Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T11:13:30.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Progress and Gravity: Overcoming Divisions Between General Relativity and Particle Physics and Between Physics and HPS

from Part III - Foundations of Cosmology: Gravity and the Quantum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

By
J. Brian Pitts
Edited by
Khalil Chamcham ,
Joseph Silk ,
John D. Barrow  and
Simon Saunders
J. Brian Pitts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, UK
Khalil Chamcham
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Joseph Silk
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
John D. Barrow
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Simon Saunders
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Introduction: Science and the Philosophy of Science

The ancient “problem of the criterion” is a chicken-or-the-egg problem regarding knowledge and criteria for knowledge, a problem that arises more specifically in relation to science and the philosophy of science. How does one identify reliable knowledge without a reliable method in hand? But how does one identify a reliable method without reliable examples of knowledge in hand? Three possible responses to this problem were entertained by Roderick Chisholm: one can be a skeptic, or identify a reliable method(s) (“methodism”), or identify reliable particular cases of knowledge (“particularism”) (Chisholm, 1973). But why should the best resources be all of the same type? Might not some methods and some particular cases be far more secure than all other methods and all other particular cases? Must anything be completely certain anyway? Why not mix and match, letting putative examples and methods tug at each other until one reaches (a personal?) reflective equilibrium?

This problem arises for knowledge and epistemology, more specifically for science and the philosophy of science, and somewhere in between, for inductive inference. Reflective equilibrium is Nelson Goodman's method for induction (as expressed in John Rawls's terminology). One need not agree with Goodman about deduction or take his treatment of induction to be both necessary and sufficient to benefit from it. He writes:

A rule is amended if it yields an inference we are unwilling to accept; an inference is rejected if it violates a rule we are unwilling to amend. The process of justification is the delicate one of making mutual adjustments between rules and accepted inferences; and in the agreement achieved lies the only justification needed for either.

All this applies equally well to induction. An inductive inference, too, is justified by conformity to general rules, and a general rule by conformity to accepted inductive inferences. Predictions are justified if they conform to valid canons of induction; and the canons are valid if they accurately codify accepted inductive practice. (Goodman, 1983, p. 64, emphasis in the original) Most scientists and (more surprisingly) even many philosophers do not take Hume's problem of induction very seriously, although philosophers talk about it a lot. As Colin Howson notes, philosophers often declare it to be insoluble and then proceed as though it were solved (Howson, 2000).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Philosophy of Cosmology , pp. 263 - 282
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aczél, J. and Gołab, S. 1960. Funktionalgleichungen der Theorie der Geometrischen Objekte. Warsaw: PWN.
Anderson, J. L. 1967. Principles of Relativity Physics. New York: Academic.
Anderson, J. L. and Bergmann, P. G. 1951. Constraints in Covariant Field Theories. Physical Review. 83, 1018–25.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2015. Sticky Bead Argument. In: Wikipedia. Last modified. 28 February 2015.
Bergmann, P. G. 1958. Conservation Laws in General Relativity as the Generators of Coordinate Transformations. Physical Review. 112, 287–9.Google Scholar
Bilyalov, R. F. 2002. Spinors on Riemannian Manifolds. Russian Mathematics (Iz. VUZ). 46(11), 6–23.Google Scholar
Bondi, H. 1957. Plane Gravitational Waves in General Relativity. Nature. 179, 1072–3.Google Scholar
Borisov, A. B., and Ogievetskii, V. I. 1974. Theory of Dynamical Affine and Conformal Symmetries as the Theory of the Gravitational Field. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. 21, 1179–88.Google Scholar
Boulware, D. G. and Deser, S. 1972. Can Gravitation Have a Finite Range? Physical Review, D. 6, 3368–82.Google Scholar
Brading, K. 2005. A Note on General Relativity, Energy Conservation, and Noether's Theorems. In Kox, A. J. and Eisenstaedt, J., eds. The Universe of General Relativity. Einstein Studies, volume 11. Boston: Birkhäuser, pp. 125–35.
Brink, L. 2006. A Non-Geometric Approach to 11-Dimensional Supergravity. In Liu, J. T., Duff, M. J., Stelle, K. S. and Woodard, R. P., eds. DeserFest: A Celebration of the Life and Works of Stanley Deser. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, pp. 40–54.
Brush, S. G. 1989. Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending. Science. 246, 1124–29.Google Scholar
Bury, J. B. 1920. The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth. London: Macmillan.
Callan Jr., C. G., Coleman, S. and Jackiw, R. 1970. A New Improved Energy-momentum Tensor. Annals of Physics. 59, 42–73.Google Scholar
Cartan, É. and Mercier, A. 1966. The Theory of Spinors. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. French original 1937.
Castellani, L. 1982. Symmetries in Constrained Hamiltonian Systems. Annals of Physics. 143, 357–71.
Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 293. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chisholm, R. M. 1973. The Problem of the Criterion: The Aquinas Lecture, 1973. Milwaukee, USA: Marquette University Press.
Deffayet, C., Mourad, J. and Zahariade, G. 2013. A Note on “Symmetric” Vielbeins in Bimetric,Massive, Perturbative and Non Perturbative Gravities. Journal of High Energy Physics. 1303(086). arXiv:1208.4493 [gr-qc].Google Scholar
de Rham, C., Gabadadze, G. and Tolley, A. J. 2011. Resummation of Massive Gravity. Physical Review Letters. 106, 231101. arXiv:1011.1232v2 [hep-th].Google Scholar
Deser, S. 1970. Self-Interaction and Gauge Invariance. General Relativity and Gravitation. 1, 9–18. gr-qc/0411023v2.Google Scholar
DeWitt, Bryce S. and DeWitt, C. M. 1952. The Quantum Theory of Interacting Gravitational and Spinor Fields. Physical Review. 87, 116–22.Google Scholar
DeWitt, C. M. 1957. Conference on the Role of Gravitation in Physics at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, March 1957, WADC Technical Report 57–216. Wright Air Development Center, Air Research and Development Command, United States Air Force, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. https://babel.hathitrust.org/shcgi/pt?id=mdp.39015060923078;view=1up;seq=7, scanned from the University of Michigan.
Dirac, P. A. M. 1964. Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University. Dover reprint, Mineola, New York, 2001.
Earman, J. 1992. Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Earman, J. 2002. Thoroughly Modern McTaggart: Or, What McTaggart Would Have Said if He Had Read the General Theory of Relativity. Philosophers' Imprint, 2(3). http://www.philosophersimprint.org/.
Ehlers, J. 1973. The Nature and Structure of Spacetime. In Mehra, J., ed. The Physicist's Conception of Nature. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 71–91.
Einstein, A. 1916. Hamiltonsches Prinzip und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzung der physikalisch-mathematisch Klasse, 1111–16. Translated as “Hamilton's Principle and the General Theory of Relativity” in H. A., Lorentz, A., Einstein, H., Minkowski, H., Weyl, A., Sommerfeld, W., Perrett and G. B., Jeffery, The Principle of Relativity, 1923; Dover reprint 1952, pp. 165–173.
Einstein, A. 1923. Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity. In Lorentz, H. A., Einstein, A., Minkowski, H., Weyl, H., Sommerfeld, A., Perrett, W. and Jeffery, G. B., eds. The Principle of Relativity. London: Methuen. Dover reprint, New York, 1952. Translated from “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin(1917), pp. 142–52.
Einstein, A. and Grossmann, M. 1996. Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation. In Beck, A. and Howard, D., eds. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 4, The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912–1914, English Translation. Princeton: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Princeton University Press, pp. 151–88. Translated from Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation, Teubner, Leipzig, 1913.
Feynman, R. P., Morinigo, F. B.,Wagner, W. G., Hatfield, B., Preskill, J. and Thorne, K. S. 1995. Feynman Lectures on Gravitation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Original by California Institute of Technology, 1963.
Freund, P. G. O., Maheshwari, A. and Schonberg, E. 1969. Finite-Range Gravitation. Astrophysical Journal. 157, 857–67.Google Scholar
Giulini, D. 2008. What Is (Not) Wrong with Scalar Gravity? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 39, 154–80. gr-qc/0611100v2.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J. N. 1980. Invariant Transformations, Conservation Laws, and Energy- Momentum. In Held, A., ed. General Relativity and Gravitation: One Hundred Years After the Birth of Albert Einstein. vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 469–89.
Goodman, Nelson. 1983. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Fourth edn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gràcia, X. and Pons, J. M. 1988. Gauge Generators, Dirac's Conjecture, and Degrees of Freedom for Constrained Systems. Annals of Physics. 187, 355–68.Google Scholar
Hassan, S. F. and Rosen, R. A. 2011. On Non-Linear Actions forMassive Gravity. Journal of High Energy Physics. 1107(009). arXiv:1103.6055v3 [hep-th].Google Scholar
Hassan, S. F., Rosen, R. A., and Schmidt-May, A. 2012. Ghost-free Massive Gravity with a General Reference Metric. Journal of High Energy Physics. 12(02), 26. arXiv:1109.3230 [hep-th].Google Scholar
Healey, R. 2002. Can Physics Coherently Deny the Reality of Time? In Callender, C. ed. Time, Reality &Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 50, pp. 293–316.
Heckmann, O. 1942. Theorien der Kosmologie. Revised edn. Berlin: Springer. Reprinted 1968.
Higham, N. J. 1987. Computing Real Square Roots of a Real Matrix. Linear Algebra and Its Applications. 88, 405–30.Google Scholar
Higham, N. J. 1997. Stable Iterations for the Matrix Square Root. Numerical Algorithms. 15, 227–42.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. 2007. The Foundations of Physics (Second Communication). In Renn, J. and Schemmel, M., eds. The Genesis of General Relativity, Volume 4: Gravitation in the Twilight of Classical Physics: The Promise of Mathematics. vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1017–38. Translated from “Die Grundlagen der Physik. (Zweite Mitteilung),” Nachrichten von der Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Göttingen. Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse(1917), pp. 53-76.
Hoek, J. 1982. On the Deser–van Nieuwenhuizen Algebraic Vierbein Gauge. Letters in Mathematical Physics. 6, 49–55.Google Scholar
Howson, C. 2000. Hume's Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Isham, C. J., Salam, A. and Strathdee, J. 1971. Nonlinear Realizations of Space-Time Symmetries. Scalar and Tensor Gravity. Annals of Physics. 62, 98–119.Google Scholar
Kennefick, D. 2007. Traveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kuchaˇr, K. V. 1993. Canonical Quantum Gravity. In Gleiser, R. J., Kozameh, C. N. and Moreschi, O. M, eds. General Relativity and Gravitation 1992: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation held at Cordoba, Argentina, 28 June–4 July 1992. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing. gr-qc/9304012, pp. 119–50.
Lakatos, I. 1971. History of Science and Its Rational Reconstruction. In Buck, R. C. and Cohen, R. S, eds. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1970. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 91–136.
Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California.
Lawson Jr., H. B. and Michelsohn, M.-L. 1989. Spin Geometry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Logunov, A. A. and Folomeshkin, V. N. 1977. The Energy-momentum Problem and the Theory of Gravitation. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. 32, 749–71.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A. 1972. Spin-2 Field Theories and the Tensor-Field Identity. Il Nuovo Cimento, 8A, 319–30.
Maudlin, T. 2002. Thoroughly Muddled McTaggart: Or, How to Abuse Gauge Freedom to Generate Metaphysical Monstrosities. Philosophers' Imprint. 2(4). http://www.philosophersimprint.org/. Google Scholar
Møller, C. 1972. The Theory of Relativity. Second edn. Oxford: Clarendon.
Morrison, P. J. 1998. Hamiltonian Description of the Ideal Fluid. Reviews of Modern Physics. 70, 467–521.Google Scholar
Mukunda, N. 1980. Generators of Symmetry Transformations for Constrained Hamiltonian Systems. Physica Scripta. 21, 783–91.Google Scholar
Nijenhuis, A. 1952. Theory of the Geometric Object. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. Supervised by Jan A. Schouten.
Noether, E. 1918. Invariante Variationsprobleme. Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 235–257. Translated as “Invariant Variation Problems” by M. A., Tavel, Transport Theory and Statistical Physics. 1, 183–207 (1971), LaTeXed by Frank Y., Wang, arXiv:physics/0503066 [physics.hist-ph].Google Scholar
Noether, E. 1918. Invariante Variationsprobleme. Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse. 235–257. Translated as “Invariant Variation Problems” by M. A., Tavel, Transport Theory and Statistical Physics, 1, 183–207 (1971), LaTeXed by Frank Y., Wang, arXiv:physics/0503066 [physics.hist-ph].Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. 1993. General Covariance and the Foundations of General Relativity: Eight Decades of Dispute. Reports on Progress in Physics. 56, 791–858.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2011. Observationally Indistinguishable Spacetimes: A Challenge for Any Inductivist. In Morgan, G. J., ed. Philosophy of Science Matters: The Philosophy of Peter Achinstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 164–76.
Ogievetsky, V. I. and Polubarinov, I. V. 1965a. Spinors in Gravitation Theory. Soviet Physics JETP. 21, 1093–100.Google Scholar
Ogievetsky, V. I. and Polubarinov, I. V. 1965b. Interacting Field of Spin 2 and the Einstein Equations. Annals of Physics. 35, 167–208.Google Scholar
Ohanian, H. C. 2008. Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius. NewYork: W. W. Norton &Company.
Ohanian, H., and Ruffini, R. 1994. Gravitation and Spacetime. Second edn. New York: Norton.
Penrose, R. and Rindler, W. 1986. Spinors and Space-time, Volume 2: Spinor and Twistor Methods in Space-time Geometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pitts, J. B. 2010. Gauge-Invariant Localization of Infinitely Many Gravitational Energies from All Possible Auxiliary Structures. General Relativity and Gravitation. 42, 601–22. 0902.1288 [gr-qc].Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B. 2011. Universally Coupled Massive Gravity, II: Densitized Tetrad and Cotetrad Theories. General Relativity and Gravitation. 44, 401–26. arXiv:1110.2077.Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B. 2012. The Nontriviality of Trivial General Covariance: How Electrons Restrict ‘Time’ Coordinates, Spinors (Almost) Fit into Tensor Calculus, and 7/16 of a Tetrad Is Surplus Structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,. 43, 1–24. arXiv:1111.4586.Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B. 2014a. Change in Hamiltonian General Relativity from the Lack of a Time-like Killing Vector Field. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 47, 68–89. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2665. Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B. 2014b. A First Class Constraint Generates Not a Gauge Transformation, But a Bad Physical Change: The Case of Electromagnetism. Annals of Physics. 351, 382–406. Philsci-archive.pitt.edu; http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2756. Google Scholar
Pitts, J. B. and Schieve, W. C. 2001. Slightly Bimetric Gravitation. General Relativity and Gravitation. 33, 1319–50. gr-qc/0101058v3.Google Scholar
Pons, J. M. 2005. On Dirac's Incomplete Analysis of Gauge Transformations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 36, 491–518. arXiv:physics/0409076v2.Google Scholar
Pons, J. M. and Salisbury, D. C. 2005. Issue of Time in Generally Covariant Theories and the Komar-Bergmann Approach to Observables in General Relativity. Physical Review D, 71, 124012. gr-qc/0503013.
Pons, J. M. and Shepley, L. C. 1998. Dimensional Reduction and Gauge Group Reduction in Bianchi-Type Cosmology. Physical Review D. 58, 024001. gr-qc/9805030.Google Scholar
Pons, J. M., Salisbury, D. C. and Shepley, L. C. 1997. Gauge Transformations in the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of Generally Covariant Theories. Physical Review D. 55, 658–68. gr-qc/9612037.Google Scholar
Pons, J. M., Salisbury, D. C. and Sundermeyer, K. A. 2010. Observables in Classical Canonical Gravity: Folklore Demystified. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 222, 012018. First Mediterranean Conference on Classical and Quantum Gravity (MCCQG 2009); arXiv:1001.2726v2 [gr-qc].
Reichenbach, H. 1938. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Renn, J. 2005. Before the Riemann Tensor: The Emergence of Einstein's Double Strategy. In Kox, A. J. and Eisenstaedt, J. eds, The Universe of General Relativity. Einstein Studies, volume 11. Boston: Birkhäuser, pp. 53–65.
Renn, J. and Sauer, T. 1999. Heuristics and Mathematical Representation in Einstein's Search for a Gravitational Field Equation. In Goenner, H., Renn, J., Ritter, J. and Sauer, T., eds. The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity. Einstein Studies, vol. 7. Boston: Birkhäuser, pp. 87–125.
Renn, J. and Sauer, T. 2007. Pathways Out of Classical Physics: Einstein's Double Strategy in his Seach for the Gravitational Field Equations. In Renn, J., ed. The Genesis of General Relativity, Volume 1: Einstein's Zurich Notebook: Introduction and Source. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 113–312.
Rosenfeld, L. 1930. Zur Quantelung der Wellenfelder. Annalen der Physik. 397, 113–52. Translation and commentary by Donald Salisbury, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Preprint 381, http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/resources/preprints.html, November 2009.Google Scholar
Roseveare, N. T. 1982. Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to Einstein. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rovelli, C. 2002. Notes for a Brief History of Quantum Gravity. In Jantzen, R. T., Ruffini, R. and Gurzadyan, V. G., eds. Proceedings of the Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting. (held at the University of Rome “La Sapienza,” 2–8 July 2000). River Edge, New Jersey: World Scientific. gr-qc/0006061, pp. 742–68.
Russell, B. 1927. The Analysis of Matter. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &Co. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Salisbury, D. C. 2010. Léon Rosenfeld's Pioneering Steps toward a Quantum Theory of Gravity. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 222, 012052. First Mediterranean Conference on Classical and Quantum Gravity (MCCQG 2009).Google Scholar
Schucking, E. L. 1991. The Introduction of the Cosmological Constant. In Zichichi, A., de Sabbata, V. and Sánchez, N., eds. Gravitation and Modern Cosmology: The Cosmological Constant Problem, Volume in honor of Peter Gabriel Bergmann's 75th birthday. New York: Plenum, pp. 185–7.
Shimony, A. 1970. Scientific Inference. In Colodny, R. G., ed. The Nature &Function of Scientific Theories. University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. vol. 4. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 79–172.
Sorkin, R. 1977. On Stress-Energy Tensors. General Relativity and Gravitation. 8, 437–49.Google Scholar
Sugano, R., Saito, Y. and Kimura, T. 1986. Generator of Gauge Transformation in Phase Space and Velocity Phase Space. Progress of Theoretical Physics. 76, 283–301.Google Scholar
Sundermeyer, K. 1982. Constrained Dynamics: With Applications to Yang–Mills Theory, General Relativity, Classical Spin, Dual String Model. Berlin: Springer. Lecture Notes in Physics, volume 169.
Szabados, L. B. 1991. Canonical Pseudotensors, Sparling's Form and Noether Currents. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/ lbszab/doc/sparl11.pdf.
Szybiak, A. 1963. Covariant Derivative of Geometric Objects of the First Class. Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Série des Sciences Mathématiques, Astronomiques et Physiques. 11, 687–90.Google Scholar
Szybiak, A. 1966. On the Lie Derivative of Geometric Objects from the Point of View of Functional Equations. Prace Matematyczne=Schedae Mathematicae. 11, 85–8.Google Scholar
Tashiro, Y. 1952. Note sur la dérivée de Lie d'un être géométrique. Mathematical Journal of Okayama University. 1, 125–8.Google Scholar
Tolman, R. C. 1930. On the Use of the Energy-Momentum Principle in General Relativity. Physical Review. 35, 875–95.Google Scholar
Trautman, A. 1962. Conservation Laws in General Relativity. In Witten, L., ed. Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 169–98.
Tyutin, I. V. and Fradkin, E. S. 1972. Quantization of Massive Gravitation. Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics. 15, 331–4.Google Scholar
Vainshtein, A. I. 1972. To the Problem of Nonvanishing Gravitation Mass. Physics Letters B. 39, 393–4.Google Scholar
van Dongen, J. 2010. Einstein's Unification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weyl, H. 1929. Elektron und Gravitation. Zeitschrift für Physik. 56, 330–52. Translation in Lochlainn O'Raifeartaigh, The Dawning of Gauge Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1997), pp. 121–44.
Woodard, R. P. 1984. The Vierbein Is Irrelevant in Perturbation Theory. Physics Letters B. 148, 440–4.Google Scholar
Zumino, B. 1970. Effective Lagrangians and Broken Symmetries. In Deser, S., Grisaru, M. and Pendleton, H., eds. Lectures on Elementary Particles and Quantum Field Theory: 1970 Brandeis University Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics. vol. 2. Cambridge: M. I. T. Press, pp. 437–500.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×