On the Explanation of Inertia

Sús, Adán

doi:10.1007/s10838-014-9246-8

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One is left wondering if what really motivates Brown's claims about inertia is not that the geodesic principle is a theorem in GR, but that the metric and associated derivative operator in GR are dynamical. This, at least, is whatSus (2014), in defending…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservation, inertia, and spacetime geometry

Weatherall

2019

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As Harvey Brown emphasizes in his book Physical Relativity, inertial motion in general relativity is best understood as a theorem, and not a postulate. Here I discuss the status of the "conservation condition", which states that the energy-momentum tensor associated with non-interacting matter is covariantly divergence-free, in connection with such theorems. I argue that the conservation condition is best understood as a consequence of the differential equations governing the evolution of matter in general relativity and many other theories. I conclude by discussing what it means to posit a certain spacetime geometry and the relationship between that geometry and the dynamical properties of matter.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…I do not want to quibble over these words, and I tend to agree with the thrust of his arguments. Sus (2014), meanwhile, has maintained that despite the result discussed above, it is nonetheless the case that the explanation one gets in GR is "more dynamical". I will return to these arguments in section 6.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Conservation, inertia, and spacetime geometry

Weatherall

2019

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is often argued that inertial motion is already explained by the geodesic principle in General Relativity, which holds that inertial motion can be derived from Einstein's field equations (Brown, ; Ehlers & Geroch, ; Geroch & Jang, ; Geroch & Weatherall, manuscript; Weatherall, ). Whether the geodesic theorem indeed succeeds in removing the need of postulating inertial motion is controversial (Malament, ; Sus, manuscript; Tamir, ; Yang, ), but even if it does succeed, a deeper explanation may be gained from certain theories in which not only spacetime but also gravity itself is emergent.

Why does spacetime emerge with 3+1 dimensions?

…”

Section: Questions We Hope the Emergent Spacetime Research Programme mentioning

confidence: 99%

The metaphysics of emergent spacetime theories

Martens

2019

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate concerning the ontological status of spacetime is standardly construed as a dilemma between substantivalism and relationalism. I argue that a trilemma is more appropriate, emergent spacetime theories being the third category. Traditional philosophical arguments do not distinguish between emergent spacetime and substantivalism. It is arguments from physics that suggest giving up substantivalism in favour of emergent spacetime theories. The remaining new dilemma is between emergent spacetime and relationalism. I provide a list of questions, which one should consider when discussing emergent spacetime theories, and apply them to a quantum superfluid toy model of emergent spacetime.

show abstract

“…Instead, I will argue that one can capture the substance of the link between geometry and motion directly as an assertion about the 1 For a recent review of the physics literature on this subject, see Poisson et al (2011); for other recent work, see Asada et al (2011), Gralla and Wald (2011), and the contributions to Puetzfeld et al (2015). For the recent philosophical literature, which generally stems from a discussion of the geodesic principle by Brown (2005), see Malament (2012a), Tamir (2012), Sus (2014), Samaroo (2015), Lehmkuhl (2017b,a), and Weatherall (2011bWeatherall ( , 2017b.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geometry and Motion in General Relativity

Weatherall

2020

Einstein Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A classic problem in general relativity, long studied by both physicists and philosophers of physics, concerns whether the geodesic principle may be derived from other principles of the theory, or must be posited independently. In a recent paper [Geroch & Weatherall, "The Motion of Small Bodies in Space-Time", Comm. Math. Phys. (forthcoming)], Bob Geroch and I have introduced a new approach to this problem, based on a notion we call "tracking". In the present paper, I situate the main results of that paper with respect to two other, related approaches, and then make some preliminary remarks on the interpretational significance of the new approach. My main suggestion is that "tracking" provides the resources for eliminating "point particles"-a problematic notion in general relativity-from the geodesic principle altogether. This link is sometimes called the geodesic principle; it is analogous to Newton's first law of motion. Because of its centrality to the interpretation of spacetime geometry in

show abstract

On the Explanation of Inertia

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Conservation, inertia, and spacetime geometry

Conservation, inertia, and spacetime geometry

The metaphysics of emergent spacetime theories

Geometry and Motion in General Relativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About