Nothing but coincidences: the point-coincidence and Einstein’s struggle with the meaning of coordinates in physics

European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (2):1-64 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In his 1916 review paper on general relativity, Einstein made the often-quoted oracular remark that all physical measurements amount to a determination of coincidences, like the coincidence of a pointer with a mark on a scale. This argument, which was meant to express the requirement of general covariance, immediately gained great resonance. Philosophers such as Schlick found that it expressed the novelty of general relativity, but the mathematician Kretschmann deemed it as trivial and valid in all spacetime theories. With the relevant exception of the physicists of Leiden (Ehrenfest, Lorentz, de Sitter, and Nordström), who were in epistolary contact with Einstein, the motivations behind the point-coincidence remark were not fully understood. Only at the turn of the 1960s did Bergmann (Einstein’s former assistant in Princeton) start to use the term ‘coincidence’ in a way that was much closer to Einstein’s intentions. In the 1980s, Stachel, projecting Bergmann’s analysis onto his historical work on Einstein’s correspondence, was able to show that what he started to call ‘the point-coincidence argument’ was nothing but Einstein’s answer to the infamous ‘hole argument’. The latter has enjoyed enormous popularity in the following decades, reshaping the philosophical debate on spacetime theories. The point-coincidence argument did not receive comparable attention. By reconstructing the history of the argument and its reception, this paper argues that this disparity of treatment is not justified. This paper will also show that the notion that only coincidences are observable in physics marks every critical step of Einstein’s struggle with the meaning of coordinates in physics.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 99,362

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Erich Kretschmann as a proto-logical-empiricist: Adventures and misadventures of the point-coincidence argument.Marco Giovanelli - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (2):115-134.
Hilbert on General Covariance and Causality.Katherine Brading & Thomas Ryckman - 2018 - In David E. Rowe, Tilman Sauer & Scott A. Walter (eds.), Beyond Einstein: Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century. New York, USA: Springer New York. pp. 67-77.
Einstein's hole argument.Alan Macdonald - 2001 - American Journal of Physics 69:223-225.
Einstein, Newton and the empirical foundations of space time geometry.Robert DiSalle - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-05-05

Downloads
35 (#527,341)

6 months
11 (#254,456)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Marco Giovanelli
Università di Torino

References found in this work

What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’.James Owen Weatherall - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (2):329-350.

View all 41 references / Add more references