Paper detail

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.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.