Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:03:51.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Singular Nature of Spacetime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Vincent Lam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider to what extent the fundamental question of spacetime singularities is relevant for the philosophical debate about the nature of spacetime. After reviewing some basic aspects of the spacetime singularities within general relativity, we argue that the well known difficulty to localize them in a meaningful way may challenge the received metaphysical view of spacetime as a set of points possessing some intrinsic properties together with some spatiotemporal relations. Considering the algebraic formulation of general relativity, we argue that the spacetime singularities highlight the philosophically misleading dependence on the standard geometric representation of spacetime.

Type
Philosophy of Physics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 712 - 723
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.)

References

Bain, J. (2003), “Einstein Algebras and the Hole Argument”, Einstein Algebras and the Hole Argument 70:1073–1085.Google Scholar
Bosshard, B. (1976), “On the b-Boundary of the Closed Friedmann Model”, On the b-Boundary of the Closed Friedmann Model 46:263–268.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. (2006), “Against Pointillisme about Mechanics”, Against Pointillisme about Mechanics 57:709–753.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J., and Isham, C. (2001), “Spacetime and the Philosophical Challenge of Quantum Gravity”, in Callender, C. and Huggett, N. (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, C. (1984), “Space: An Abstract System of Non-supervenient Relations”, Space: An Abstract System of Non-supervenient Relations 46:19–40.Google Scholar
Curiel, E. (1999), “The Analysis of Singular Spacetimes”, The Analysis of Singular Spacetimes 66:S119–S145.Google Scholar
Demaret, J., Heller, M., and Lambert, D. (1997), “Local and Global Properties of the World”, Local and Global Properties of the World 2:137–176.Google Scholar
Dorato, M. (1998), review of J. Earman, Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks (1995), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49:338–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorato, M. (2000), “Substantivalism, Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism”, Substantivalism, Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism 30:1605–1628.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1987), “Locality, Nonlocality and Action at a Distance: A Skeptical Review of Some Philosophical Dogmas”, in Kargon, R. and Achinstein, P. (eds.), Kelvin’s Baltimore Lectures and Modern Theoretical Physics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 449–490.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1995), Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1996), “Tolerance for Spacetime Singularities”, Tolerance for Spacetime Singularities 26:623–640.Google Scholar
Esfeld, M., and Lam, V. (2008), “Moderate Structural Realism about Spacetime”, Moderate Structural Realism about Spacetime 160:27–46.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1980), Science without Numbers: A Defence of Nominalism.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geroch, R. (1972), “Einstein Algebras”, Einstein Algebras 26:271–275.Google Scholar
Geroch, R., Can-bin, L., and Wald, R. (1982), “Singular Boundaries of Spacetimes”, Singular Boundaries of Spacetimes 23:432–435.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (2001), “The Classical Singularity Problem—History and Current Research”, in Martinez, V., Trimble, V., and Pons-Borderia, M. (eds.), Historical Development of Modern Cosmology, ASP Conferences Series, vol. 252. San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 121–145.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. (1977), “The Bundle Boundary in Some Special Cases”, The Bundle Boundary in Some Special Cases 18:898–902.Google Scholar
Langton, R., and Lewis, D. (1998), “Defining ‘Intrinsic’”, Defining ‘Intrinsic’ 58:333–345.Google Scholar
Mallios, A., and Raptis, I. (2003), “Finitary, Causal and Quantal Vacuum Einstein Gravity”, Finitary, Causal and Quantal Vacuum Einstein Gravity 42:1479–1619.Google Scholar
Mattingly, J. (2001), “Singularities and Scalar Fields: Matter Theory and General Relativity”, Singularities and Scalar Fields: Matter Theory and General Relativity 68:S395–S406.Google Scholar
Rickles, D., and French, S. (2007), “Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Foundations of Physics”, in Rickles, D., French, S., and Staasi, J. (eds.), The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–39.Google Scholar
Rovelli, C. (2004), Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, B. (1971), “A New Definition of Singular Points in General Relativity”, A New Definition of Singular Points in General Relativity 1:269–280.Google Scholar
Scott, S., and Szekeres, P. (1994), “The Abstract Boundary—a New Approach to Singularities of Manifolds”, The Abstract Boundary—a New Approach to Singularities of Manifolds 13:223–253.Google Scholar
Senovilla, J. (1997), “Singularity Theorems and Their Consequences”, Singularity Theorems and Their Consequences 29:701–848.Google Scholar
Wald, R. (1984), General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar