Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T18:45:25.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GR as a classical spin-2 theory?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2023

Niels Linnemann ,
Chris Smeenk  and
Mark Robert Baker
Niels Linnemann*
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
Chris Smeenk
Affiliation:
Rotman Institute of Philosophy/Western University
Mark Robert Baker
Affiliation:
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
*
Corresponding author: Niels Linnemann; Email: niels.linnemann@unige.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The self-interaction spin-2 approach to general relativity (GR) has been extremely influential in the particle physics community. Leaving no doubt regarding its heuristic value, we argue that a view of the metric field of GR as nothing but a stand-in for a self-coupling field in flat spacetime runs into a dilemma: either the view is physically incomplete in so far as it requires recourse to GR after all, or it leads to an absurd multiplication of alternative viewpoints on GR rendering any understanding of the metric field as nothing but a spin-2 field in flat spacetime unjustified.

Type
Contributed Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 90 , Issue 5 , December 2023 , pp. 1363 - 1373
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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

Ashtekar, Abhay. 1991. Lectures on Non-perturbative Canonical Gravity. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark R. 2021. “Canonical Noether and the Energy-Momentum Non-uniqueness Problem in Linearized Gravity.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 38 (9):095007.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark R., Kiriushcheva, Natalia, and Kuzmin, Sergei. 2021. “Noether and Hilbert (Metric) Energy–Momentum Tensors Are Not, In General, Equivalent.” Nuclear Physics B 962:115240.Google Scholar
Barceló, Carlos, Carballo-Rubio, Raúl, and Garay, Luis J.. 2014. “Unimodular Gravity and General Relativity from Graviton Self-Interactions.” Physical Review D 89 (12):124019.Google Scholar
Boulanger, Nicolas, Damour, Thibault, Gualtieri, Leonardo, and Henneaux, Marc. 2001. “Inconsistency of Interacting, Multi-graviton Theories.” Nuclear Physics B 597 (1–3):127–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, Luke M. 2012. “The Localisation of Gravitational Energy, Momentum, and Spin.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Crowther, Karen and Linnemann, Niels. 2019. “Renormalizability, Fundamentality, and a Final Theory: The Role of UV-Completion in the Search for Quantum Gravity.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (2):377–406.Google Scholar
Fang, J. and Fronsdal, Christian. 1979. “Deformations of Gauge Groups. Gravitation.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 20 (11):2264–71.Google Scholar
Huggett, Nick and Vistarini, Tiziana. 2015. “Deriving General Relativity from String Theory.” Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1163–74.Google Scholar
Huggett, Nick and Wüthrich, Chris. forthcoming. Out of Nowhere: The Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Theories of Gravity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Padmanabhan, Thanu. 2008. “From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality.” International Journal of Modern Physics D 17 (03n04):367–98Google Scholar
Pitts, J. Brian. 2022. “What Represents Space-Time? And What Follows for Substantivalism vs. Relationalism and Gravitational Energy?” In The Foundations of Spacetime Physics: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Antonio Vassallo, 79–107. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Salimkhani, Kian. 2020. “The Dynamical Approach to Spin-2 Gravity.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 72:29–45.Google Scholar
Wald, Robert M. 1986. “Spin-Two Fields and General Covariance.” Physical Review D 33 (12):3613.Google Scholar