Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-v47t2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T02:20:24.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Algebraic Fields and the Dynamical Approach to Physical Geometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Tushar Menon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brown and Pooley’s ‘dynamical approach’ to physical theories asserts, in opposition to the orthodox position on physical geometry, that facts about physical geometry are grounded in, or explained by, facts about dynamical fields, not the other way round. John Norton has claimed that the proponent of the dynamical approach is illicitly committed to spatiotemporal presumptions in ‘constructing’ space-time from facts about dynamical symmetries. In this article, I present an abstract, algebraic formulation of field theories and demonstrate that the proponent of the dynamical approach is not committed, in special relativity, to the illicit presumptions to which Norton refers.

Type
Physical Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , December 2019 , pp. 1273 - 1283
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am very grateful to Adam Caulton, Harvey Brown, Nick Huggett, Oliver Pooley, James Read, and two anonymous referees for helpful spoken and written feedback.

References

Brown, Harvey R. 2005. Physical Relativity: Spacetime Structure from a Dynamical Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey R., and Pooley, Oliver. 2001. “The Origins of the Spacetime Metric: Bell’s Lorentzian Pedagogy and Its Significance in General Relativity.” In Physics Meets Philosophy at the Plank Scale, ed. Callender, Craig and Huggett, Nick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Harvey R., and Pooley, Oliver. 2006. “Minkowski Space-Time: A Glorious Non-entity.” In The Ontology of Spacetime, ed. Dieks, Dennis. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry. 1984. “Can We Dispense with Space-Time?” In PSA 1984: Proceedings of the 1984 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, ed. Asquith, Peter D. and Kitcher, Philip, 33–90. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Gelfand, I. M., and Naimark, M. A.. 1943. “On the Embedding of Normed Rings into the Ring of Operators in Hilbert Space.” Matematicheskii Sbornik 12:197–213.Google Scholar
Geroch, Robert. 1972. “Einstein Algebras.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 26 (4): 271–75..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, Nick. 2018. “A Philosopher Looks at Non-commutative Geometry.” Unpublished manuscript, PhilSci Archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15432/.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. 2008. “Why Constructive Relativity Fails.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4): 821–34..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pooley, Oliver. 2013. “Substantivalist and Relationist Approaches to Spacetime.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, ed. Batterman, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Syman. 2015. “The Dynamical Approach as Practical Geometry.” Philosophy of Science 82:1152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, David. 2017. “Who’s Afraid of Coordinate Systems? An Essay on the Representation of Spacetime Structure.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B.Google Scholar