Abstract:I critically discuss two dogmas of the "dynamical approach" to spacetime in general relativity, as advanced by Harvey Brown [Physical Relativity (2005) Oxford:Oxford University Press] and collaborators. The first dogma is that positing a "spacetime geometry" has no implications for the behavior of matter. The second dogma is that postulating the "Strong Equivalence Principle" suffices to ensure that matter is "adapted" to spacetime geometry. I conclude by discussing "spacetime functionalism". The discussion is presented in reaction to and sympathy with recent work by James Read ["Explanation, geometry, and conspiracy in relativity theory"(20??) Thinking about Spacetime. Boston: Birkauser].
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problems that this paper attempts to solve mainly focus on the relationship between spacetime geometry and matter dynamics in general relativity. Specifically, the author James Owen Weatherall discusses and criticizes two "dogmas" in the dynamical approach:
1. **The first dogma**: Assume that a "spacetime geometry" has no influence on the behavior of matter.
2. **The second dogma**: Assume that the "strong equivalence principle" is sufficient to ensure that matter adapts to spacetime geometry.
### Specific content of the problem
#### Discussion of the first dogma
The first dogma holds that assuming a specific spacetime geometric structure should not be considered to have any consequences for the dynamics of matter. Brown et al. (2005) proposed that the dynamic behavior of matter is independent of spacetime geometry, so spacetime geometry alone cannot explain the behavior of photons, small objects, or measuring instruments (such as "rods and clocks").
However, Weatherall questions this view. He believes that assuming a specific spacetime geometric structure actually means that the dynamics of matter must adapt to this geometric structure. For example, in Maxwell's theory, the electromagnetic field equations describe how physical quantities such as length and angle are represented by the metric. Therefore, assuming that spacetime has a certain geometric structure is actually asserting that these geometric relationships are precisely the relationships on which the dynamics of matter depend.
#### Discussion of the second dogma
The second dogma involves the "strong equivalence principle", that is, assuming that this principle is sufficient to ensure that matter adapts to spacetime geometry. Weatherall points out that this assumption has not been fully explored in the literature. He proposes that relying solely on the strong equivalence principle cannot fully explain how matter adapts to spacetime geometry, and more detailed conditions are required to explain this.
### Summary
By criticizing these two dogmas, Weatherall attempts to clarify the difference between the geometrical view and the dynamical view in general relativity and emphasizes that the relationship between them may be closer than previously thought. He also discusses "spacetime functionalism", which is a view that considers spacetime as the role played by whatever defines the structure of local inertial frames.
### Formula examples
The formulas involved in the paper are mainly the basic equations in general relativity, such as the Einstein equation:
\[ R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2} R g_{ab} + \Lambda g_{ab} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{ab} \]
where:
- \( R_{ab} \) is the Ricci curvature tensor,
- \( R \) is the Ricci scalar,
- \( g_{ab} \) is the metric tensor,
- \( \Lambda \) is the cosmological constant,
- \( T_{ab} \) is the stress - energy tensor.
In addition, there are also some discussions about matter field equations, such as Maxwell's equations and the Klein - Gordon equation.
### Conclusion
The main purpose of this paper is to re - examine the relationship between the geometrical view and the dynamical view in general relativity by criticizing the two dogmas of dynamism and propose that a more precise definition of how matter adapts to spacetime geometry is needed. This helps to better understand the fundamental problems of general relativity.