AG-2026.03-475·physics.hist-ph·cross-listed: gr-qc
Conventionalism in general relativity?: formal existence proofs and Reichenbach's theorem θ in context
Authors
- Ruward Mulder
Abstract
Weatherall and Manchak (2014) show that, under reasonable assumptions, Reichenbachean universal effects, constrained to a rank-2 tensor field representation in the geodesic equation, always exist in non-relativistic gravity but not so for relativistic spacetimes. Thus general relativity is less susceptible to underdetermination than its Newtonian predecessor. Dürr and Ben-Menahem (2022) argue these assumptions are exploitable as loopholes, effectively establishing a (rich) no-go theorem. I disambiguate between two targets of the proof, which have previously been conflated: the existence claim of at least one alternative geometry to a given one and Reichenbach's (in)famous ``theorem theta", which amounts to a universality claim that any geometry can function as an alternative to any other. I show there is no (rich) no-go theorem to save theorem theta. I illustrate this by explicitly breaking one of the assumptions and generalising the proof to torsionful spacetimes. Finally, I suggest a programmatic attitude: rather than undermining the proof one can use it to systematically and rigorously articulate stronger propositions to be proved, thereby systematically exploring the space of alternative spacetime theories.
Submitted
22 March 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2603.24608
Summary
A century-old debate about whether space-time geometry is merely a human convention gets clarified: Einstein's theory is actually less vulnerable to this kind of underdetermination than Newton's was, and stronger versions of the conventionalist claim can't be saved by previous logical loopholes.
- Reichenbach's famous claim that any geometry can substitute for any other geometry (what philosophers call 'theorem theta') cannot be rescued by recent philosophical critiques, contrary to recent arguments.
- General relativity's geometric structure is more constrained than Newtonian gravity's, making it harder to argue that space-time geometry is just a human convention rather than a physical fact.
- Rather than treating the mathematical proof as an obstacle, physicists and philosophers can use it as a tool to systematically explore which alternative spacetime theories are actually viable.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.