时空建构论与模态局部性:或者,为什么狭义相对论不需要显示闵可夫斯基的时间几何

Q1 Arts and Humanities
J. Brian Pitts
{"title":"时空建构论与模态局部性:或者,为什么狭义相对论不需要显示闵可夫斯基的时间几何","authors":"J. Brian Pitts","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsb.2017.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Already in 1835 Lobachevski entertained the possibility of multiple (one might say “rival”) geometries of the same type playing a role. This idea of rival geometries has reappeared from time to time (including Poincaré and several 20th century authors) but had yet to become a key idea in space-time philosophy prior to Brown's <em>Physical Relativity</em>. Such ideas are emphasized towards the end of Brown's book, which I suggest as the interpretive key. A crucial difference between Brown's constructivist approach to space-time theory and orthodox “space-time realism” pertains to modal scope. Constructivism takes a broad modal scope in applying (at least) to all local classical field theories—modal cosmopolitanism, one might say, including theories with multiple geometries. By contrast the orthodox view is modally provincial in assuming that there exists a <em>unique</em> geometry, as the familiar theories (Newtonian gravity, Special Relativity, Nordström's gravity, and Einstein's General Relativity) have. These theories serve as the “canon” for the orthodox view. Their historical roles also suggest a Whiggish story of inevitable progress. Physics literature after <em>c.</em> 1920 is relevant to orthodoxy primarily as commentary on the canon, which closed in the 1910s. The orthodox view explains the spatio-temporal behavior of matter in terms of the manifestation of the real geometry of space-time, an explanation works fairly well within the canon. The orthodox view, Whiggish history, and the canon have a symbiotic relationship.</p><p>If one happens to philosophize about a theory outside the canon, space-time realism sheds little light on the spatio-temporal behavior of matter. Worse, it gives the <em>wrong</em> answer when applied to an example arguably <em>within</em> the canon, a sector of Special Relativity, namely, <em>massive</em> scalar gravity with universal coupling. Which is the true geometry—the flat metric from the Poincaré symmetry group, the conformally flat metric exhibited by material rods and clocks, or both—or is the question faulty? How does space-time realism explain the fact that all matter fields see the same curved geometry, when so many ways to mix and match exist? Constructivist attention to dynamical details is vindicated; geometrical shortcuts can disappoint. The more exhaustive exploration of relativistic field theories in particle physics, especially massive theories, is a largely untapped resource for space-time philosophy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54442,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","volume":"67 ","pages":"Pages 191-198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2017.05.008","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Space-time constructivism vs. modal provincialism: Or, how special relativistic theories needn't show Minkowski chronogeometry\",\"authors\":\"J. Brian Pitts\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsb.2017.05.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Already in 1835 Lobachevski entertained the possibility of multiple (one might say “rival”) geometries of the same type playing a role. This idea of rival geometries has reappeared from time to time (including Poincaré and several 20th century authors) but had yet to become a key idea in space-time philosophy prior to Brown's <em>Physical Relativity</em>. Such ideas are emphasized towards the end of Brown's book, which I suggest as the interpretive key. A crucial difference between Brown's constructivist approach to space-time theory and orthodox “space-time realism” pertains to modal scope. Constructivism takes a broad modal scope in applying (at least) to all local classical field theories—modal cosmopolitanism, one might say, including theories with multiple geometries. By contrast the orthodox view is modally provincial in assuming that there exists a <em>unique</em> geometry, as the familiar theories (Newtonian gravity, Special Relativity, Nordström's gravity, and Einstein's General Relativity) have. These theories serve as the “canon” for the orthodox view. Their historical roles also suggest a Whiggish story of inevitable progress. Physics literature after <em>c.</em> 1920 is relevant to orthodoxy primarily as commentary on the canon, which closed in the 1910s. The orthodox view explains the spatio-temporal behavior of matter in terms of the manifestation of the real geometry of space-time, an explanation works fairly well within the canon. The orthodox view, Whiggish history, and the canon have a symbiotic relationship.</p><p>If one happens to philosophize about a theory outside the canon, space-time realism sheds little light on the spatio-temporal behavior of matter. Worse, it gives the <em>wrong</em> answer when applied to an example arguably <em>within</em> the canon, a sector of Special Relativity, namely, <em>massive</em> scalar gravity with universal coupling. Which is the true geometry—the flat metric from the Poincaré symmetry group, the conformally flat metric exhibited by material rods and clocks, or both—or is the question faulty? How does space-time realism explain the fact that all matter fields see the same curved geometry, when so many ways to mix and match exist? Constructivist attention to dynamical details is vindicated; geometrical shortcuts can disappoint. The more exhaustive exploration of relativistic field theories in particle physics, especially massive theories, is a largely untapped resource for space-time philosophy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"volume\":\"67 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 191-198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2017.05.008\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219817300734\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219817300734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

早在1835年,罗巴切夫斯基就开始考虑同一类型的多个(也可以说是“对手”)几何发挥作用的可能性。这种对立几何的观点不时出现(包括庞加莱和几位20世纪的作家),但在布朗的物理相对论之前,它还没有成为时空哲学中的一个关键思想。这些观点在布朗书的末尾被强调,我认为这是解释的关键。布朗的建构主义时空理论与正统的“时空实在论”的关键区别在于模态范围。建构主义的模态范围很广,至少适用于所有局部的经典场理论——模态世界主义,有人可能会说,包括具有多重几何的理论。相比之下,正统的观点在形态上是偏狭的,它假设存在一种独特的几何形状,就像我们熟悉的理论(牛顿引力、狭义相对论、Nordström引力和爱因斯坦广义相对论)所拥有的那样。这些理论是正统观点的“正典”。他们的历史角色也暗示了一个辉格式的不可避免的进步故事。大约1920年以后的物理学文献与正统学说有关,主要是作为对20世纪10年代结束的经典的评论。正统观点用时空几何的表现来解释物质的时空行为,这种解释在经典中相当有效。正统观点、辉格派历史和正典有着共生关系。如果一个人碰巧对经典之外的理论进行哲学思考,那么时空实在论对物质的时空行为几乎没有什么帮助。更糟糕的是,它给出了一个错误的答案,当应用到一个例子,可以说是经典,狭义相对论的一个部门,即具有普遍耦合的大质量标量引力。哪一个是真正的几何——来自庞加莱对称群的平面度规,由材料棒和钟表展示的共形平面度规,还是两者兼而有之——还是这个问题有问题?时空实在论如何解释当存在如此多的混合和匹配方式时,所有的物质场都看到相同的弯曲几何?建构主义对动态细节的关注是正确的;几何捷径可能会让人失望。粒子物理学中对相对论场论的更详尽的探索,尤其是大质量理论,是时空哲学中很大程度上尚未开发的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Space-time constructivism vs. modal provincialism: Or, how special relativistic theories needn't show Minkowski chronogeometry

Already in 1835 Lobachevski entertained the possibility of multiple (one might say “rival”) geometries of the same type playing a role. This idea of rival geometries has reappeared from time to time (including Poincaré and several 20th century authors) but had yet to become a key idea in space-time philosophy prior to Brown's Physical Relativity. Such ideas are emphasized towards the end of Brown's book, which I suggest as the interpretive key. A crucial difference between Brown's constructivist approach to space-time theory and orthodox “space-time realism” pertains to modal scope. Constructivism takes a broad modal scope in applying (at least) to all local classical field theories—modal cosmopolitanism, one might say, including theories with multiple geometries. By contrast the orthodox view is modally provincial in assuming that there exists a unique geometry, as the familiar theories (Newtonian gravity, Special Relativity, Nordström's gravity, and Einstein's General Relativity) have. These theories serve as the “canon” for the orthodox view. Their historical roles also suggest a Whiggish story of inevitable progress. Physics literature after c. 1920 is relevant to orthodoxy primarily as commentary on the canon, which closed in the 1910s. The orthodox view explains the spatio-temporal behavior of matter in terms of the manifestation of the real geometry of space-time, an explanation works fairly well within the canon. The orthodox view, Whiggish history, and the canon have a symbiotic relationship.

If one happens to philosophize about a theory outside the canon, space-time realism sheds little light on the spatio-temporal behavior of matter. Worse, it gives the wrong answer when applied to an example arguably within the canon, a sector of Special Relativity, namely, massive scalar gravity with universal coupling. Which is the true geometry—the flat metric from the Poincaré symmetry group, the conformally flat metric exhibited by material rods and clocks, or both—or is the question faulty? How does space-time realism explain the fact that all matter fields see the same curved geometry, when so many ways to mix and match exist? Constructivist attention to dynamical details is vindicated; geometrical shortcuts can disappoint. The more exhaustive exploration of relativistic field theories in particle physics, especially massive theories, is a largely untapped resource for space-time philosophy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 物理-科学史与科学哲学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics is devoted to all aspects of the history and philosophy of modern physics broadly understood, including physical aspects of astronomy, chemistry and other non-biological sciences. The primary focus is on physics from the mid/late-nineteenth century to the present, the period of emergence of the kind of theoretical physics that has come to dominate the exact sciences in the twentieth century. The journal is internationally oriented with contributions from a wide range of perspectives. In addition to purely historical or philosophical papers, the editors particularly encourage papers that combine these two disciplines. The editors are also keen to publish papers of interest to physicists, as well as specialists in history and philosophy of physics.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信