的当代含义。历史回顾包括爱因斯坦对空洞论证的表述,克雷奇曼的批判,以及希尔伯特对广义相对论柯西问题的重新表述和达尔莫瓦的表述。20世纪70年代,人们对黑洞理论重新产生了兴趣,原因是人们试图回答这样一个问题:为什么在爱因斯坦采用度规张量来表示引力场和采用爱因斯坦场方程之间,间隔了三年?主要部分介绍了空穴论证的一些现代数学版本,包括协方差和一般协方差的坐标相关和坐标无关的定义;以及自然和规范自然理论的纤维束公式。通过对连续性和可微性的抽象,这些公式可以从可微流形推广到任何集合;可置换性和一般可置换性的概念应用于基于集合元素之间关系的理论,如基本粒子理论。最后,我们将概述当前关于洞论证的哲学和物理含义的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Living Reviews in Relativity
Living Reviews in Relativity 物理-物理:粒子与场物理
CiteScore
69.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Living Reviews in Relativity is a peer-reviewed, platinum open-access journal that publishes reviews of research across all areas of relativity. Directed towards the scientific community at or above the graduate-student level, articles are solicited from leading authorities and provide critical assessments of current research. They offer annotated insights into key literature and describe available resources, maintaining an up-to-date suite of high-quality reviews, thus embodying the "living" aspect of the journal's title. Serving as a valuable tool for the scientific community, Living Reviews in Relativity is often the first stop for researchers seeking information on current work in relativity. Written by experts, the reviews cite, explain, and assess the most relevant resources in a given field, evaluating existing work and suggesting areas for further research. Attracting readers from the entire relativity community, the journal is useful for graduate students conducting literature surveys, researchers seeking the latest results in unfamiliar fields, and lecturers in need of information and visual materials for presentations at all levels.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信