Researcher profile

J. Brian Pitts

J. Brian Pitts contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
17works
0followers
6topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

17 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Peter Bergmann on Observables in Hamiltonian General Relativity: A Historical-Critical Investigation

The problem of observables and their supposed lack of change has been significant in Hamiltonian quantum gravity since the 1950s. This paper considers the unrecognized variety of ideas about observables in the thought of Peter Bergmann, who invented observables. Whereas initially he required a constrained Hamiltonian formalism to be mathematically equivalent to the Lagrangian, in 1953 Bergmann and Schiller introduced a novel postulate, motivated by facilitating quantum gravity: observables were _invariant_ under transformations generated by _each individual_ first-class constraint. While modern works rely on Bergmann's authority and sometimes speak of "Bergmann observables," he had much to say about observables, plausible but not all consistent or remembered. At times he required observables to be locally defined (not changeless and global); at times he wanted them independent of the Hamiltonian formalism (not essentially involving separate first-class constraints). But typically he took observables to have vanishing Poisson bracket with each first-class constraint, purportedly justified by electrodynamics. He expected observables to be analogous to the transverse true degrees of freedom of electromagnetism. Hence there is no coherent concept of observables which he reliably endorsed. A revised definition of observables that satisfies the requirement that equivalent theories should have equivalent observables using the Rosenfeld-Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator $G$, a tuned sum of first-class constraints that changes the canonical action $\int dt(p\dot{q}-H)$ by a boundary term. Bootstrapping from theory formulations with no first-class constraints, the "external" coordinate symmetry of GR calls for covariance ($4$-dimensional Lie derivative), not invariance ($0$ Poisson bracket), under $G$ (not each first-class constraint).

preprint2022arXiv

What Represents Space-time? And What Follows for Substantivalism \emph{vs.} Relationalism and Gravitational Energy?

The questions of what represents space-time in GR, the status of gravitational energy, the substantivalist-relationalist issue, and the (non)exceptional status of gravity are interrelated. If space-time has energy-momentum, then space-time is substantival. Two extant ways to avoid the substantivalist conclusion deny that the energy-bearing metric is part of space-time or deny that gravitational energy exists. Feynman linked doubts about gravitational energy to GR-exceptionalism; particle physics egalitarianism encourages realism about gravitational energy. This essay proposes a third view, involving a particle physics-inspired non-perturbative split that characterizes space-time with a constant background _matrix_ (not a metric), avoiding the inference from gravitational energy to substantivalism: space-time is (M, eta), where eta=diag(-1,1,1,1) is a spatio-temporally constant numerical signature matrix (already used in GR with spinors). The gravitational potential, bearing any gravitational energy, is g_(munu)(x)-eta (up to field redefinitions), an _affine_ geometric object with a tensorial Lie derivative and a vanishing covariant derivative. This non-perturbative split permits strong fields, arbitrary coordinates, and arbitrary topology, and hence is pure GR by almost any standard. This razor-thin background, unlike more familiar ones, involves no extra gauge freedom and so lacks their obscurities and carpet lump-moving. After a discussion of Curiel's GR exceptionalist rejection of energy conservation, the two traditional objections to pseudotensors, coordinate dependence and nonuniqueness, are explored. Both objections are inconclusive and getting weaker. A literal interpretation of Noether's theorem (infinitely many energies) largely answers Schroedinger's false-negative coordinate dependence problem. Bauer's nonuniqueness (false positive) objection has several answers.

preprint2020arXiv

The Field-Theoretic Approach in General Relativity and Other Metric Theories. A Review

GR and other metric theories of gravity are formulated with an arbitrary auxiliary curved background in a Lagrangian formalism. A new sketch of how to include spinor fields is included. Conserved quantities are obtained using Noether's theorem and expressed as divergences of antisymmetric densities, connecting local perturbations with quasi-local conserved quantities. The background's arbitrariness matches the so-called non-localizability of gravitational energy (infinity of localizations). The formalism has two partly overlapping uses: practical applications of pure GR (with fictitious background) and foundational considerations in which background causality facilitates quantization. The Schwarzschild solution is a primary application. Various possibilities for calculating the mass using surface integration are given. A field-theoretic curved spacetime is given from spatial infinity to the horizon and even to the true singularity. Trajectories of test particles in the Schwarzschild geometry are gauge-dependent in that even breakdowns at the horizon can be suppressed (or generated) by naive gauge transformations. This fact illustrates the auxiliary nature of the background metric and the need for some notion of maximal extension---much as with coordinate transformations in geometric GR. A continuous collapse to a point mass in the field-theoretic framework is given. The field-theoretic method is generalized to arbitrary metric theories in $D$ dimensions. The results are developed in the framework of Lovelock gravity and applied to calculate masses of Schwarzschild-like black holes. The bimetric formalism makes it natural to consider a graviton mass. Babak and Grishchuk's numerical and hence nonperturbative work sheds light on questions of a (dis)continuous massless limit for massive pure spin-2 and the classical (in)stability of spin-2/spin-0 theory.

preprint2016arXiv

Einstein's Physical Strategy, Energy Conservation, Symmetries, and Stability: "but Grossmann & I believed that the conservation laws were not satisfied"

Recent work on the history of General Relativity by Renn, Sauer, Janssen et al. shows that Einstein found his field equations partly by a physical strategy including the Newtonian limit, the electromagnetic analogy, and energy conservation. Such themes are similar to those later used by particle physicists. How do Einstein's physical strategy and the particle physics derivations compare? What energy-momentum complex(es) did he use and why? Did Einstein tie conservation to symmetries, and if so, to which? Einstein used an identity from his assumed linear coordinate covariance x'= Mx to relate it to the canonical tensor. Usually he avoided using matter Euler-Lagrange equations and so was not well positioned to use or reinvent the Herglotz-Mie-Born understanding that the canonical tensor was conserved due to translation symmetries, a result with roots in Lagrange, Hamilton and Jacobi. Whereas Mie and Born were concerned about the canonical tensor's asymmetry, Einstein did not need to worry because his Entwurf Lagrangian is modeled not so much on Maxwell's theory as on a scalar theory. As a result, it also has 3 ghosts, failing a 1920s-30s a priori particle physics stability test with antecedents in Lagrange's and Dirichlet's stability work. This critique of the Entwurf theory can be compared with Einstein's 1915 critique of his Entwurf theory for not admitting rotating coordinates and not getting Mercury's perihelion right. Particle physics also can be useful in the historiography of gravity and space-time. This topic can be a useful case study in the history of science on recently reconsidered questions of presentism, whiggism and the like.

preprint2016arXiv

Permanent Underdetermination from Approximate Empirical Equivalence in Field Theory: Massless and Massive Scalar Gravity, Neutrino, Electromagnetic, Yang-Mills and Gravitational Theories

Classical and quantum field theory provide not only realistic examples of extant notions of empirical equivalence, but also new notions of empirical equivalence, both modal and occurrent. A simple but modern gravitational case goes back to the 1890s, but there has been apparently total neglect of the simplest relativistic analog, with the result that an erroneous claim has taken root that Special Relativity could not have accommodated gravity even if there were no bending of light. The fairly recent acceptance of nonzero neutrino masses shows that widely neglected possibilities for nonzero particle masses have sometimes been vindicated. In the electromagnetic case, there is permanent underdetermination at the classical and quantum levels between Maxwell's theory and the one-parameter family of Proca's electromagnetisms with massive photons, which approximate Maxwell's theory in the limit of zero photon mass. While Yang-Mills theories display similar approximate equivalence classically, quantization typically breaks this equivalence. A possible exception, including unified electroweak theory, might permit a mass term for the photons but not the Yang-Mills vector bosons. Underdetermination between massive and massless (Einstein) gravity even at the classical level is subject to contemporary controversy.

preprint2015arXiv

Space-time Philosophy Reconstructed via Massive Nordström Scalar Gravities? Laws vs. Geometry, Conventionality, and Underdetermination

Klein-Gordon gravity, 1920s-30s particle physics, and 1890s Neumann-Seeliger modified gravity suggest a "graviton mass term" *algebraic* in the potential. Unlike Nordström's "massless" theory, massive scalar gravity is invariant under the Poincaré group but not the 15-parameter conformal group. It thus exhibits the whole Minkowski space-time structure, indirectly for volumes. Massive scalar gravity is plausible as a field theory, but violates Einstein's principles of general covariance, general relativity, equivalence, and Mach. Geometry is a poor guide: matter sees a conformally flat metric due to universal coupling, but gravity sees the rest of the flat metric (on long distances) in the mass term. What is the `true' geometry, in line with Poincaré's modal conventionality argument? Infinitely many theories exhibit this bimetric `geometry,' all with the total stress-energy's trace as source; geometry does not explain the field equations. The irrelevance of the Ehlers-Pirani-Schild construction to conventionalism is evident given multi-geometry theories. As Seeliger envisaged, the smooth massless limit yields underdetermination between massless and massive scalar gravities---an unconceived alternative. One version easily could have been developed before GR; it would have motivated thinking of Einstein's equations along the lines of his newly reappreciated "physical strategy" and suggested a rivalry from massive spin 2 for GR (massless spin 2, Pauli-Fierz 1939). The Putnam-Grünbaum debate on conventionality is revisited given a broad modal scope. Massive scalar gravity licenses a historically plausible rational reconstruction of much of space-time philosophy in light of particle physics. An appendix reconsiders the Malament-Weatherall-Manchak conformal restriction of conventionality and constructs the `universal force' in the null cones.

preprint2015arXiv

Universally Coupled Massive Gravity, III: dRGT-Maheshwari Pure Spin-$2$, Ogievetsky-Polubarinov and Arbitrary Mass Terms

Einstein's equations were derived for a free massless spin-$2$ field using universal coupling in the 1950-70s by various authors; total stress-energy including gravity's served as a source for linear free field equations. A massive variant was likewise derived in the late 1960s by Freund, Maheshwari and Schonberg, and thought to be unique. How broad is universal coupling? In the last decade four $1$-parameter families of massive spin-$2$ theories (contravariant, covariant, tetrad, and cotetrad of almost any density weights) have been derived using universal coupling. The (co)tetrad derivations included 2 of the 3 pure spin-$2$ theories due to de Rham, Gabadadze, and Tolley; those two theories first appeared in the $2$-parameter Ogievetsky-Polubarinov family (1965), which developed the symmetric square root of the metric as a nonlinear group realization. One of the two theories was identified as pure spin-$2$ by Maheshwari in 1971-2, thus evading the Boulware-Deser-Tyutin-Fradkin ghost by the time it was announced. Unlike the previous 4 families, this paper permits _nonlinear_ field redefinitions to build the effective metric. By not insisting in advance on knowing the observable significance of the graviton potential to all orders, one finds that an _arbitrary_ graviton mass term can be derived using universal coupling. The arbitrariness of a universally coupled mass/self-interaction term contrasts sharply with the uniqueness of the Einstein kinetic term. One might have hoped to use universal coupling as a tie-breaking criterion for choosing among theories that are equally satisfactory on more crucial grounds (such as lacking ghosts and having a smooth massless limit). But the ubiquity of universal coupling implies that the criterion doesn't favor any particular theories among those with the Einstein kinetic term.

preprint2014arXiv

A First Class Constraint Generates Not a Gauge Transformation, But a Bad Physical Change: The Case of Electromagnetism

In Dirac-Bergmann constrained dynamics, a first-class constraint typically does not _alone_ generate a gauge transformation. Each first-class constraint in Maxwell's theory generates a change in the electric field E by an arbitrary gradient, spoiling Gauss's law. The secondary constraint p^i,_i=0 still holds, but being a function of derivatives of momenta (mere auxiliary fields), it is not directly about the observable electric field (a function of derivatives of A), which couples to charge. Only a special combination of the two first-class constraints, the Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator G, leaves E unchanged. Likewise only that combination leaves the canonical action invariant---an argument independent of observables. If one uses a first-class constraint to generate instead a canonical transformation, one partly strips the canonical coordinates of physical meaning as electromagnetic potentials, vindicating the Anderson-Bergmann Lagrangian orientation of interesting canonical transformations. The need to keep gauge-invariant q,t-dH/dp=-E-p=0 supports using the gauge generator and primary Hamiltonian rather than the separate first-class constraints and the extended Hamiltonian. Partly paralleling Pons's criticism, it is shown that Dirac's proof that a first-class primary constraint generates a gauge transformation, by comparing evolutions from _identical_ initial data, cancels out and hence fails to detect the alterations made to the initial state. It also neglects the arbitrary coordinates multiplying the secondary constraints _inside_ the canonical Hamiltonian. Thus the gauge-generating property has been ascribed to the primaries alone. Hence the Dirac conjecture about secondary first-class constraints as generating gauge transformations rests upon a false presupposition about primary first-class constraints. Clarity about electromagnetism help with GR.

preprint2014arXiv

Change in Hamiltonian General Relativity from the Lack of a Time-like Killing Vector Field

In General Relativity in Hamiltonian form, change has seemed to be missing, defined only asymptotically, or otherwise obscured at best, because the Hamiltonian is a sum of first-class constraints and a boundary term and thus supposedly generates gauge transformations. Attention to the gauge generator G of Rosenfeld, Anderson, Bergmann, Castellani et al., a specially tuned sum of first-class constraints, facilitates seeing that a solitary first-class constraint in fact generates not a gauge transformation, but a bad physical change in electromagnetism (changing E) or GR. The change spoils the Lagrangian constraints in terms of the physically relevant velocities rather than auxiliary canonical momenta. While Maudlin has defended change in GR much as G. E. Moore resisted skepticism, there remains a need to exhibit the technical flaws in the argument. Insistence on Hamiltonian-Lagrangian equivalence, a theme emphasized by Mukunda, Castellani, Sugano, Pons, Salisbury, Shepley and Sundermeyer among others, holds the key. Taking objective change to be ineliminable time dependence, there is change in vacuum GR just in case there is no time-like vector field satisfying Killing's equation. Throwing away the spatial dependence of GR for convenience, one finds that the time evolution from Hamilton's equations is real change just when there is no time-like Killing vector. Hence change is real and local even in the Hamiltonian formalism. The considerations here resolve the Earman-Maudlin standoff: the Hamiltonian formalism is helpful, and, suitably reformed, it does not have absurd consequences for change. Hence the classical problem of time is resolved, apart from the issue of observables, for which the solution is outlined. The quantum problem of time, however, is not automatically resolved due to issues of quantum constraint imposition.

preprint2011arXiv

The Nontriviality of Trivial General Covariance: How Electrons Restrict 'Time' Coordinates, Spinors (Almost) Fit into Tensor Calculus, and 7/16 of a Tetrad Is Surplus Structure

It is a commonplace that any theory can be written in any coordinates via tensor calculus. But it is claimed that spinors as such cannot be represented in coordinates in a curved space-time. What general covariance means for theories with fermions is thus unclear. In fact both commonplaces are wrong. Though it is not widely known, Ogievetsky and Polubarinov (OP) constructed spinors in coordinates in 1965, helping to spawn nonlinear group representations. Locally, these spinors resemble the orthonormal basis or "tetrad" formalism in the symmetric gauge, but they are conceptually self-sufficient. The tetrad formalism is de-Ockhamized, with 6 extra fields and 6 compensating gauge symmetries. OP spinors, as developed nonperturbatively by Bilyalov, admit any coordinates at a point, but "time" must be listed first: the product of the metric components and the matrix diag(-1,1,1,1) must have no negative eigenvalues to yield a real symmetric square root function of the metric. Thus the admissible coordinates depend on the types and values of the fields. Apart from coordinate order and spinorial two-valuedness, OP spinors form, with the metric, a nonlinear geometric object, with Lie and covariant derivatives. Such spinors avoid a spurious absolute object in the Anderson-Friedman analysis of substantive general covariance. They also permit the gauge-invariant localization of the infinite-component gravitational energy in GR. Density-weighted spinors exploit the conformal invariance of the massless Dirac equation to show that the volume element is absent. Thus instead of a matrix with 16 components, one can use weighted OP spinors coupled to the 9-component symmetric unimodular square root of the conformal metric density. The surprising mildness of the restrictions on coordinates for the Schwarzschild solution is exhibited. (edited)

preprint2011arXiv

Universally Coupled Massive Gravity, II: Densitized Tetrad and Cotetrad Theories

Einstein's equations in a tetrad formulation are derived from a linear theory in flat spacetime with an asymmetric potential using free field gauge invariance, local Lorentz invariance and universal coupling. The gravitational potential can be either covariant or contravariant and of almost any density weight. These results are adapted to produce universally coupled massive variants of Einstein's equations, yielding two one-parameter families of distinct theories with spin 2 and spin 0. The theories derived, upon fixing the local Lorentz gauge freedom, are seen to be a subset of those found by Ogievetsky and Polubarinov some time ago using a spin limitation principle. In view of the stability question for massive gravities, the proven non-necessity of positive energy for stability in applied mathematics in some contexts is recalled. Massive tetrad gravities permit the mass of the spin 0 to be heavier than that of the spin 2, as well as lighter than or equal to it, and so provide phenomenological flexibility that might be of astrophysical or cosmological use.

preprint2010arXiv

Massive Nordström Scalar (Density) Gravities from Universal Coupling

Both particle physics and the 1890s Seeliger-Neumann modification of Newtonian gravity suggest considering a "mass term" for gravity, yielding a finite range due to an exponentially decaying Yukawa potential. Unlike Nordström's "massless" theory, massive scalar gravities are strictly Special Relativistic, being invariant under the Poincaré group but not the conformal group. Geometry is a poor guide to understanding massive scalar gravities: matter sees a conformally flat metric, but gravity also sees the rest of the flat metric, barely, in the mass term. Infinitely many theories exhibit this bimetric 'geometry,' all with the total stress-energy's trace as source. All are new except the Freund-Nambu theory. The smooth massless limit indicates underdetermination of theories by data between massless and massive scalar gravities. The ease of accommodating electrons, protons and other fermions using density-weighted Ogievetsky-Polubarinov spinors in scalar gravity is noted.

preprint2009arXiv

Gauge-Invariant Localization of Infinitely Many Gravitational Energies from All Possible Auxiliary Structures

The problem of finding a covariant expression for the distribution and conservation of gravitational energy-momentum dates to the 1910s. A suitably covariant infinite-component localization is displayed, reflecting Bergmann's realization that there are infinitely many conserved gravitational energy-momenta. Initially use is made of a flat background metric (or rather, all of them) or connection, because the desired gauge invariance properties are obvious. Partial gauge-fixing then yields an appropriate covariant quantity without any background metric or connection; one version is the collection of pseudotensors of a given type, such as the Einstein pseudotensor, in_every_ coordinate system. This solution to the gauge covariance problem is easily adapted to any pseudotensorial expression (Landau-Lifshitz, Goldberg, Papapetrou or the like) or to any tensorial expression built with a background metric or connection. Thus the specific functional form can be chosen on technical grounds such as relating to Noether's theorem and yielding expected values of conserved quantities in certain contexts and then rendered covariant using the procedure described here. The application to angular momentum localization is straightforward. Traditional objections to pseudotensors are based largely on the false assumption that there is only one gravitational energy rather than infinitely many.

preprint2007arXiv

Slightly Bimetric Gravitation

The inclusion of a flat metric tensor in gravitation permits the formulation of a gravitational stress-energy tensor and the formal derivation of general relativity from a linear theory in flat spacetime. Building on the works of Kraichnan and Deser, we present such a derivation using universal coupling and gauge invariance. Next we slightly weaken the assumptions of universal coupling and gauge invariance, obtaining a larger ``slightly bimetric'' class of theories, in which the Euler-Lagrange equations depend only on a curved metric, matter fields, and the determinant of the flat metric. The theories are equivalent to generally covariant theories with an arbitrary cosmological constant and an arbitrarily coupled scalar field, which can serve as an inflaton or dark matter. The question of the consistency of the null cone structures of the two metrics is addressed. A difficulty for Logunov's massive gravitation on this front is noted.

preprint2006arXiv

Absolute Objects and Counterexamples: Jones-Geroch Dust, Torretti Constant Curvature, Tetrad-Spinor, and Scalar Density

James L. Anderson analyzed the novelty of Einstein's theory of gravity as its lack of "absolute objects." Michael Friedman's related work has been criticized by Roger Jones and Robert Geroch for implausibly admitting as absolute the timelike 4-velocity field of dust in cosmological models in Einstein's theory. Using the Rosen-Sorkin Lagrange multiplier trick, I complete Anna Maidens's argument that the problem is not solved by prohibiting variation of absolute objects in an action principle. Recalling Anderson's proscription of "irrelevant" variables, I generalize that proscription to locally irrelevant variables that do no work in some places in some models. This move vindicates Friedman's intuitions and removes the Jones-Geroch counterexample: some regions of some models of gravity with dust are dust-free and so naturally lack a timelike 4-velocity, so diffeomorphic equivalence to (1,0,0,0) is spoiled. Torretti's example involving constant curvature spaces is shown to have an absolute object on Anderson's analysis, viz., the conformal spatial metric density. The previously neglected threat of an absolute object from an orthonormal tetrad used for coupling spinors to gravity appears resolvable by eliminating irrelevant fields. However, given Anderson's definition, GTR itself has an absolute object (as Robert Geroch has observed recently): a change of variables to a conformal metric density and a scalar density shows that the latter is absolute.

preprint2006arXiv

Constrained Dynamics of Universally Coupled Massive Spin 2-spin 0 Gravities

The 2-parameter family of massive variants of Einstein's gravity (on a Minkowski background) found by Ogievetsky and Polubarinov by excluding lower spins can also be derived using universal coupling. A Dirac-Bergmann constrained dynamics analysis seems not to have been presented for these theories, the Freund-Maheshwari-Schonberg special case, or any other massive gravity beyond the linear level treated by Marzban, Whiting and van Dam. Here the Dirac-Bergmann apparatus is applied to these theories. A few remarks are made on the question of positive energy. Being bimetric, massive gravities have a causality puzzle, but it appears soluble by the introduction and judicious use of gauge freedom.

preprint2001arXiv

Light Cone Consistency in Bimetric General Relativity

General relativity can be formally derived as a flat spacetime theory, but the consistency of the resulting curved metric's light cone with the flat metric's null cone has not been adequately considered. If the two are inconsistent, then gravity is not just another field in flat spacetime after all. Here we discuss recent progress in describing the conditions for consistency and prospects for satisfying those conditions.