Non-diff theories of dynamical spacetime

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter julian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime Theories
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of formulating a dynamical theory of spacetime geometry that is not invariant under active diffeomorphisms. Participants explore the implications of such a theory on the understanding of gravity and its relationship with spacetime geometry, focusing on theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a dynamical theory of spacetime can exist without invariance under active diffeomorphisms, suggesting that this might imply gravity is treated as a force.
  • Another participant notes that the definition of "active diffeomorphism" is crucial, indicating that some definitions imply the absence of prior geometry, which could limit the discussion.
  • A participant clarifies their understanding of active diffeomorphisms as the ability to manipulate physical fields localized over a spacetime manifold.
  • There is a distinction made between dynamical fields and fixed geometries, with a participant asserting that in special relativity (SR), the geometry is fixed, which affects the nature of active diffeomorphisms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition and implications of active diffeomorphisms, leading to unresolved questions about the nature of dynamical spacetime theories and their invariance properties.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions of active diffeomorphisms and the assumptions regarding the nature of dynamical versus non-dynamical geometries, which remain unresolved.

julian
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
861
Reaction score
366
Is it possible to formulate a dynamical theory of spacetime geometry that isn't invariant under active diffeomorphisms? Or does requiring no invariance under active diffeomorphisms restore of gravity as a force?

If yes, then it makes it difficult to disentangle the issue of active diffeomorphisms from the idea that gravity is dynamical spacetime and allows people to believe the shift in perspective in going from SR to GR is solely to do with geometry being dynamical with matter determining the geomety over which it moves, in doing so dismissing the incredible fact that you can take the grav+matter fields and drag them over the spacetime manifold however you like with the new configuration being physically equivalent to the original one (i.e. active diffeomorphisms)?

Is invariance under active diffeomorphisms down to dynamical geometry + coordinate invariance? Is this why some people dismiss active diffeomorphisms as being coordinate transformations viewed differently?...despite the fact that there is a fundamental differnce between them?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, basically you have to say what you mean by "active diff". Some people define "active diff" = "no prior geometry" in which case it is not possible by definition.
 
By active diff I mean taking all the physical fields that are localised over the blank spacetime manifold and dragging them around however you like.
 
julian said:
By active diff I mean taking all the physical fields that are localised over the blank spacetime manifold and dragging them around however you like.

Sure, even SR is invariant under active diff by that definition.
 
atyy said:
Sure, even SR is invariant under active diff by that definition.

Sorry I meant to say if you drag all DYNAMAICAL fields. In SR the geometry is fixed by the prior given non-dynamical Minkowski metric, the dynamical field might be the Maxwell field for example but deforming that anyway you like will not end in a new solution...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
9K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K