Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T04:26:08.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geodesic Universality in General Relativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Michael Tamir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to recent arguments, the geodesic principle strictly interpreted is compatible with Einstein’s field equations only in pathologically unstable circumstances and, hence, cannot play a fundamental role in the theory. It is shown here that geodesic dynamics can still be coherently reinterpreted within contemporary relativity theory as a universality thesis. By developing an analysis of universality in physics, I argue that the widespread geodesic clustering of diverse free-fall massive bodies observed in nature qualifies as a universality phenomenon. I then show how this near-geodetic clustering can be explained despite the pathologies associated with strict geodesic motion in Einstein’s theory.

Type
General Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 80 , Issue 5 , December 2013 , pp. 1076 - 1088
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks to John Norton, Robert Batterman, and Balázs Gyenis for many helpful conversations.

References

Batterman, R. 2002. The Devil in the Details. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. 2005. “Critical Phenomena and Breaking Drops.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36 (2): 225–44..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. 1987. “The Bakerian Lecture, 1987: Quantum Chaology.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 413 (1844): 183.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J., and Geroch, R.. 2004. “Equation of Motion of Small Bodies in Relativity.” Annals of Physics 309 (1): 232–36..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenbaum, M. 1978. “Quantitative Universality for a Class of Nonlinear Transformations.” Journal of Statistical Physics 19 (1): 25–52..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinton, R., Paruchuri, P., Scerri, P., and Sycara, K.. 2010. “Self-Organized Criticality of Belief Propagation in Large Heterogeneous Teams.” Dynamics of Information Systems 40:165–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gralla, S., and Wald, R.. 2008. “A Rigorous Derivation of Gravitational Self-Force.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 25:205009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenheim, E. 1945. “The Principle of Corresponding States.” Journal of Chemical Physics 13:253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, B., and Mao, J.. 1982. “Period Doubling: Universality and Critical-Point Order.” Physical Review A 25 (6): 3259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadanoff, L. 2000. Statistical Physics: Statics, Dynamics and Renormalization. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadanoff, L., Nagel, S., Wu, L., and Zhou, S.. 1989. “Scaling and Universality in Avalanches.” Physical Review A 39 (12): 6524–37..Google ScholarPubMed
Lise, S., and Paczuski, M.. 2001. “Self-Organized Criticality and Universality in a Nonconservative Earthquake Model.” Physical Review E 63 (3): 036111.Google Scholar
Sole, R., and Manrubia, S.. 1996. “Extinction and Self-Organized Criticality in a Model of Large-Scale Evolution.” Physical Review E 54 (1): 42–45..Google Scholar
Tamir, M. 2012. “Proving the Principle: Taking Geodesic Dynamics Too Seriously in Einstein’s Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43:137–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar