structural explanations in Minkowski spacetime

Space, Time, and Spacetime, 2010

Theoria, 2020

The question about the relation between spacetime structure and the symmetries of laws has received renewed attention in a recent discussion about the status of Minkowski spacetime in Special Relativity. In that context we find two extreme positions (either spacetime explains symmetries of laws or vice-versa) and a general assumption about the debate being mainly about explanation. The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to argue that the ontological dimension of the debate cannot be ignored; second, to claim that taking ontology into account involves considering a third perspective on the relation between spacetime and symmetries of laws; one in which both terms would be somehow derived from common assumptions on the formulation of a given physical theory. RESUMEN: La pregunta sobre la relación entre las simetrías epaciotemporales y las simetrías de las leyes ha recibido atención renovada en la reciente discusión sobre el estatus de la métrica de Minkowsi en la Teoría de la Relatividad Especial. En ese contexto, encontramos dos posiciones extremas (o bien las simetrías espaciotem-porales explican las simetrías de las leyes o viceversa) y el supuesto general de que el debate tiene que ver prima-riamente con la cuestión de la prioridad explicativa. El objetivo de este artículo es doble: primero, argumentar que la dimensión ontológica del debate no puede ser ignorada; segundo, defender que atender a esta dimensión implica considerar una tercera perspectiva sobre la relación entre espaciotiempo y simetrías, en la cual ambos términos se derivarían de los presupuestos implicados en la formulación de cierta teoría física.

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2007

Phenomena like rod contractions and clocks retardations have attracted the attention of philosophers since the publication of Einstein's original paper on special relativity (SR). Very often, the main question that has been raised about such relativistic effects is: are they real?

Brown have driven a prominent recent debate concerning the direction of an alleged arrow of explanation between Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance of dynamical laws in special relativity. In this article, I critically assess this controversy with the aim of clarifying the explanatory foundations of the theory. First, I show that two assumptions shared by the parties—that the dispute is independent of issues concerning spacetime ontology, and that there is an urgent need for a constructive interpretation of special relativity—are problematic and negatively affect the debate. Second, I argue that the whole discussion relies on a misleading conception of the link between Minkowski spacetime structure and Lorentz invari-ance, a misconception that in turn sheds more shadows than light on our understanding of the explanatory nature and power of Einstein's theory. I state that the arrow connecting Lorentz invariance and Minkowski spacetime is not explanatory and uni-directional, but analytic and bidirectional, and that this analytic arrow grounds the chronogeometric explanations of physical phenomena that special relativity offers.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2016

have driven a prominent recent debate concerning the direction of an alleged arrow of explanation between Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance of dynamical laws in special relativity. In this article, I critically assess this controversy with the aim of clarifying the explanatory foundations of the theory. First, I show that two assumptions shared by the parties-that the dispute is independent of issues concerning spacetime ontology, and that there is an urgent need for a constructive interpretation of special relativity-are problematic and negatively affect the debate. Second, I argue that the whole discussion relies on a misleading conception of the link between Minkowski spacetime structure and Lorentz invariance, a misconception that in turn sheds more shadows than light on our understanding of the explanatory nature and power of Einstein's theory. I state that the arrow connecting Lorentz invariance and Minkowski spacetime is not explanatory and unidirectional, but analytic and bidirectional, and that this analytic arrow grounds the chronogeometric explanations of physical phenomena that special relativity offers.

Physics Essays 24, 85 (2011), 2011

The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this space-time model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of space-time as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime continuum in GR is a simple mathematical model and not a physical entity.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Much discussion was inspired by the publication of Harvey Brown's book Physical Relativity and the so-called dynamical approach to Special Relativity there advocated. At the center of the debate there is the question about the nature of the relation between spacetime and laws or, more specifically, between spacetime symmetries and the symmetries of laws. Originally, the relation was mainly assumed to be explanatory and the dispute expressed in terms of the arrow of explanation – whether it goes from spacetime (symmetries) to (symmetries of) laws or vice-versa. Not everybody agreed with a setting that involves leaving ontology out. In a recent turn, the relation has been claimed to be analytical or definitional. In this paper I intend to examine critically this claim and propose a way to generally understand the relation between spacetime symmetries and symmetries of laws as deriving from constitutive principles.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2017

Already in 1835 Lobachevski entertained the possibility of multiple (one might say "rival") geometries of the same type playing a role. This idea of rival geometries has reappeared from time to time (including Poincaré and several 20th century authors) but had yet to become a key idea in space-time philosophy prior to Brown's Physical Relativity. Such ideas are emphasized towards the end of Brown's book, which I suggest as the interpretive key. A crucial difference between Brown's constructivist approach to space-time theory and orthodox "space-time realism" pertains to modal scope. Constructivism takes a broad modal scope in applying (at least) to all local classical field theories-modal cosmopolitanism, one might say, including theories with multiple geometries. By contrast the orthodox view is modally provincial in assuming that there exists a unique geometry, as the familiar theories (Newtonian gravity, Special Relativity, Nordström's gravity, and Einstein's General Relativity) have. These theories serve as the "canon" for the orthodox view. Their historical roles also suggest a Whiggish story of inevitable progress. Physics literature after c. 1920 is relevant to orthodoxy primarily as commentary on the canon, which closed in the 1910s. The orthodox view explains the spatio-temporal behavior of matter in terms of the manifestation of the real geometry of space-time, an explanation works fairly well within the canon. The orthodox view, Whiggish history, and the canon have a symbiotic relationship. If one happens to philosophize about a theory outside the canon, space-time realism sheds little light on the spatio-temporal behavior of matter. Worse, it gives the wrong answer when applied to an example arguably within the canon, a sector of Special Relativity, namely, massive scalar gravity with universal coupling. Which is the true geometry-the flat metric from the Poincaré symmetry group, the conformally flat metric exhibited by material rods and clocks, or both-or is the question faulty? * To appear in the special issue of Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics on Harvey Brown's Physical Relativity 10 years later. How does space-time realism explain the fact that all matter fields see the same curved geometry, when so many ways to mix and match exist? Constructivist attention to dynamical details is vindicated; geometrical shortcuts can disappoint. The more exhaustive exploration of relativistic field theories in particle physics, especially massive theories, is a largely untapped resource for space-time philosophy.

We put forward a new view of relativity theory that makes the existence of a flow of time compatible with the four-dimensional block universe. To this end, we apply the creation-discovery view elaborated for quantum mechanics to relativity theory and in such a way that time and space become creations instead of discoveries and an underlying non temporal and non spatial reality comes into existence. We study the nature of this underlying non temporal and non spatial reality and reinterpret many aspects of the theory within this new view. We show that data of relativistic measurements are sufficient to derive the three-dimensionality of physical space. The nature of light and massive entities is reconsidered, and an analogy with human cognition is worked out.

While the relation between visualization and scientific understanding has been a topic of long-standing discussion, recent developments in physics have pushed the boundaries of this debate to new and still unexplored realms. For it is claimed that, in certain theories of quantum gravity, spacetime 'disappears': and this suggests that one may have sensible physical theories in which spacetime is completely absent. This makes the philosophical question whether such theories are intelligible, even more pressing. And if such theories are intelligible, the question then is how they manage to do so. In this paper, we adapt the contextual theory of scientific understanding, developed by one of us, to fit the novel challenges posed by physical theories without spacetime. We construe understanding as a matter of skill rather than just knowledge. The appeal is thus to understanding, rather than explanation, because we will be concerned with the tools that scientists have at their disposal for understanding these theories. Our central thesis is that such physical theories can provide scientific understanding, and that such understanding does not require spacetimes of any sort. Our argument consists of four consecutive steps: (a) We argue, from the general theory of scientific understanding, that although visualization is an oft-used tool for understanding, it is not a necessary condition for it; (b) we criticise certain metaphysical preconceptions which can stand in the way of recognising how intelligibility without spacetime can be had; (c) we catalogue tools for rendering theories without a spacetime intelligible; and (d) we give examples of cases in which understanding is attained without a spacetime, and explain what kind of understanding these examples provide.