Background Independence, Diffeomorphism Invariance, and the Meaning of Coordinates

In Dennis Lehmkuhl, Gregor Schiemann & Erhard Scholz, Towards a Theory of Spacetime Theories. New York, NY: Birkhauser (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Diffeomorphism invariance is sometimes taken to be a criterion of background independence. This claim is commonly accompanied by a second, that the genuine physical magnitudes (the ``observables'') of background-independent theories and those of background-dependent (non-diffeomorphism-invariant) theories are essentially different in nature. I argue against both claims. Background-dependent theories can be formulated in a diffeomorphism-invariant manner. This suggests that the nature of the physical magnitudes of relevantly analogous theories (one background free, the other background dependent) is essentially the same. The temptation to think otherwise stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of spacetime coordinates in background-dependent theories.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 107,099

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

Background Independence: Lessons for Further Decades of Dispute.Trevor Teitel - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 65:41-54.
Background-independence.Gordon Belot - 2011 - General Relativity and Gravitation 43:2865-2884.
Structuralism in the philosophy of physics.Vincent Lam - 2017 - Philosophy Compass 12 (6):e12421.
Who's afraid of background independence?Dean Rickles - 2008 - In Dennis Geert Bernardus Johan Dieks, The Ontology of Spacetime II. Elsevier. pp. 133--52.
Background theories and total science.P. D. Magnus - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1064-1075.
Can Bohmian mechanics be made background independent?Antonio Vassallo - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 52 (Part B):242-250.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-06-11

Downloads
318 (#96,339)

6 months
15 (#250,098)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Oliver Pooley
University of Oxford

Citations of this work

The Hole Argument.Oliver Pooley - 2022 - In Eleanor Knox & Alastair Wilson, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics. London, UK: Routledge. pp. 145-158.
Who's afraid of coordinate systems? An essay on representation of spacetime structure.David Wallace - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 67:125-136.
Motivating dualities.James Read & Thomas Møller-Nielsen - 2020 - Synthese 197 (1):263-291.
Two miracles of general relativity.James Read, Harvey R. Brown & Dennis Lehmkuhl - 2018 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 64:14-25.
Dualities and emergent gravity: Gauge/gravity duality.Sebastian de Haro - 2017 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 59:109-125.

View all 21 citations / Add more citations