Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:06:51.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General Relativity Needs No Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Erik Curiel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that, contrary to the recent claims of physicists and philosophers of physics, general relativity requires no interpretation in any substantive sense of the term. I canvass the common reasons given in favor of the alleged need for an interpretation, including the difficulty in coming to grips with the physical significance of diffeomorphism invariance and of singular structure, and the problems faced in the search for a theory of quantum gravity. I find that none of them shows any defect in our comprehension of general relativity as a physical theory. I conclude by comparing general relativity with quantum mechanics, a theory that manifestly does stand in need of an interpretation in an important sense. Although many aspects of the conceptual structure of general relativity remain poorly understood, it suffers no incoherence in its formulation as a physical theory that only an ‘interpretation’ could resolve.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 44 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I thank John Norton for penetrating remarks and hard questions, Jeremy Butterfield for insightful comments on an earlier version of the article, Chris Pincock for a useful conversation on interpreting physical theories, and David Malament for many helpful discussions over several years on essentially every issue I discuss in the article and especially for pressing me to clarify my notion of ‘interpretation’.

References

Bell, J. ([1975] 1987), “The Theory of Local Beables”, presented at the sixth GIFT Seminar, Jaca, June 2–7, and reproduced in Epistemological Letters. Reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–62.Google Scholar
Bell, J. ([1981] 1987), “Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists”, in Isham, C., Penrose, R., and Sciama, D. (eds.), Quantum Gravity 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 611–637. Reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–138.Google Scholar
Bell, J. ([1984] 1987), “Beables for Quantum Field Theory”, CERN-TH 4035/84. Reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 173–180.Google Scholar
Bell, J. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Belot, G. (1996), “Why General Relativity Does Need an Interpretation”, Lindley Darden (ed.), PSA 1996: Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 80–88.Google Scholar
Belot, G. (1998), “Understanding Electromagnetism”, Understanding Electromagnetism 49:531–555.Google Scholar
Belot, G., and Earman, J. (2001), “Pre-Socratic Quantum Gravity”, in Callender, C. and Huggett, N. (eds.), Philosophy Meets Physics at the Planck Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 213–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956), “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”, in Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 205–221. Published earlier in Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4:20–40.Google Scholar
Carnot, S. ([1824] 1960), Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, and on Machines Fitted to Develop That Power. Reprint. Translated by E. Mendoza. Originally published as Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu et sur les machines propres à développer cette puissance (Paris: Chez Bachelier). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Clarke, C. (1975), “The Classification of Singularities”, The Classification of Singularities 6:35–40.Google Scholar
Curiel, E. (1999), “The Analysis of Singular Spacetimes”, The Analysis of Singular Spacetimes 66 (Proceedings): S119–S145.Google Scholar
Curiel, E. (2009a), “The Conceptual Structure of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics”, unpublished manuscript in preparation for submission.Google Scholar
Curiel, E. (2009b), “On the Existence of Spacetime Structure”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1986), A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J., and Norton, J. (1987), “What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story”, What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story 38:515–525.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1914), “Die Formale Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”, Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften—Phys.-math. Klasse Sitzungsberichte 1914: 1030–1085.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., and Grossmann, M. (1914), “Kovarianzeigenschaften der Feldgleichungen der auf die Verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie Gegründeten Gravitationstheorie”, Kovarianzeigenschaften der Feldgleichungen der auf die Verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie Gegründeten Gravitationstheorie 63:215–225.Google Scholar
Ellis, G., and Schmidt, B. (1977), “Singular Space-Times”, Singular Space-Times 8:915–953.Google Scholar
Gaul, M., and Rovelli, C. (2000), “Loop Quantum Gravity and the Meaning of Diffeomorphism Invariance”, in Kowalski-Glikman, J. (ed.), Towards Quantum Gravity, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 541. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 277–324, arXiv:gr-qc/99100079v2.Google Scholar
Geroch, R. (1984), “The Everett Interpretation”, The Everett Interpretation 18:617–633.Google Scholar
Hawking, S. (1967), “The Occurrence of Singularities in Cosmology III”, The Occurrence of Singularities in Cosmology III 300:187–210.Google Scholar
Hawking, S., and Ellis, G. (1973), The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmholtz, H. von (1870), “Über den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der Geometrischen Axiome”, in Populäre Wissenschaftliche Vorträge von H. Helmholtz, Vol. 3. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 23–51.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D., and Cohn-Vossen, S. ([1932] 1983), Geometry and the Imagination. Reprint. Translated by P. Nemenyi. Originally published as Anschauliche Geometrie (Berlin: Springer). New York: Chelsea.Google Scholar
Isham, C. (1993), “Canonical Quantum Gravity and the Problem of Time”, in Ibort, L. and Rodríguez, M. (eds.), Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups and Quantum Field Theories. London: Kluwer, 157–288, arXiv:gr-qc/9210011v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchař, K. (1992), “Time and Interpretations of Quantum Gravity”, in Kunstatter, G., Vincent, D., and Williams, J. (eds.), General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics. Singapore: Scientific, 211–314.Google Scholar
Misner, C., Thorne, K., and Wheeler, J. (1973), Gravitation. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Newton, I. ([1686] 1999), Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (1989), “How Einstein Found His Field Equations, 1912–1915”, in Howard, D. and Stachel, J. (eds.), Einstein and the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, vol. 1. Berlin: Birkhaüser, 101–159.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (1993), “General Covariance and the Foundations of General Relativity: Eight Decades of Dispute”, General Covariance and the Foundations of General Relativity: Eight Decades of Dispute 56:791–858.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. ([1898] 1993), Reasoning and the Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conference Lectures. Edited by K. Ketner. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rovelli, C. (1991a), “Is There Incompatibility between the Ways Time Is Treated in General Relativity and in Standard Quantum Mechanics?”, in Ashtekar, A. and Stachel, J. (eds.), Conceptual Problems of Quantum Gravity. Boston: Birkhaüser, 126–140.Google Scholar
Rovelli, C. (1991b), “What Is Observable in Classical and Quantum Gravity?”, What Is Observable in Classical and Quantum Gravity? 8:297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovelli, C. (2000), “Quantum Spacetime: What Do We Know?”, in Callender, C. and Huggett, N. (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Quantum Scale. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 101–124, arXiv:gr-qc/9903045v1.Google Scholar
Rovelli, C. (2002), “Gps Observables in General Relativity”, Gps Observables in General Relativity 65: 044017, arXiv:gr-qc/0110003v2.Google Scholar
Sommerfeld, A. (1964), Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics. Lectures on Theoretical Physics, vol. 5. Translated by J. Kestin. Edited by F. Bopp and J. Meixner. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stachel, J. ([1980] 1989), “Einstein's Search for General Covariance, 1912–1915”, paper delivered to the Ninth International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation at Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, 14–16 July 1980. PrintedS0031824800012125jra@ in D. Howard and J. Stachel (eds.), Einstein and the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, vol. 1. Berlin: Birkhaüser, 63–100.Google Scholar
Stein, H. (1972), “On the Conceptual Structure of Quantum Mechanics”, in Colodny, R. (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain, University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 5. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 367–438.Google Scholar
Stein, H. (1984), “The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or None?”, The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or None? 18:635–652.Google Scholar
Stein, H. (n.d.), “Physics and Philosophy Meet: The Strange Case of Poincaré”, manuscript.Google Scholar
Synge, J. (1960), Relativity: The General Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Torre, C. (1993), “Gravitational Observables and Local Symmetries”, Gravitational Observables and Local Symmetries D 48:R2372–R2376.Google ScholarPubMed
Unruh, W., and Wald, R. (1989), “Time and the Interpretation of Canonical Quantum Gravity”, Time and the Interpretation of Canonical Quantum Gravity 40:2598–2614.Google ScholarPubMed
Wald, R. (1984), General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar