Validity of the Einstein hole argument

DOI10.1016/J.SHPSB.2019.04.008MaRDI QIDQ2008992zbMATH OpenOpenAlexWikidataFDO

Authors Oliver Davis Johns

Publication date 26 November 2019

Published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01614, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15933/1/Johns-Validity-arXiv.pdf

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Einstein's equations (general structure, canonical formalism, Cauchy problems) (83C05) Black holes (83C57)

Abstract: Arguing from his "hole" thought experiment, Einstein became convinced that, in cases in which the energy-momentum-tensor source vanishes in a spacetime hole, a solution to his general relativistic field equation cannot be uniquely determined by that source. After reviewing the definition of active diffeomorphisms, this paper uses them to outline a mathematical proof of Einstein's result. The relativistic field equation is shown to have multiple solutions, just as Einstein thought. But these multiple solutions can be distinguished by the different physical meaning that each metric solution attaches to the local coordinates used to write it. Thus the hole argument, while formally correct, does not prohibit the subsequent rejection of spurious solutions and the selection of a physically unique metric. This conclusion is illustrated using the Schwarzschild metric. It is suggested that the Einstein hole argument therefore cannot be used to argue against substantivalism.

Recommendations

• Einstein's hole argument and Schwarzschild singularities
• The hole argument against everything
• Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’
• The hole argument and some physical and philosophical implications
• The hole argument for covariant theories

Cites work

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3842680 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 51942 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3601149 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3626181 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1077335 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2107182 (Why is no real title available?)
• Analytical Mechanics for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
• Differential geometry. Bundles, connections, metrics and curvature
• Einstein from `B' to `Z'
• General Relativity
• Introduction to Smooth Manifolds
• Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’
• The hole argument for covariant theories

Cited in

(10)

• Confessions of a (cheap) sophisticated substantivalist
• Absolute objects and counterexamples: Jones-geroch dust, torretti constant curvature, tetrad-spinor, and scalar density
• Regarding `Leibniz equivalence'
• The hole argument and some physical and philosophical implications
• Explaining Leibniz equivalence as difference of non-inertial appearances: dis-solution of the hole argument and physical individuation of point-events
• The hole argument for covariant theories
• Einstein's hole argument and Schwarzschild singularities
• The hole argument against everything
• Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’
• Is spacetime hole-free?

This page was built for publication: Validity of the Einstein hole argument

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2008992)