We gratefully acknowledge support from
the Simons Foundation and member institutions.
Full-text links:


Current browse context:


Change to browse by:

References & Citations


(what is this?)
CiteULike logo BibSonomy logo Mendeley logo del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo ScienceWISE logo

Physics > History and Philosophy of Physics

Title: Cosmological Constant $Λ$ vs. Massive Gravitons: A Case Study in General Relativity Exceptionalism vs. Particle Physics Egalitarianism

Abstract: The renaissance of General Relativity witnessed considerable progress regarding both understanding and justifying Einstein's equations. Both general relativists and historians of the subject tend to share a view, General Relativity exceptionalism. But does some of the renaissance progress in understanding and justifying Einstein's equations owe something to particle physics egalitarianism? If so, how should the historiography of gravitation and Einstein's equations reflect that fact?
The idea of a graviton mass has a 19th century Newtonian pre-history in Neumann's and Seeliger's long-distance modification of gravity, which (especially for Neumann) altered Poisson's equation to give a potential $e^{-mr}/r$ for a point mass, improving convergence for homogeneous matter. Einstein reinvented the idea before introducing his faulty analogy with $\Lambda$. This confusion was first critiqued by Heckmann in the 1940s (without effect) and by Trautman, DeWitt, Treder, Rindler, and Freund et al. in the 1960s, and especially more recently by Sch\"{u}cking, but it has misled North, Jammer, Pais, Kerszberg, the Einstein Papers, and Kragh. The error is difficult to catch if one has an aversion to perturbative thinking, but difficult to make if one thinks along the lines of particle physics. The $\Lambda$-graviton mass confusion not only distorted the interpretation of Einstein's theory, but also obscured a potentially serious particle physics-motivated rivalry (massless vs. massive spin 2). How could one entertain massive spin 2 gravity if $\Lambda$ is thought already analogous to the Neumann-Seeliger scalar theory?
Historiography, like physics, is best served by overcoming the divide between the two views of gravitation.
Comments: Part of forthcoming Einstein Studies volume with Birkh\"auser, provisionally entitlted _Back with a Flourish: Revisiting the Renaissance of General Relativity_, edited by Alexander Blum, Roberto Lalli, and J\"urgen Renn. Minor additions, reference and more discussion of Feynman added
Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as: arXiv:1906.02115 [physics.hist-ph]
  (or arXiv:1906.02115v2 [physics.hist-ph] for this version)

Submission history

From: J. Brian Pitts [view email]
[v1] Tue, 2 Apr 2019 11:07:14 GMT (45kb)
[v2] Tue, 20 Aug 2019 18:36:00 GMT (45kb)

Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact.