Are geometrical trinity of gravity underdetermined?

Abstract

General relativity (GR) describes gravity through the curvature of spacetime. However, there are two equivalents of GR that describe flat spacetimes with gravitational effects attributed to torison or non-metricity. These theories, together with GR, are known as the geometrical trinity of gravity and are said to present a case of underdetermination by Wolf et al. (2024). In this article, I argue against this stance by examining the empirical equivalence and possible interpretations of the trinity. I propose a new framework where the trinity emerge as different gauge-fixed versions of a unifying theory. Thus I contend that the apparent disagreements on spacetime ontology arise from different gauge choices without physical significance, thereby breaking down the underdetermination.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-11-24

Downloads
164 (#146,611)

6 months
164 (#26,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Yitong Zhou
Fudan University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Duality and Ontology.Baptiste Le Bihan & James Read - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13:e12555.
Physical relativity from a functionalist perspective.Eleanor Knox - 2017 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 67:118-124.
The ’Structure’ of Physics.Jill North - 2009 - Journal of Philosophy 106 (2):57–88.
Effective spacetime geometry.Eleanor Knox - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (3):346-356.
Equivalent and Inequivalent Formulations of Classical Mechanics.Thomas William Barrett - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (4):1167-1199.

View all 15 references / Add more references