Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T14:57:37.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Dynamic Shifts Dynamical Symmetries?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2023

Caspar Jacobs Open the ORCID record for Caspar Jacobs [Opens in a new window]
Caspar Jacobs*
Affiliation:
Merton College, University of Oxford, Merton Street, Oxford, United Kingdom
*
Email: caspar.jacobs@merton.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shifts are a well-known feature of the literature on spacetime symmetries. Recently, discussions have focused on so-called dynamic shifts, which by analogy with static and kinematic shifts enact arbitrary linear accelerations of all matter (as well as a change in the gravitational potential). But in mathematical formulations of these shifts, the analogy breaks down: while static and kinematic shift act on the matter field, the dynamic shift acts on spacetime structure instead. I formulate a different, “active,” version of the dynamic shift which does act on matter, and analyse the consequences of this reformulation for Newton–Cartan theory and Maxwell gravitation.

Type
Contributed Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 90 , Issue 5 , December 2023 , pp. 1352 - 1362
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

Alexander, Robert G. 1977. The Leibniz–Clarke Correspondence: With Extracts from Newton’s “Principia” and “Optiks.” New York, NY: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, Thomas W. 2015. “Spacetime Structure.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Curiel, Erik. 2016. “Kinematics, Dynamics, and the Structure of Physical Theory.” arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.02393.Google Scholar
Dewar, Neil. 2018. “Maxwell Gravitation.” Philosophy of Science 85 (2):249–70.10.1086/696387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. 1989. World Enough and Spacetime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1983. Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Huggett, Nick, ed. 1999. Space from Zeno to Einstein: Classic Readings with a Contemporary Commentary. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Knox, Eleanor. 2014. “Newtonian Spacetime Structure in Light of the Equivalence Principle.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (4):863–80.Google Scholar
Malament, David B. 2012. Topics in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Theory. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim. 1993. “Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance.” Philosophy of Science 60 (2):183–203.Google Scholar
Pooley, Oliver. 2013. “Substantivalist and Relationalist Approaches to Spacetime.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, edited by Batterman, Robert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Read, James and Møller-Nielsen, Thomas. 2018. “Motivating Dualities.” Synthese 197 (1):263–91.Google Scholar
Saunders, Simon. 2013. “Rethinking Newton’s Principia.” Philosophy of Science 80 (1):22–48.Google Scholar
Wallace, David. 2020. “Fundamental and Emergent Geometry in Newtonian Physics.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (1):1–32.Google Scholar
Weatherall, James O. 2016. “Maxwell–Huygens, Newton–Cartan, and Saunders–Knox Space-Times.” Philosophy of Science 83 (1):82–92.Google Scholar
Weatherall, James O. 2018. “A Brief Comment on Maxwell(/Newton)[–Huygens] Spacetime.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 63:34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2017.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar