Is change missing in Hamiltonian Einstein–Maxwell theory? Given the most common definition of observables, observables are constants of the motion and nonlocal. Unfortunately this definition also implies that the observables for massive electromagnetism with gauge freedom are inequivalent to those of massive electromagnetism without gauge freedom. The alternative Pons–Salisbury–Sundermeyer definition of observables, aiming for Hamiltonian–Lagrangian equivalence, uses the gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints, rather than each first-class constraint separately, and implies equivalent observables for equivalent massive electromagnetisms. (...) For General Relativity, G generates 4-dimensional Lie derivatives for solutions. The Lie derivative compares different space-time points with the same coordinate value in different coordinate systems, like 1 a.m. summer time versus 1 a.m. standard time, so a vanishing Lie derivative implies constancy rather than covariance. Requiring equivalent observables for equivalent formulations of massive gravity confirms that G must generate the 4-dimensional Lie derivative for observables. These separate results indicate that observables are invariant under internal gauge symmetries but covariant under external gauge symmetries, but can this bifurcated definition work for mixed theories such as Einstein–Maxwell theory? Pons, Salisbury and Shepley have studied G for Einstein–Yang–Mills. For Einstein–Maxwell, both \ and \ are invariant under electromagnetic gauge transformations and covariant under 4-dimensional coordinate transformations. Using the bifurcated definition, these quantities count as observables, as one would expect on non-Hamiltonian grounds. (shrink)

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. By construing change as essential time dependence, one can find change locally in vacuum GR in the Hamiltonian formulation just where it should be. But what if spinors are present? This paper is motivated by the tendency in space-time philosophy tends to (...) slight fermionic/spinorial matter, the tendency in Hamiltonian GR to misplace changes of time coordinate, and the tendency in treatments of the Einstein-Dirac equation to include a gratuitous local Lorentz gauge symmetry along with the physically significant coordinate freedom. Spatial dependence is dropped in most of the paper, both restricting the physical situation and largely fixing the spatial coordinates. In the interest of including all and only the coordinate freedom, the Einstein-Dirac equation is investigated using the Schwinger time gauge and Kibble-Deser symmetric triad condition are employed as a \ version of the DeWitt-Ogievetsky-Polubarinov nonlinear group realization formalism that dispenses with a tetrad and local Lorentz gauge freedom. Change is the lack of a time-like stronger-than-Killing field for which the Lie derivative of the metric-spinor complex vanishes. An appropriate \-friendly form of the Rosenfeld-Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first class-constraints, is shown to change the canonical Lagrangian by a total derivative, implying the preservation of Hamilton’s equations. Given the essential presence of second-class constraints with spinors and their lack of resemblance to a gauge theory, it is useful to have an explicit physically interesting example. This gauge generator implements changes of time coordinate for solutions of the equations of motion, showing that the gauge generator makes sense even with spinors. (shrink)

It is widely held among philosophers that the conservation of energy is true and important, and widely held among philosophers of science that conservation laws and symmetries are tied together by Noether's first theorem. However, beneath the surface of such consensus lie two slights to Noether's first theorem. First, there is a 325+-year controversy about mind-body interaction in relation to the conservation of energy and momentum, with occasional reversals of opinion. The currently popular Leibnizian view, dominant since the late 19th (...) century, claims to find an objection to broadly Cartesian views in their implication of energy non-conservation. Here energy conservation is viewed as an oracle, an unchallengeable black box. But Noether's first theorem and its converse show that conservation and symmetry of the laws stand or fall together. Absent some basis for expecting conservation in brains that has a claim on the Cartesian, the objection is circular. An empirically based argument is possible, but is a different argument with little force except insofar as it is rooted in neuroscience. Second, General Relativity has a 100+-year-long controversy about whether gravitational energy exists and is objectively localized. The usual view is that gravitational energy exists but is not objectively localized, though some deny its existence. Without positive answers to both questions, generally applicable conservation laws do not exist: energy is not conserved. This conclusion is startling in itself and a problem for conserved quantity theories of causation. Yet Noether's first theorem applies to General Relativity, which has uncountably many symmetries of its laws and so has conservation laws, indeed uncountably many of them. Many authors downplay these laws due to their quirky properties; some authors even attempt to explain the laws' supposed nonexistence in terms of an absence of symmetries of the geometry, which is a distraction. Thus Noether's first theorem is widely ignored, left uninterpreted, or distorted in relation to General Relativity. Taking the theorem seriously seems possible, however, restoring the conservation of energy, or rather, energies. How do these controversies relate? One sometimes finds claims that General Relativity's supposed lack of conservation laws answers Leibniz on behalf of Descartes. Taking seriously the superabundance of formal conservation laws in General Relativity, however, suggests that General Relativity resists mind-to-body causation. This conclusion can be proven apart from interpretive controversies. The resistance is, however, finite and tends to be swamped by larger world-view considerations. (shrink)