The philosophy of physics literature contains conflicting claims on the heuristic significance of general covariance. Some authors maintain that Einstein's general relativity distinguishes itself from other theories in that it must be generally covariant, for example, while others argue that general covariance is a physically vacuous and trivial requirement applicable to virtually any theory. Moreover, when general covariance is invested with heuristic significance, that significance as a rule is assigned to so-called “active” general covariance, underwritten by the principle of (...) background independence, rather than to general covriance as Einstein understood it. While agreeing with the latter group of commentators that general covariance indeed carries heuristic significance, I argue that a background independent theory need not be generally covariant and that instead the Principle of Equivalence as Einstein understood it provides the key to understanding the heuristic power of general covariance as a “mathematical sieve” for determining the gravitational field law. However, heuristic significance accrues to general covariance only indirectly, by its encompassing the relativity of frames underwritten by Einstein's principle of equivalence. (shrink)

sn y™to˜er —nd xovem˜er IWHUD just over two ye—rs —fter the ™ompletion of his spe™i—l theory of rel—tivityD iinstein m—de the ˜re—kthrough th—t set him on the p—th to the gener—l theory of rel—tivityF ‡hile prep—ring — review —rti™le on his new spe™i—l theory of rel—tivityD he ˜e™—me ™onvin™ed th—t the key to the extension of the prin™iple of rel—tivity to —™™eler—ted motion l—y in the rem—rk—˜le —nd unexpl—ined empiri™—l ™oin™iden™e of the equ—lity of inerti—l —nd gr—vit—tion—l m—ssesF „o interpret (...) —nd exploit this ™oin™iden™eD he introdu™ed — new —nd powerful physi™—l prin™ipleD soon to ˜e ™—lled the ’prin™iple of equiv—len™e4 upon whi™h his se—r™h for — gener—l theory of reE l—tivity would ˜e ˜—sedF woreoverD with the ™ompletion of the theory —nd throughout the rem—inder of his lifeD iinstein insisted on the fund—ment—l import—n™e of the prin™iple to his gener—l theory of rel—tivityF iinstein9s insisten™e on this point h—s ™re—ted — puzzle for philosophers —nd histori—ns of s™ien™eF st h—s ˜een —rgued vigorously th—t the prin™iple in its tr—dition—l formul—tion does not hold in th™ gener—l theory of rel—tivityD gonsiderD for ex—mpleD — tr—dition—l formul—tion su™h —s €—uli9s in his IWPI Encyklopadie —rti™leF por €—uli the prin™iple —sserts th—t one ™—n —lw—ys tr—nsform —w—y —n —r˜itr—ry gr—vit—tion—l eld in —n innitely sm—ll region of sp—™eEtimeD ˜y tr—nsforming to —n —ppropri—te ™oordin—te system @€—uli IWPID pF IRSAF sn responseD su™h eminent rel—tivists —s ƒynge @IWTHD pF ixAD —nd even iddington ˜efore him @IWPRD ppF QW{RIAD h—ve o˜je™ted th—t — ™oordin—te tr—nsform—tion or ™h—nge of st—te of motion of the o˜server ™—n h—ve no ee™t on the presen™e or —˜sen™e of — gr—vit—tion—l eldF „he presen™e of — ’true4 gr—vit—tion—l eld is determined ˜y —n inv—ri—nt ™riterionD the ™urv—ture of the metri™F „he gr—vit—tionEfree ™—se of spe™i—l rel—tivity is just the ™—se in whi™h this ™urv—ture v—nishesD where—s the true gr—vit—tion—l elds of gener—l rel—tivity —re distinguished ˜y the nonv—nishing of this ™urv—tureF „his o˜je™tion h—s immedi—te r—mi™—tions for the ’iinstein elev—tor4 thought experimentD whi™h is ™ommonly used in the formul—tion of the prinE ™iple of equiv—len™eF sn this thought experimentD — sm—ll ™h—m˜ers su™h —s.... (shrink)

I discuss the relationship between different versions of the equivalence principle in general relativity, among them Einstein's equivalence principle, the weak equivalence principle, and the strong equivalence principle. I show that Einstein's version of the equivalence principle is intimately linked to his idea that in GR gravity and inertia are unified to a single field, quite like the electric and magnetic field had been unified in special relativistic electrodynamics. At the (...) same time, what is now often called the strong equivalence principle, related to the local validity of special relativity, can also be found in Einstein's writings, albeit by a different name and clearly separated from what he calls the equivalence principle. I discuss both the development of Einstein's thoughts on the different versions of the equivalence principle, their relationship to the relativity principle, as well as later reflections and variants proposed. (shrink)

Einstein’s equivalence principle has a number of problems, and it is often applied incorrectly. Clocks on the earth do not seem to be affected by the sun’s gravitational potential. The most commonly accepted reason given is a faulty application of the equivalence principle. While no valid reason is available within either the special or general theories of relativity, ether theories can provide a valid explanation. A clock bias of the correct magnitude and position dependence can (...) convert the Selleri transformation of ether theories into an apparent Lorentz transformation, which gives rise to an apparent equivalence of inertial frames. The results indicate that the special theory is invalid and that only an apparent relativity exists. (shrink)

We review from a historical and a didactic point of view the Equivalence Principle, which was considered by Einstein as the corner stone of his new theory of Gravitation: the General Relativity. Before and after the enormous success of his theory, this principle was the subject of studies and discussions. Still today, after more than one century, the debate about its interpretation, application and generalization is very fertile. Einstein soon understood the revolutionary significance of his idea and (...) defined it as “the happiest thought of my life”. (shrink)

A differential manifold (d-manifold, for short) can be defined as a pair (M, C), where M is any set and C is a family of real functions on M which is (i) closed with respect to localization and (ii) closed with respect to superposition with smooth Euclidean functions; one also assumes that (iii) M is locally diffeomorphic to Rn. These axioms have a straightforward physical interpretation. Axioms (i) and (ii) formalize certain “compatibility conditions” which usually are supposed to be assumed (...) tacitly by physicists. Axiom (iii) may be though of as a (nonmetric) version of Einstein's equivalence principle. By dropping axiom (iii), one obtains a more general structure called a differential space (d-space). Every subset of Rn turns out to be a d-space. Nevertheless it is mathematically a workable structure. It might be expected that somewhere in the neighborhood of the Big Bang there is a domain in which space-time is not a d-manifold but still continues to be a d-space. In such a domain we would have a physics without the (usual form of the) equivalence principle. Simple examples of d-spaces which are not d-manifolds elucidate the principal characteristics the resulting physics would manifest. (shrink)

Dark matter is an essential ingredient of the present Standard Cosmological Model, according to which only 5% of the mass/energy content of our universe is made of ordinary matter. In recent times, it has been argued that certain cases of gravitational lensing represent a new type of evidence for the existence of DM. In a recent paper, Peter Kosso attempts to substantiate that claim. His argument is that, although in such cases DM is only detected by its gravitational effects, gravitational (...) lensing is a direct consequence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle and therefore the complete gravitational theory is not needed in order to derive such lensing effects. In this paper I critically examine Kosso's argument: I confront the notion of empirical evidence involved in the discussion and argue that EEP does not have enough power by itself to sustain the claim that gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster constitutes evidence for the DM Hypothesis. As a consequence of this, it is necessary to examine the details of alternative theories of gravity to decide whether certain empirical situations are indeed evidence for the existence of DM. It may well be correct that gravitational lensing does constitute evidence for the DM Hypothesis—at present it is controversial whether the proposed modifications of gravitation all need DM to account for the phenomenon of gravitational lensing and if so, of which kind—but this will not be a direct consequence of EEP. (shrink)

Einstein’s Equivalence Principle implies that the Lorentz force equation can be derived from a geodesic equation by imposing a certain condition on the electromagnetic potential. We analyze the quantization of that constraint and find the corresponding differential equations for the phase of the wave function. We investigate these equations in the case of Coulomb potential and show that physically acceptable solutions do not exist. This result signals an inconsistency between Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and Relativistic (...) Quantum Mechanics at an atomic level. (shrink)

According to the standard interpretation of Einstein’s field equations, gravity consists of mass-energy curving spacetime, and an additional physical force or entity—denoted by Λ (the ‘cosmological constant’)—is responsible for the Universe’s metric-expansion. Although General Relativity’s direct predictions have been systematically confirmed, the dominant cosmological model thought to follow from it—the ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) model of the Universe’s history and composition—faces considerable challenges, including various observational anomalies and experimental failures to detect dark matter, dark energy, or inflation-field candidates. (...) This paper shows that Einstein’s Equivalence Principle entails two possible physical interpretations of General Relativity’s field equations. Although the field equations facially appear to support the standard interpretation—that gravity consists of mass-energy curving spacetime—the field equations can be equivalently understood as holding that gravitational effects instead result from mass-energy accelerating the metric-expansion of a second-order spacetime fabric superimposed upon an absolute, first-order Euclidean space, resulting in the observational appearance of spacetime curvature. This alternative interpretation of relativity is shown to be empirically equivalent to the standard interpretation of relativity, albeit with a changing value for Λ (which is similar to how Λ is understood in the conception of Λ as ‘quintessence’, but in this case takes Λ to be gravity). The reconceptualization is then shown to potentially resolve major observational anomalies for the ΛCDM model, including recent observations conflicting with ΛCDM predictions, as well as failures to directly detect dark matter, dark energy, and inflation field/particle candidates. (shrink)

The Mössbauer rotor effect recently gained a renewed interest due to the discovery and explanation of an additional effect of clock synchronization which has been missed for about 50 years, i.e. starting from a famous book of Pauli, till some recent experimental analyses. The theoretical explanation of such an additional effect is due to some recent papers in both the general relativistic and the special relativistic frameworks. In the first case the key point of the approach is the Einstein’s (...) equivalence principle, which, in the words of the same Einstein, enables “the point of view to interpret the rotating system K’ as at rest, and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field”. In this paper, we analyse both the history of the Mössbauer rotor effect and its interpretation from the point of view of Einstein’s general theory of relativity by adding some new insight. In particular, it will be shown that, if on one hand the “traditional” effect of redshift has a strong analogy with the gravitational redshift, on the other hand the additional effect of clock synchronization has an intriguing analogy with the cosmological redshift. Finally, we show that a recent claim in the literature that the second effect of clock synchronization does not exist is not correct. (shrink)

Leibniz Equivalence is a principle of applied mathematics that is widely assumed in both general relativity textbooks and in the philosophical literature on Einstein’s hole argument. In this article, I clarify an ambiguity in the statement of this Leibniz Equivalence, and argue that the relevant expression of it for the hole argument is strictly false. I then show that the hole argument still succeeds as a refutation of manifold substantivalism; however, recent proposals that the hole argument (...) is undermined by principles of representational equivalence do not fare so well. (shrink)

We discuss the meaning and prove the accordance of general relativity, wave mechanics, and the quantization of Einstein's gravitation equations themselves. Firstly, we have the problem of the influence of gravitational fields on the de Broglie waves, which influence is in accordance with Eeinstein's weak principle of equivalence and the limitation of measurements given by Heisenberg's uncertainty relations. Secondly, the quantization of the gravitational fields is a “quantization of geometry.” However, classical and quantum gravitation have the same physical (...) meaning according to limitations of measurements given by Einstein's strong principle of equivalence and the Heisenberg uncertainties for the mechanics of test bodies. (shrink)

In 1907 Einstein had the insight that bodies in free fall do not “feel” their own weight. This has been formalized in what is called “the principle of equivalence.” The principle motivated a critical analysis of the Newtonian and special-relativistic concepts of inertia, and it was indispensable to Einstein’s development of his theory of gravitation. A great deal has been written about the principle. Nearly all of this work has focused on the content of the (...) principle and whether it has any content in Einsteinian gravitation, but more remains to be said about its methodological role in the development of the theory. I argue that the principle should be understood as a kind of foundational principle known as a criterion of identity. This work extends and substantiates a recent account of the notion of a criterion of identity by William Demopoulos. Demopoulos argues that the notion can be employed more widely than in the foundations of arithmetic and that we see this in the development of physical theories, in particular space–time theories. This new account forms the basis of a general framework for applying a number of mathematical theories and for distinguishing between applied mathematical theories that are and are not empirically constrained. (shrink)

Einstein considered general covariance to characterize the novelty of his General Theory of Relativity (GTR), but Kretschmann thought it merely a formal feature that any theory could have. The claim that GTR is ``already parametrized'' suggests analyzing substantive general covariance as formal general covariance achieved without hiding preferred coordinates as scalar ``clock fields,'' much as Einstein construed general covariance as the lack of preferred coordinates. Physicists often install gauge symmetries artificially with additional fields, as in the transition from Proca's to (...) Stueckelberg's electromagnetism. Some post-positivist philosophers, due to realist sympathies, are committed to judging Stueckelberg's electromagnetism distinct from and inferior to Proca's. By contrast, physicists identify them, the differences being gauge-dependent and hence unreal. It is often useful to install gauge freedom in theories with broken gauge symmetries (second-class constraints) using a modified Batalin-Fradkin-Tyutin (BFT) procedure. Massive GTR, for which parametrization and a Lagrangian BFT-like procedure appear to coincide, mimics GTR's general covariance apart from telltale clock fields. A generalized procedure for installing artificial gauge freedom subsumes parametrization and BFT, while being more Lagrangian-friendly than BFT, leaving any primary constraints unchanged and using a non-BFT boundary condition. Artificial gauge freedom licenses a generalized Kretschmann objection. However, features of paradigm cases of artificial gauge freedom might help to demonstrate a principled distinction between substantive and merely formal gauge symmetry. (shrink)

Faraday's field concept presupposes that field stresses should share the axial symmetry of the lines of force. In the present article, the field dynamics is similarly required to depend only on field properties that can be tested through the motion of test-particles. Precise expressions of this 'Faradayan' principle in field-theoretical language are shown to severely restrict the form of classical field theories. In particular, static forces must obey the inverse square law in a linear approximation. Within a Minkowskian and (...) Lagrangian framework, the Faradayan principle automatically leads to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and to Einstein's theory of gravitation, without appeal to the equivalence principle. A comparison is drawn between this, Feynman's, and Einstein's way to arrive at general relativity. (shrink)

It is argued that, under the assumption that the strong principle of equivalence holds, the theoretical realization of the Mach principle (in the version of the Mach-Einstein doctrine) and of the principle of general relativity are alternative programs. That means only the former or the latter can be realized—at least as long as only field equations of second order are considered. To demonstrate this we discuss two sufficiently wide classes of theories (Einstein-Grossmann and Einstein-Mayer theories, respectively) (...) both embracing Einstein's theory of general relativity (GRT). GRT is shown to be just that “degenerate case” of the two classes which satisfies the principle of general relativity but not the Mach-Einstein doctrine; in all the other cases one finds an opposite situation.These considerations lead to an interesting “complementarity” between general relativity and Mach-Einstein doctine. In GRT, via Einstein's equations, the covariant and Lorentz-invariant Riemann-Einstein structure of the space-time defines the dynamics of matter: The symmetric matter tensor Ttk is given by variation of the Lorentz-invariant scalar densityL mat, and the dynamical equations satisfied by Tik result as a consequence of the Bianchi identities valid for the left-hand side of Einstein's equations. Otherwise, in all other cases, i.e., for the “Mach-Einstein theories” here under consideration, the matter determines the coordinate or reference systems via gravity. In Einstein-Grossmann theories using a holonomic representation of the space-time structure, the coordinates are determined up to affine (i.e. linear) transformations, and in Einstein-Mayer theories based on an anholonomic representation the reference systems (the tetrads) are specified up to global Lorentz transformations. The corresponding conditions on the coordinate and reference systems result from the postulate that the gravitational field is compatible with the strong equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses. (shrink)

In 1907, Einstein set out to fully relativize all motion, no matter whether uniform or accelerated. After five failed attempts between 1907 and 1918, he finally threw in the towel around 1920, setting himself a new goal. For the rest of his life he searched for a classical field theory unifying gravity and electromagnetism. As he struggled to relativize motion, Einstein had to readjust both his approach and his objectives at almost every step along the way; he got himself hopelessly (...) confused at times; he fooled himself with fallacious arguments and sloppy calculations; and he committed what he later allegedly called the biggest blunder of his career: he introduced the cosmological constant. There is a very uplifting moral to this somber tale. Although Einstein never reached his original destination, the harvest of his thirteen-year odyssey is quite impressive. First of all, what is left of absolute motion in general relativity is far more palatable than absolute motion in special relativity or Newtonian theory. And general relativity does seem to eliminate absolute space. More importantly, from a modern physics point of view, Einstein produced a spectacular new theory of gravity based on what he called the equivalence principle. This principle says that inertial and gravitational effects are due to one and the same structure, the inertio-gravitational field, which in Einstein’s theory is represented by a metric tensor field. In addition to laying the foundations of this theory, Einstein, among other things, launched relativistic cosmology, suggested the possibility of gravitational waves, gave the first sensible definition of a space-time singularity, and caught on to the intimate connection between general covariance and energy-momentum conservation, an example of the general connection between symmetries and conservation laws of Noether’s theorems. These results more than make up for the—at least by the standards of modern philosophy of science—rather opportunistic way in which they were obtained.. (shrink)

Relativity is the most important scientific idea of the twentieth century. Albert Einstein is the unquestioned founder of modern physics. His Special and General theories of Relativity introduced the idea to the world. In this classic short book he explains clearly, using the minimum amount of mathematical terms, the basic ideas and principles of his theory of Relativity. Unsurpassed by any subsequent books on Relativity, this remains the most popular and useful exposition of Einstein's immense contribution to human knowledge.

_Time_'s 'Man of the Century', Albert Einstein is the unquestioned founder of modern physics. His theory of relativity is the most important scientific idea of the modern era. In this short book Einstein explains, using the minimum of mathematical terms, the basic ideas and principles of the theory which has shaped the world we live in today. Unsurpassed by any subsequent books on relativity, this remains the most popular and useful exposition of Einstein's immense contribution to human knowledge.

In this paper I critically review the long history of attempts to formulate and derive the geodesic principle, which claims that massive bodies follow geodesic paths in general relativity theory. I argue that if the principle is interpreted as a dynamical law of motion describing the actual evolution of gravitating bodies as endorsed by Einstein, then it is impossible to apply the law to massive bodies in a way that is coherent with his own field equations. Rejecting this (...) canonical interpretation, I propose an alternative interpretation of the geodesic principle as a type of universality thesis analogous to the universality behavior exhibited in thermal systems during phase transitions. (shrink)

BackgroundThe principle of equivalence in prison health has been established for nearly four decades. It seeks to ensure that prisoners have access to the same level of healthcare as members of society at large, which is entrenched within the international legal framework and England’s national health policies.AimsThis study examined how key policymakers interpret and implement the principle of equivalence in English prisons. It also identified opportunities and threats associated with the application of the principle.MethodsIn total, (...) 30 policymakers took part in this research. These participants engaged in policymaking activities and occupied positions of authority in the prison field.ResultsDespite the policymakers’ consensus on the importance of the equivalence principle, there was a varying degree of understanding regarding what constitutes ‘equivalence’. Participants described how the security culture impedes prisoners’ access to healthcare services. Additionally, the increasing size and complexity of the prison population, coupled with a diminishing level of resources, reduce the level of care being provided in prisons and thus compromise implementation of equivalence in English prisons.ConclusionsInconsistent interpretation of equivalence, the prevailing security drive, increasing numbers and health complexities of prisoners and fiscal austerity threaten the implementation of equivalence in English prisons. This research calls for new guidance on how to interpret and implement equivalence, along with measures to educate prison governors and staff on the prison rehabilitation value, ensure greater investment in prison health and consider alternatives to imprisonment to future-proof the principle of equivalence in the English prison system. (shrink)

An homage to the men and women of science, and an exposition of Einstein's place in scientific history In this fascinating collection of articles and speeches, Albert Einstein reflects not only on the scientific method at work in his own theoretical discoveries, but also eloquently expresses a great appreciation for his scientific contemporaries and forefathers, including Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, and Niels Bohr. While Einstein is renowned as one of the foremost innovators of modern science, (...) his discoveries uniquely his own, through his own words it becomes clear that he viewed himself as only the most recent in a long line of scientists driven to create new ways of understanding the world and to prove their scientific theories. Einstein's thoughtful examinations explain the "how" of scientific innovations both in his own theoretical work and in the scientific method established by those who came before him. This authorized Philosophical Library book features a new introduction by Neil Berger, PhD, and an illustrated biography of Albert Einstein, which includes rare photos and never-before-seen documents from the Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "What place does the theoretical physicist's picture of the world occupy among all these possible pictures? It demands the highest possible standard of rigorous precision in the description of relations, such as only the use of mathematical language can give" -Albert Einstein, "Principles of Research" Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was born in Germany and became an American citizen in 1934. A world-famous theoretical physicist, he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics and is renowned for his Theory of Relativity. In addition to his scientific work, Einstein was an influential humanist who spoke widely about politics, ethics, and social causes. After leaving Europe, Einstein taught at Princeton University. His theories were instrumental in shaping the atomic age. Neil Berger, an associate professor emeritus of mathematics, taught at the University of Illinois at Chicago in the Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science department from 1968 until his retirement in 2001. He was the recipient of the first Monroe H. Martin Prize (1975), which is now awarded by the University of Maryland every five years for a singly authored outstanding applied mathematics research paper. He has published numerous papers and reviews in his fields of expertise, which include elasticity, tensor analysis, scattering theory, and fluid mechanics. (shrink)

We argue that the fundamental assertion underlying Mach's critique of Newton's first law is that inertial motion is not motion in the absence of causes; rather, it is motion whose cause lies in some homogeneous aspect of the environment. We distinguish this formal requirement (Mach's principle) from two hypotheses which Mach considers concerning the origin of inertia: that the distant stars play (1) a merely “collateral” or (2) a “fundamental” role in the causal determination of inertial motion. -/- In (...) his later writings, Mach deliberately avoids referring to the concept of causation, and indeed, this has made the interpretation of Mach's principle a subject of widespread controversy. However, in his earlier writings, the substance of Mach's critique is less ambiguously expressed. Therefore, close attention is given to Mach's early writings and the evolution of his thought. Various accounts in the secondary literature on Mach's principle, in particular those of Norton and DiSalle, are assessed on this basis. We end with a defence of the Machian status and legitimacy of the early Einstein's research program. (shrink)

Curved multi-dimensional space-times (5D and higher) are constructed by embedding them in one higher-dimensional flat space. The condition that the embedding coordinates have a separable form, plus the demand of an orthogonal resulting space-time, implies that the curved multi-dimensional space-time has 4D de-Sitter subspaces (for constant extra-dimensions) in which the 3D subspace has an accelerated expansion. A complete determination of the curved multi-dimensional spacetime geometry is obtained provided we impose a new type of “equivalence principle”, meaning that there (...) is a geodesic which from the embedding space has a rectliniar motion. According to this new equivalence principle, we can find the extra-dimensions metric components, each curved multi-dimensional spacetime surface’s equation, the energy-momentum tensors and the extra-dimensions as functions of a scalar field. The generic geodesic in each 5D spacetime are studied: they include solutions where particle’s motion along the extra-dimension is periodic and the 3D expansion factor is inflationary (accelerated expansion). Thus, the 3D subspace has an accelerated expansion. (shrink)

The paper formulates and proves a strengthening of ‘Frege’s Theorem’, which states that axioms for second-order arithmetic are derivable in second-order logic from Hume’s Principle, which itself says that the number of Fs is the same as the number ofGs just in case the Fs and Gs are equinumerous. The improvement consists in restricting this claim to finite concepts, so that nothing is claimed about the circumstances under which infinite concepts have the same number. ‘Finite Hume’s Principle’ also (...) suffices for the derivation of axioms for arithmetic and, indeed, is equivalent to a version of them, in the presence of Frege’s definitions of the primitive expressions of the language of arithmetic. The philosophical significance of this result is also discussed. (shrink)

It is widely accepted that EinstcinRi7;s general theory of relativity is an satisfactory description of gravity 0nly in the macroscopic limit, where quantum eiTcc1;s may be neglected. Presumably this theory is inapplicable at the Planck length, but recently much attention has been devoted to gravitational theory at intermediate length scales where quantum affects 0f matter are inescapable, but where there is an general assumption that the gravitational Held may bc treated as a classical background, augmented if necessary by quamtizcd linearized (...) pertur-. (shrink)

We study the effects of Vopěnka's principle on properties of model theoretic logics. We show that Vopěnka's principle is equivalent to the assumption that every finitely generated logic has a compact cardinal. We show also that it is equivalent to the assumption that every such logic has a global Hanf number.

The relationGM=RC 2 is used as a definition ofG, withM andR defined by integrals of the energy-momentum and Einstein curvature tensors over a particular spacelike surface. Modified field equations then do not admit source-free solutions, in agreement with a strong form of Mach's principle.

In this paper we scrutinize the so called Principle of Local Lorentz Invariance (PLLI) that many authors claim to follow from the Equivalence Principle. Using rigourous mathematics, we introduce in the General Theory of Relativity two classes of reference frames (PIRFs and LLRFγs) which as natural generalizations of the concept of the inertial reference frames of the Special Relativity Theory. We show that it is the class of the LLRFγs that is associated with the PLLI. Next we (...) give a definition of physically equivalent reference frames. Then, we prove that there are models of General Relativity Theory (in particular on a Friedmann universe) where the PLLI is false. However our finding is not in contradiction with the many experimental claims vindicating the PLLI, because theses experiments do not have enough accuracy to detect the effect we found. We prove moreover that PIRFs are not physically equivalent. (shrink)

This book focuses on Albert Einstein and his interactions with, and responses to, various scientists, both famous and lesser-known. It takes as its starting point that the discussions between Einstein and other scientists all represented a contribution to the edifice of general relativity and relativistic cosmology. These scientists with whom Einstein implicitly or explicitly interacted form a complicated web of collaboration, which this study explores, focusing on their implicit and explicit responses to Einstein s work. This analysis uncovers latent undercurrents, (...) indiscernible to other approaches to tracking the intellectual pathway of Einstein to his general theory of relativity. The interconnections and interactions presented here reveal the central figures who influenced Einstein during this intellectual period. Despite current approaches to history presupposing that the efforts of scientists such as Max Abraham and Gunnar Nordström, which differed from Einstein s own views, be relegated to the background, this book shows that they all had an impact on the development of Einstein s theories, stressing the limits of approaches focusing solely on Einstein. As such, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries proves that the general theory of relativity was not developed as a single, coherent construction by an isolated, brooding individual, but, rather, that it came to fruition through Einstein's conflicts and interactions with other scientists, and was consolidated by his creative processes during these exchanges. (shrink)

The paper formulates and proves a strengthening of 'Frege's Theorem', which states that axioms for second-order arithmetic are derivable in second-order logic from Hume's Principle, which itself says that the number of Fs is the same as the number of Gs just in case the Fs and Gs are equinumerous. The improvement consists in restricting this claim to finite concepts, so that nothing is claimed about the circumstances under which infinite concepts have the same number. 'Finite Hume's Principle' (...) also suffices for the derivation of axioms for arithmetic and, indeed, is equivalent to a version of them, in the presence of Frege's definitions of the primitive expressions of the language of arithmetic. The philosophical significance of this result is also discussed. (shrink)

Einstein's conform-invariant light metrics g'ik=(WiklmWiklm)1/2 glk imply a Machian cosmology and exclude conformally flat space-times.

A survey is given of the concepts of interaction (force) and matter, i.e., of process and substance. The development of these concepts, first in antiquity, then in early modern times, and finally in the contemporary system of quantum field theory is described. After a summary of the basic phenomenological attributes (coupling strengths, symmetry quantities, charges), the common ground of concepts of quantum field theory for both interactions and matter entities is discussed. Then attention is focused on the gauge principle (...) which has been developed to describe all interaction fields in the same way, and hopefully to unite them all into one unified field. While a similar unification of all fundamental types of matter fields (quarks and leptons) into one family may be possible (SU 5), there still remains at this level a duality between interaction quanta (bosons with spin 1) and matter particles (fermions with spin 1/2). Whether this duality may be removed in some future supersymmetric theory is not discussed in this paper. Nor is Quantum Gravitation discussed, though the analogy of the gauge principle for the three fundamental non-gravitational interactions (hadronic, electromagnetic and weak) to Einstein's principle of equivalence for gravitation in spacetime is noted. However, the equivalence concept is applied not to spacetime but to the internal spaces for the matter (or charge) fields which are the sources between which the fundamental interactions operate. The gauge principle states that a change in the measures of the internal space charge of gauge or phases of the matter fields is equivalent to, and can be compensated by, suitably introduced interaction fields. From such an interaction field, the gauge potential field in the internal space, one may derive a gauge force field by exterior differentiation.Geometrically, the collection of all internal spaces, one over each point of spacetime, constitutes a fiber bundle. The gauge potential field represents a connection on the fiber bundle, and the gauge force field is the curvature (calculated by taking the exterior derivative of the connection and adding to it the exterior product of the connection with itself). Thus, just as gravitational force is interpreted as spacetime curvature, so the three other fundamental forces are interpretable as internal space curvature. The Standard Model which unites the three non-gravitational fields into an SU c 3 ×SU 2×U 1 structure, and the grand unified model, SU 5, are discussed briefly, and difficulties are noted. Finally it is suggested that a composite model, based on more subtle structure, may be needed to remove the present obscurities and difficulties that stand in the way of a unified theory. (shrink)

The relation between Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein is probably one of the most debated issues in the history of twentieth century physics. For many physicists general relativity is the paradigm ofhow a mature theory should look. This opinion was supported by philosophers, in particular logical empiricists, to whom general relativity was the main touchstone of their principles of theory formation. Mach’s principle penetrates all three domains. Einstein’s first formulation of it in 1918 read: “The G-field is without (...) remainder determined by the masses of the bodies. Since mass and energy are... the same.. .this therefore entails that the G-field be condi tioned and determined by the energy tensor”. (shrink)

What if gravity satisfied the Klein-Gordon equation? Both particle physics from the 1920s-30s and the 1890s Neumann-Seeliger modification of Newtonian gravity with exponential decay suggest considering a "graviton mass term" for gravity, which is _algebraic_ in the potential. Unlike Nordström's "massless" theory, massive scalar gravity is strictly special relativistic in the sense of being invariant under the Poincaré group but not the 15-parameter Bateman-Cunningham conformal group. It therefore exhibits the whole of Minkowski space-time structure, albeit only indirectly concerning volumes. Massive (...) scalar gravity is plausible in terms of relativistic field theory, while violating most interesting versions of Einstein's principles of general covariance, general relativity, equivalence, and Mach. Geometry is a poor guide to understanding massive scalar gravity: matter sees a conformally flat metric due to universal coupling, but gravity also sees the rest of the flat metric in the mass term. What is the 'true' geometry, one might wonder, in line with Poincaré's modal conventionality argument? Infinitely many theories exhibit this bimetric 'geometry,' all with the total stress-energy's trace as source; thus geometry does not explain the field equations. The irrelevance of the Ehlers-Pirani-Schild construction to a critique of conventionalism becomes evident when multi-geometry theories are contemplated. Much as Seeliger envisaged, the smooth massless limit indicates underdetermination of theories by data between massless and massive scalar gravities---indeed an unconceived alternative. At least one version easily could have been developed before General Relativity; it then would have motivated thinking of Einstein's equations along the lines of Einstein's newly re-appreciated "physical strategy" and particle physics and would have suggested a rivalry from massive spin 2 variants of General Relativity. The Putnam-Grünbaum debate on conventionality is revisited with an emphasis on the broad modal scope of conventionalist views. Massive scalar gravity thus contributes to a historically plausible rational reconstruction of much of 20th-21st century space-time philosophy in the light of particle physics. An appendix reconsiders the Malament-Weatherall-Manchak conformal restriction of conventionality and constructs the 'universal force' influencing the causal structure. Subsequent works will discuss how massive gravity could have provided a template for a more Kant-friendly space-time theory that would have blocked Moritz Schlick's supposed refutation of synthetic _a priori_ knowledge, and how Einstein's false analogy between the Neumann-Seeliger-Einstein modification of Newtonian gravity and the cosmological constant \Lambda generated lasting confusion that obscured massive gravity as a conceptual possibility. (shrink)

According to the Einstein-Mayer theory of the Riemanniann space-time with Einstein-Cartan teleparallelism, the local Lorentz invariance is broken by the gravitational field defining Machian reference systems. This breaking of symmetry implies the occurrence of “hidden matter” in the Einstein equations of gravity. The hidden matter is described by the non-Lorentz-invariant energy-momentum tensor $\hat \Theta _{ik}$ satisfying the relation $\hat \Theta _{i;k}^k = 0$ . The tensor $\hat \Theta _{ik}$ is formed from the Einstein-Cartan torsion field given by the anholonomy objects, (...) FAik=2hA[i,k], and appears together with Hilbert’s energy-momentum tensor T* ik and Poincaré’s pressure λgik on the right-hand side of Einstein’s equations so that one has $$R_{ik} - (1/2)g_{ik} R = - \kappa T*_{ik} - \lambda g_{ik} - \hat \Theta _{ik}$$ According to this theory, in the universe and in cosmic systems one must excep “invisible masses” described by the Poincaré and Einstein-Cartan terms to exist. The torsion field FAik makes the space-time a Machian universe; it is of the same nature as the “weak interacting matter” discussed in astrophysics. (shrink)

Decompositional equivalence is the principle that there is no preferred decomposition of the universe into subsystems. It is shown here, by using a simple thought experiment, that quantum theory follows from decompositional equivalence together with Landauer’s principle. This demonstration raises within physics a question previously left to psychology: how do human—or any—observers identify or agree about what constitutes a “system of interest”?

Empirical and theoretical evidence show that the astrophysical problem of dark matter might be solved by a theory of Einstein-Mayer type. In this theory, up to global Lorentz rotations, the reference system is determined by the motion of cosmic matter. Thus, one is led to a “Riemannian space with teleparallelism” realizing a geometric version of the Mach-Einstein doctrine. The field equations of this gravitational theory contain hidden matter terms, where the existence of hidden matter is inferred solely from its gravitational (...) effects. It is argued that, in the nonrelativistic mechanical approximation, they provide an inertia-free mechanics, where the inertial mass of a body is induced by the gravitational action of the comic masses. Interpreted from the Newtonian point of view, this mechanics shows that the effective gravitational mass of astrophysical objects depends on r such that one expects the existence of dark matter. (shrink)

Chs. 9 convert the two basic forms of slingshot argument—one used by Alonzo Church, W. V. Quine, and Donald Davidson, the other by Kurt Gödel—into knock‐down deductive proofs that Donald Davidson's and Richard Rorty's cases against facts and the representation of facts are unfounded, and their slingshot arguments for discrediting the existence of facts unsatisfactory. The proofs are agnostic on key semantic issues; in particular, they assume no particular account of reference and do not even assume that sentences have references. (...) Using the same procedure as in Chs. 8 and 9 shows that a slingshot argument engendered by Gödel's suggestions can be converted into a proof that delivers an exacting constraint on non‐extensional discourse—the Descriptive Constraint—and that is more general than anything Gödel appears to have had in mind. The proof of this constraint is constructed without appeal to logical equivalences, without assuming that a semantic theory must treat sentences as having references, without presupposing anything contentious about the semantics of singular terms, and without commitment to any particular semantics for definite descriptions. A constraint on facts, situations, states of affairs, and propositions—indeed on anything that is expressed or represented sententially—drops out as a trivial consequence of a constraint on non‐extensional discourse. The three sections of the chapter are: Principles of Conversion for Descriptions; Gödel's Proof in Quinean Format; and A Stronger Slingshot? (shrink)

In the paper we compare three principles accounting for correlations, namely Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle, Bell's Local Causality Principle, and Einstein's Reality Criterion and relate them to the Bell inequalities. We show that there are two routes connecting the principles to the Bell inequalities. In case of Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and Bell's Local Causality Principle one assumes a non-conspiratorial joint common cause for a set of correlations. In case of Einstein's Reality Criterion one assumes strongly (...) non-conspiratorial separate common causes for a set of perfect correlations. Strongly non-conspiratorial separate common causes for perfect correlations, however, form a non-conspiratorial joint common cause. Hence the two routes leading the Bell inequalities meet. (shrink)

Leibniz’s conception of the relativity of motion has been discussed at length for a very long time. This paper doesn’t aim to give a full solution to this question, but to contribute to the debate by clarifying how the principle of relativity is introduced, justified and used in the “Dynamica”. Four different principles are identified : one purely geometrical, and three (meta) physical principles, which express God’s wisdom : a principle of equivalence of hypotheses linked to the (...) action/reaction principle, a Galilean principle of relativity and a general principle which apply not only to rectilinear motions but also to circular ones. I argue that to appreciate the coherence of Leibniz’ approach, we should distinguish these principles more sharply than he himself did and pay more attention to their status : are they consequences of the definition of motion, consequences of the physical laws or necessary conditions for any physical theory? (shrink)

What are the limits of physical computation? In his ‘Church’s Thesis and Principles for Mechanisms’, Turing’s student Robin Gandy proved that any machine satisfying four idealised physical ‘principles’ is equivalent to some Turing machine. Gandy’s four principles in effect define a class of computing machines (‘Gandy machines’). Our question is: What is the relationship of this class to the class of all (ideal) physical computing machines? Gandy himself suggests that the relationship is identity. We do not share this view. We (...) will point to interesting examples of (ideal) physical machines that fall outside the class of Gandy machines and compute functions that are not Turing-machine computable. (shrink)

A cornerstone of physics, Maxwell‘s theory of electromagnetism, apparently contains a fatal flaw. The standard expressions for the electromagnetic field energy and the self-mass of an electron of finite extension do not obey Einstein‘s famous equation, \, but instead fulfill this relation with a factor 4/3 on the left-hand side. Furthermore, the energy and momentum of the electromagnetic field associated with the charge fail to transform as a four-vector. Many famous physicists have contributed to the debate of this so-called 4/3-problem (...) without arriving at a complete solution. It has generally been assumed that, as originally suggested by Poincaré, the problems are connected to the question of stability of the charge distribution, and that relativistic equivalence between energy and self-mass can only be restored by inclusion of stabilizing forces. Alternative solutions to the problems have also been proposed. Nearly a century ago Fermi suggested a covariant definition of the electromagnetic energy and momentum, and sixty years later Kalckar et al. argued that the 4/3 problem is caused by omission of a relativistic correction in the standard evaluation of the self-force from Coulomb self-interaction. However, the relation between these suggestions has not been clear. We show that the relativistic correction implies that the mechanical momentum of an accelerated rigid body must be defined as the sum of the momenta of its parts for fixed time in the momentary rest frame of the body. For the total momentum of particles and field to be conserved, the total energy–momentum tensor must be divergence free, and this then requires that the momentum of the associated electromagnetic field be defined in the same way, consistent with the suggestion by Fermi. This comprehensive solution of the 4/3-problem demonstrates that there is no conflict of Maxwell‘s theory with special relativity and the questions of equivalence of electromagnetic energy and self-mass and of stability of a classical charge distribution are independent. In appendices we discuss the relations of our treatment with Fermi‘s seminal paper and with a classic paper by Dirac where he evaluated the damping self-force on a point electron from transport of energy and momentum in the electromagnetic field. (shrink)

The claim that the free energy principle is somehow related to Hamilton’s principle in statistical mechanics is ubiquitous throughout the subject literature. However, the exact nature of this relationship remains unclear. According to some sources, the free energy principle is merely similar to Hamilton’s principle of stationary action; others claim that it is either analogous or equivalent to it, while yet another part of the literature espouses the claim that it is a version of Hamilton’s (...) class='Hi'>principle. In this article, we aim to clarify the nature of the relationship between the two principles by investigating the two most likely interpretations of the claims that can be found in the subject literature. According to the strong interpretation, the two principles are equivalent and apply to the same subset of physical phenomena; according to the weak interpretation, the two principles are merely analogous to each other by virtue of their similar formal structures. As we show, adopting the stronger reading would lead to a dilemma that is untenable for the proponents of the free energy principle, thus supporting the adoption of the weaker reading for the relationship between the two constructs. (shrink)