Abstract
Space and time are central concepts for understanding our World. They are important ingredients at the core of every scientific theory and subject of intense debate in philosophy. Albert Einstein’s Special and General theories of Relativity showed that space and time blend in a single entity called spacetime. Even after a century of its conception, many questions about the nature of spacetime remain controversial. In this chapter, we analyze the ontological status of spacetime from a realistic and materialistic point of view. We start by outlining the well-known controversy between substantivalism and relationalism and the evolution of the debate with the appearance of General Relativity. We analyze how to interpret spacetime as a physical system and how to model its properties in a background-free theory where spacetime itself is dynamical. We discuss the concept of change, energy, and the ontology of spacetime events. In the last section, we review the mereology of spacetime and its relevance in cosmology.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This implies among other things that spacetime is self-interacting.
- 2.
Other geometrical structures are possible for formulating physical theories, e.g. symplectic manifolds for phase space formulation.
- 3.
This is true even in Newtonian physics. In its geometrical formulation, the affine connection is modified in the presence of gravity with a dynamic Cartan connection (Malament, 2006) while maintaining the Euclidean metric structure.
- 4.
Note that these two structures are set by the dynamics of spacetime because the affine connection used is the Levi-Civita connection that is determined by the metric.
- 5.
By a “general thing”, we mean a theory T 1 whose range of applicability is longer than a theory T 2 from where T 2 ⊂ T 1. This implies that the ontology of T 1 is more akin to reality.
- 6.
In this sense, there is a holistic flavor to General Relativity.
- 7.
This is possible assuming that the manifold is well behaved globally.
- 8.
Paraphrasing Pierre Curie, l’asymétrie crée le phénomène.
- 9.
The energy-momentum of a particle is not well-defined, but we can build a tensor in the sense of distributions.
- 10.
In particular, when Λ ≠ 0, the well-defined notion of a null boundary at null infinity is a spacelike surface, and thus there is no preferred way to calculate physical quantities. When spacetime is expanding all notions of infinity are origin-dependent; natural boundaries appear in spacetime known as horizons (Ashtekar and Krishnan 2004).
References
Anderson, J.L. 1967. Principles of Relativity Physics. New York: Academic Press.
Ashtekar, A. 2005. 100 Years of Relativity: Space-Time Structure: Einstein and Beyond. London: World Scientific.
Ashtekar, A., and B. Krishnan. 2004. Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications. Living Reviews in Relativity 7(1): 10.
Ashtekar, A., B. Bonga, and A. Kesavan. 2014. Asymptotics with a positive cosmological constant: I. basic framework. Classical and Quantum Gravity 32(2): 025004.
Baumgarte, T.W., and S.L. Shapiro. 2010. Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer. Cambridge: University Press.
Bekenstein, J.D. 1973. Black holes and entropy. Physical Review D 7(8): 2333.
Bergliaffa, S.P., H. Vucetich, and G.E. Romero. 1993. Axiomatic foundations of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics: A realistic approach. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 32(9): 1507–1522.
Bergliaffa, S.P., G.E. Romero, and H. Vucetich. 1998. Toward an axiomatic pregeometry of space-time. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 37(8): 2281–2298.
Bergmann, P.G., and A.B. Komar. 1960. Poisson brackets between locally defined observables in general relativity. Physical Review Letters 4(8): 432.
Bianchi, E., and C. Rovelli. 2010. Why all these prejudices against a constant? arXiv preprint arXiv:10023966.
Brown. 2005. Physical Relativity: Space-Time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchert, T., M. Carfora, G.F. Ellis, E.W. Kolb, M.A. MacCallum, J.J. Ostrowski, S. Räsänen, B.F. Roukema, L. Andersson, A.A. Coley, et al. 2015. Is there proof that backreaction of inhomogeneities is irrelevant in cosmology? Classical and Quantum Gravity 32(21): 215021.
Buchert, T., A.A. Coley, H. Kleinert, B.F. Roukema, and D.L. Wiltshire. 2016. Observational challenges for the standard FLRW model. International Journal of Modern Physics D 25(3): 1630007.
Bunge, M. 1967. Foundations of Physics. Heidelberg: Springer.
Bunge, M. 1971. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Semantics I: Sense and Reference, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bunge, M. 1973. Is scientific metaphysics possible? In Method, Model and Matter. Heidelberg: Springer, pp 145–159.
Bunge, M. 1977. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Ontology I: the Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Heidelberg: Springer.
Bunge, M. 2010. Matter and Mind: A Philosophical Inquiry. Heidelberg: Springer.
Butterfield, J., and J. Earman. 2006.Philosophy of Physics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Carrera, M., and D. Giulini. 2010. Influence of global cosmological expansion on local dynamics and kinematics. Reviews of Modern Physics 82(1): 169.
Carroll, S.M. 2001. The cosmological constant. Living Reviews in Relativity 4(1): 1.
Clifton, T., G.F. Ellis, and R. Tavakol. 2013. A gravitational entropy proposal. Classical and Quantum Gravity 30(12): 125009
De Felice, F., C.J.S. Clarke. 1992. Relativity on Curved Manifolds. Cambridge University Press.
Einstein, A. 1956. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. London: Crown Publishers.
Ellis, G.F. 2002. Cosmology and local physics. New Astronomy Reviews 46(11): 645–657.
Ellis, G.F. 2011. Inhomogeneity effects in cosmology. Classical and Quantum Gravity 28(16): 164001.
Ellis, G.F., R. Maartens, and M.A. MacCallum. 2012. Relativistic Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esfeld, M., and V. Lam. 2008. Moderate structural realism about space-time. Synthese 160(1): 27–46.
Friedman, M. 1973. Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Giulini, D. 2007. Remarks on the notions of general covariance and background independence. In Approaches to Fundamental Physics. Heidelberg: Springer, pp 105–120.
Giulini, D. 2014. Does cosmological expansion affect local physics? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 46: 24–37
Green, S.R., and R.M. Wald. 2011. New framework for analyzing the effects of small scale inhomogeneities in cosmology. Physical Review D 83(8): 084020.
Green, S.R., and R.M. Wald. 2015. Comments on backreaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:150606452.
Heller, M. 1990. The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-Dimensional Chunks of Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoefer, C. 1996. The metaphysics of space-time substantivalism. The Journal of Philosophy 93(1): 5–27
Howard, D. 2014. Einstein and the development of twentieth-century philosophy of science. In The Cambridge Companion to Einstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 354–376.
Huggett, N., and C. Hoefer. 2018. Absolute and relational theories of space and motion. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, spring 2018 edition, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Jammer, M. 2013. Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics. US: Dover.
Katanaev, M.O. 2013. Point massive particle in General Relativity. General Relativity and Gravitation 45(10): 1861–1875.
Khavkine, I. 2015. Local and gauge invariant observables in gravity. Classical and Quantum Gravity 32(18): 185019.
Korzyński, M. 2015. Nonlinear effects of general relativity from multiscale structure. Classical and Quantum Gravity 32(21): 215013.
Ladyman, J. 2016. Structural realism. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2016 edn, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Landau, L.D. 2013. The Classical Theory of Fields, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lehmkuhl, D. 2011. Mass–energy–momentum: Only there because of spacetime? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62(3): 453–488.
Leibniz, G.W., S. Clarke, and R. Ariew. (2000) Leibniz and Clarke: Correspondence. US: Hackett Publishing Company.
Malament, D.B. 2006. Classical Relativity Theory. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Physics Part A. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp 229–275.
Midwinter, C., and M. Janssen. 2011. Castles in the air: The Einstein-De Sitter Debate, 1916–1918. In APS Meeting Abstracts. US: APS, pV24.001.
Misner, C.W., K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler. 1973. Gravitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Poisson, E. 2004. A Relativist’S Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pons, J.M., Salisbury, D.C. 2005. Issue of time in generally covariant theories and the Komar-Bergmann approach to observables in general relativity. Physical Review D 71(12): 124012
Rynasiewicz, R. 1996. Absolute versus relational space-time: An outmoded debate? The Journal of Philosophy 93(6): 279–306.
Romero, G.E. 2013. From change to spacetime: An eleatic journey. Foundations of Science 18(1): 139–148.
Romero, G.E. 2016. A formal ontological theory based on timeless events. Philosophia 44(2): 607–622.
Romero, G.E. 2017. On the ontology of spacetime: Substantivalism, relationism, eternalism, and emergence. Foundations of Science 22(1): 141–159.
Romero, G.E. 2018. Scientific Philosophy. Heidelber: Springer.
Rovelli. C. 2002. Partial observables. Physical Review D 65(12): 124013.
Rovelli, C. 2004 Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rovelli, C. 2018. Space and time in loop quantum gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:180202382.
Santiago, J., and M. Visser. 2018. Gravity’s universality: The physics underlying Tolman temperature gradients. International Journal of Modern Physics D 27(14): 1846001
Smolin, L. 2006. The case for background independence. In: The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity, eds. D. Rickles, S. French, and J.T. Saatsi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 196–239.
Stachel, J. 2014. The hole argument and some physical and philosophical implications.Living Reviews in Relativity 17(1): 1.
Stachel, J., and M. Iftime. 2005. Fibered manifolds, natural bundles, structured sets, g-sets and all that: The hole story from space time to elementary particles. arXiv preprint arXiv:0505138.
Stachel, J., et al. 2006. Structure, individuality and quantum gravity. In The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–82.
Thorne, K.S., and R.D. Blandford. 2017.Modern Classical Physics: Optics, Fluids, Plasmas, Elasticity, Relativity, and Statistical Physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wald, R.M. 1984. General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wallace, D. 2010. Gravity, entropy, and cosmology: In search of clarity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61(3): 513–540.
Weyl, H. 1922. Space–Time–Matter. US: Dover.
Acknowledgements
I would like to dedicate this contribution to the memory of Mario Bunge. I’m grateful to G.E. Romero for his intellectual guidance, and to Federico Lopez Armengol for many discussions on the nature of spacetime. This work was partially funded by a CONICET fellowship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Dictionary of Technical Terms
Appendix: Dictionary of Technical Terms
In this section, we give some useful definitions regarding spacetime and spacetime symmetries to complement the article.
- Spacetime model :
-
A spacetime model \(M= (\mathcal {M},\mathbf {g})\) is a real, four-dimensional connected C ∞ Hausdorff manifold with no boundaries, with a globally defined C ∞-tensor field g of type (0,2), non-degenerate, and Lorentzian (Wald 1984).
- Affine connection :
-
A covariant derivative in the direction of a vector W, ∇W, is a derivative operator that transforms tensors into tensors. The operator is completely determined through its application to a basis of spacetime e a, in the direction of the same basis
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \nabla_a {\mathbf{e}}_b = \omega^{c}_{ab} {\mathbf{e}}_c. \end{aligned} $$(5.9)The quantity \( \omega ^{c}_{ab}\) is called the affine connection of ∇.
- Equation of motion :
-
Following Giulini (2007), we represent a general equation of motion (EOM) of a given physical theory by:
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} E[g,\gamma, \Phi; \Sigma] = 0, \end{aligned} $$(5.10)where E is some differential operator, g designates the spacetime metric, γ designates a set of particle models, Φ designates a set of physical fields, and Σ designates some geometrical and non-dynamical structures that must be given. The latter is usually referred to as the absolute structure of the theory and can be referential or non-referential. There is no general consensus about a formal definition of the absolute structures of a given theory. The dynamical fields \(\left (g,\gamma , \Phi \right )\) are unknown and meant to be solved, given Σ.
- Covariance :
-
An EOM is covariant under the subgroup G ⊆Diff(M) iff for all f ∈ G:
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} E[g,\gamma, \Phi; \Sigma] = 0 \Longleftrightarrow E[f \cdot g,f \cdot \gamma, f \cdot \Phi; f \cdot \Sigma] = 0. \end{aligned} $$(5.11)
Remark
As stated by Giulini, covariance requires the equation to ‘live on the manifold’; in other words, to refer to well-defined geometrical objects with given transformation laws under f ∈ G. The equation remains valid after the action of f ∈ G, but it is different from the original, since the components of Σ are different.
- Invariance :
-
An EOM is invariant under the subgroup G ⊆Diff(M) iff for all f ∈ G:
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} E[g,\gamma, \Phi; \Sigma] = 0 \Longleftrightarrow E[f \cdot g,f \cdot \gamma, f \cdot \Phi; \Sigma] = 0. \end{aligned} $$(5.12)
Remark
An invariant diffeomorphism f ∈ G keeps the equation identical, since the components of Σ are unchanged. In this way, invariance is much more restrictive than covariance. The invariant group of a given equation is inherited by the invariance group of the absolute structures Σ. Since the transformed equation is identical to the original, from a solution of the dynamical fields we can obtain a whole set of solutions related by invariant diffeomorphisms.
- General Covariance :
-
An EOM is general covariant if it is covariant under the group G = Diff(M).
Remark
The equations of any theory can be written, in principle, in a general covariant way (Rovelli 2004). This process is usually carried out to make the equations of a given theory compatible with GR, but this is not necessarily the case. In fact, a given covariant theory under a specific group of transformations can be made general covariant in many non-equivalent ways. The key assumption in GR “covariantization” is that we assume the metric is the only external geometrical object, and thus, the connection, introduced to define a meaningful notion of change, is the Levi-Civita connections. Adding, for instance, additional tetrad fields or other geometrical objects to construct a more general connection would render a Lorentz covariant equation general covariant but with the wrong limit in GR. Finally, let us define
- General Invariance :
-
An EOM is general invariant if it is invariant under the group G = Diff(M).
Remark: This definition seems to imply that a theory with a general invariant EOM would be background independent. As we pointed out earlier, however, a precise definition of background independence is very subtle and is not equal to general invariance. We shall present the classical definition by Anderson (1967) that is not, however, free of problems (see also Friedman 1973):
- Background Independence (Anderson):
-
A theory is background independent if their dynamical EOM are free of absolute structures.
Remark
From the previous definitions, it follows that the equations of motion of any background independent theory, written in a general covariant way, are general invariant as well. That is the case with GR. There are various constructs in GR, however, that can be considered absolute, e.g. dimensions and signature, volume elements, etc.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Combi, L. (2022). Spacetime Is Material. In: Romero, G.E., Pérez-Jara, J., Camprubí, L. (eds) Contemporary Materialism: Its Ontology and Epistemology. Synthese Library, vol 447. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89488-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89488-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89487-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89488-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)