Advertisement

Indeterminism, Gravitation, and Spacetime Theory

  • Samuel C. Fletcher
Conference paper
Part of the European Studies in Philosophy of Science book series (ESPS, volume 6)

Abstract

Contemporary discussions of physical determinism that engage with modern spacetime and gravitational theory have typically focused on the question of the global uniqueness of solutions for initial-value problems. In this chapter I investigate the violation of local uniqueness, found in examples like Norton’s dome, which are not typically considered in light of spacetime theory. In particular, I construct initial trajectories for massive particles whose worldlines are not uniquely determined from initial data, both for a charged particle in special relativistic electromagnetism and for a freely falling particle in pure general relativity. I also show that the existence of such examples implies the violation of the Strong Energy Condition, and consider their implications for the interpretation of spacetime theory.

Keywords

Test Particle Spacetime Structure Strong Energy Condition Timelike Vector Geodesic Motion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agarwal, R.P., and V. Lakshmikantham. 1993. Uniqueness and nonuniqueness criteria for ordinary differential equations. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnol’d, Vladimir. 1992. Ordinary differential equations (Translation: Cooke, R.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Brighouse, Carolyn. 1994. Spacetime and holes. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1994, 117–125.Google Scholar
  4. Curiel, Erik and Peter Bokulich. 2012. Singularities and black holes. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/spacetime-singularities/.
  5. Curiel, Erik. 2017. A primer on energy conditions. In Towards a theory of spacetime theories, ed. Dennis Lehmkuhl, Gregor Schiemann, and Erhard Scholz, 43–104. Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Earman, John. 1986. A primer on determinism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Earman, John. 2007. Aspects of determinism in modern physics. In Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol. 2: Philosophy of physics, ed. John Earman and Jeremy Butterfield, 1369–1434. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Einstein, Albert. 1954. What is the theory of relativity? In Ideas and opinions, ed. Albert Einstein, 227–232. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  9. Fletcher, Samuel C. 2012. What counts as a Newtonian system? The view from Norton’s Dome. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2(3): 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoefer, Carl. 2016. Causal Determinism. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/determinism-causal/.
  11. Israel, W. 1960. Relativistic theory of shock waves. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 259: 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malament, David B. 2008. Norton’s slippery slope. Philosophy of Science 75: 799–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malament, David B. 2012. Topics in the foundations of general relativity and newtonian gravitation theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Manchak, John. 2011. What is a physically reasonable space-time? Philosophy of Science 78(3): 410–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merritt, David and Miloš Milosavljević. 2005. Massive black hole binary evolution. Living Reviews in Relativity 8: 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norton, John D. 2003. Causation as folk science. Philosophers’ Imprint 3(4): 1–22.Google Scholar
  17. Norton, John D. 2008. The dome: An unexpectedly simple failure of determinism. Philosophy of Science 75: 786–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Placek, Tomasz. 2014. Branching for general relativists. In Nuel Belnap on indeterminism and free action, ed. Thomas Müller, 191–221. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smoller, J.A., and J.B. Temple. 1997. Shock-waves in general relativity. Contemporary Mathematics 208: 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Strien, Marij. 2014. The Norton dome and the nineteenth century foundations of determinism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 45(1): 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wald, Robert M. 1984. General relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilson, Mark. 2009. Determinism and the mystery of the missing physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Minnesota, Twin CitiesMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Munich Center for Mathematical PhilosophyLudwig Maximilian University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations