Dynamics and Chronogeometric Structure in

Spacetime Theories

Pablo Acuña
Philosophy Institute
Catholic University of Valparaíso
Background
 Background

• Spacetime structure and dynamics

Our central disagreement [. . .] is a dispute about the direction of

the arrow of explanation connecting the symmetries of Minkowski
spacetime and the Lorentz-invariance of the dynamical laws
governing systems in Minkowski spacetime. I argue that the
spacetime symmetries are the explanans and that the Lorentz
invariance of the various laws is the explanandum. Brown argues
that it is the other way around (Janssen 2009)
 Background

• The Chronogeometric Interpretation

• Spacetime structure explains the dynamics

If we accept that in a vacuum there is no physical structure, except

for the structure of space-time itself, then the behavior of light in a
vacuum implies that the geometry of spacetime alone determines
the trajectory of the light rays. That is, given any point in the
space-time, the structure of space-time ought to fix where light
emitted from that point (in any possible direction) will go.
(Maudlin 2012)
 Background

• The Dynamical Interpretation

• Bodies don’t have spacetime sensors, and spacetime doesn’t

have ruts and grooves.

• Dynamics explains chronogeometric structure

The appropriate structure is Minkowski geometry precisely

because the laws of the non-gravitational interactions are
Lorentz-covariant (Brown 2005)
 Background

• Dynamical Explanation

• Explanation of “relativistic” effects in Lorentz-Poincaré

ether theory. Length-contraction and time-dilation are a
matter of dynamics, not of spacetime structure.

• Length contraction: molecular forces holding rigid rods

together transform due to motion through the ether.

• Time dilation: electron harmonic oscilator, velocity (wrt the

ether) dependence of mass, the electron-clock oscillates
more slowly.
 Background

• Brown doesn’t propose a return of the ether, nor a neo-

Lorentzian interpretation of SR with a privileged frame.

• An interpretation of SR in which the explanation of

relativistic effects is dynamical.

• Lorentz-covariant quantum laws ruling the fudamental

constitution of matter explain relativistic effects and
Minkowski structure.
 Background

• Who’s right?
Helmholtz on Physical Geometry
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• Rise of non-Euclidean geometries

• Shift to an empiricist stance regarding the geometric

structure of physical space.

• Riemann proposed a conceptual foundation for empiricism

with respect to geometry.
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

•  Riemann 1854: “On the Hypotheses which Lie at the

Bases of Geometry”

• Empirical hypotheses supporting that physical space is

Euclidean

• R1: Space is a differentiable manifold

• R2: Space has three dimensions

• R3: Line element given by

• R4: Space has constant curvature

• R5: The curvature is 0

 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• Helmholtz 1868: “On the Facts Underlying Geometry”

• Empirical hypotheses from which R3 and R4 follow

• H1: Space is a differentiable manifold

• H2: Space has 3 dimensions

 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• H3: There exist mobile rigid bodies. A mobile rigid body

is defined in terms of point-pairs. For the coordinates of
any point-pair belonging to a body there exists an equation
independent of the motion of the body, and which is the
same for all congruent point-pairs. Point-pairs are
congruent if they can coincide, simultaneously or
successively, with the same point-pair in space.

• The equation determines that a rigid physical body

complies with the geometric conditions for rigidity.
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• H4: Rigid bodies can move freely in space. Any point in a

rigid body can freely move to the place of any other, as
long as that motion is allowed by the equation that relates
such a point with the other points in the body.

• H4: Two congruent bodies remain congruent after one of

them has undergone a complete rotation around any axis.

• Riemann’s R3 and R4 follow, R5 (the value of curvature) to

be empirically determined.
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• Helmholtz 1870 (1876): “On the Origin and Significance

of the Axioms of Geometry”

• Rigid bodies are conditions of possibility for the geometric

description of physical space

All space-measurements and therefore in general all ideas of

quantities applied to space assume the possibility of figures
moving without change of form or size. (Helmholtz 1876)
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• The definition of a rigid body and of congruence, involves

dynamical considerations:

The axioms of geometry are not concerned with space relations

only but also at the same time with the mechanical deportment of
solidest bodies in motion. (Helmholtz 1876)
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• A physical world like ours, and its reflection within a convex

mirror: all congruence relations get preserved.

if two inhabitants of the different worlds could communicate with

one another, neither, so far as I can see, would be able to convince
the other that he had the true, the other the distorted relations.
Indeed I cannot see that such a question would have any
meaning at all as long as mechanical considerations are not
mixed up with it. (Helmholtz 1876)
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• Crucial implicit assumption: dynamical principles about

rigid bodies defined on the basis of a geometric structure.

• Thus measurements with rigid bodies can provide evidence

for a geometric structure in the first place.

• If the dynamics of rigid bodies were geometrically neutral,

observations of their behavior would be idle with respect to
the geometric structure of physical space.
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• Harmless Circularity:

• In order to make judgments about the geometric structure

of physical space, we need dynamical principles governing
light propagation, rigid bodies and congruence, but

• Dynamical principles governing light propagation, rigid

bodies and congruence presuppose a geometric structure.

• It’s harmless: whether the geometry+dynamics so

constituted correctly describes physical space or not is a
matter of empirical evidence.
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• This circularity expresses the preconditions for

empirically testable, geometrically structured descriptions
of physical space.

• Once and only once the dynamics of light propagation and

of rigid bodies are set, we get a geometrically structured
description of physical space that can be empirically tested.
 Helmholtz on Physical Geometry

• Geometrical structures by themselves do not describe

physical space, they require dynamical principles to be
operationalized.

(1.) The axioms of geometry, taken by themselves out of all

connection with mechanical propositions, represent no relations of
real things. […]

(2.) As soon as certain principles of mechanics are conjoined with

the axioms of geometry we obtain a system of propositions which
has a real import, and which can be verified or overturned by
empirical observations. (Helmholtz 1876)
 Chronogeometric Structure and Dynamics

• A Hemlholtzian lesson

• Contra Brown and Janssen, I have argued that Lorentz

invariance and Minkowski spacetime structure are like two
sides of a single coin. (Acuña 2016, SHPMP 55: 1-12)

• We generalize and find the foundations for this thesis with

our Helmholtzian lesson:
 Chronogeometric Structure and Dynamics

• Rigid bodies are no necessary for a (chrono)geometrically

structured description of physical spacetime (there are no
rigid bodies in SR). But…
 Chronogeometric Structure and Dynamics

• Once and only once dynamical principles are set in terms of

the chronogeometric framework (timelike geodesics-inertial
trajectories, null geodesics-light ray trajectories, the
clock(rod) hypothesis), Minkowski mathematical structure
becomes a representation of physical spacetime.

• Then effects like muon mean lifetime dilation become

evidence for that the structure of physical spacetime is
Minkowskian
 Chronogeometric Structure and Dynamics

When we say that a free particle follows, while a particle

experiencing a force deviates from, a geodesic of spacetime, we are
not explaining the cause of the difference between two states or
explaining ‘relative to what’ such a difference holds. Instead, we
are giving the physical definition of a spacetime geodesic. To say
that spacetime has the affine structure thus defined is not to
postulate some hidden entity to explain the appearances, but
rather to say that empirical facts support a system of physical laws
that incorporate such a definition. (Disalle 1995)
 Chronogeometric Structure and Dynamics

• An illustration

• SR and the ether theory are empirically equivalent. Their

mathematical formalisms are identical. But the theories
have a very different meaning.
 Chronogeometric Structure and Dynamics

 
• In the ether theory, means that a rod that is in motion
through the ether gets longitudinally contracted by a factor
with respect to its real ether-rest length.

• The meaning of in the ether theory crucially depends on

the fact that this dynamical law relies on a Galilean
chronogeometric framework.

• The real vs. ‘local’ length distinction depends on the fact

that the real kinematics is Galilean, but can be measured
only in the ether-rest frame.
 Chronogeometric Structure and Dynamics

  • In SR, means that the length of a rod in different inertial

frames depends on the instantaneous velocity of the rod in
each frame.

• This meaning of crucially relies on the fact that it is defined

in Minkowski chronogeometric structure.

• We couldn’t even assign a defined dynamical meaning to

unless it is defined in a chronogeometric mathematical
structure.
 Conclusions

• Dynamics and chronogeometric structure presuppose each

other:

• Chronogeometry relies on dynamics in its physical

meaningfulness.

• Dynamics relies on chronogeometric structure in its

intelligibility.

• There can’t be an arrow of explanation between them

 Conclusions

• Dynamical explanations are chronogeometrically ladden.

• The dynamical explanations in the ether theory presuppose

Galilean structure.
 Conclusions

• Chronogeometric structure without dynamics is empty,

Dynamics without chronogeometric structure is blind.
 Projections

• Spacetime is nomological. It has explanatory power, but it’s not

an entity.

• Substantivalism rejected.

• Spatiotemporal relations between objects are not given, they

get constituted by the underlying chronogeometric framework.

• Relationsim rejected.
Thanks for your attention!