{"title":"洞论及其物理和哲学意义","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Hole Argument and Some Physical and Philosophical Implications
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.
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.