What Can We Learn about the Ontology of

Space and Time from the Theory of

Relativity? A Synopsis

John D. Norton

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh PA USA 15260

What is the nature of space? What is the nature of time? These are the perennial

questions of philosophy of space and time. A long standing tradition looks to our latest

science for assistance in answering. In the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton redefined

philosophy of space and time in introducing the notions of Absolute Space and Absolute

Time. They were underwritten by the authority of the leading sage of his day and at least a

century to come. In the twentieth century, Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity,

the special and the general. Philosophy of space and time was transformed once again.

Exactly how was it changed? What should we learn from Einstein's work? That is my concern

here.

The task proves to be a little different from what one might expect. The task is not to

exercise one's philosophical creativity to generate these lessons. Rather it is to apply a

critical filter to the plethora of morals already proclaimed. In repeated efforts to extract the

philosophical bounty of Einstein's work, generations of philosophers have ended up

proclaiming almost every conceivable thesis on Einstein's authority. The present task, then,

is to sift through this abundance, discard the spurious morals and answer the question

"What can we learn about the ontology of space and time from the theory of relativity?" This

-1-
note is a synopsis of a lengthier study presented elsewhere. 1 The reader is referred to it for

citations and elaboration on the claims that follow.

1. Four Requirements for Any Moral

How are we to sift? I propose that any candidate moral must satisfy four requirements if it is

to count as a philosophical moral of Einstein's theories for the philosophy of space and time.

They are:

Novelty: The morals we draw should be novel consequences of relativity theory.

They should not be results that could have been drawn equally from earlier theories.
In the exuberance engendered by Einstein's theories, it is easy to overlook what we already

knew or could have known. If the moral was already known or knowable prior to Einstein's

work, then we cannot claim it as a moral of the advent of relativity theory. We might be

grateful that Einstein's work somehow brought the possibility to our attention and comforted

that his work does not refute it. That should not be what we esteem Einstein most highly for.

We seek those results which are genuinely novel with Einstein's theories.

Modesty: The morals we draw should be consequences of relativity theory. They

should not be results we wish could be drawn from relativity theory, but are only
suggested to us by the theory.
Relativity theory is often a part of a longer project that involves quite strong philosophical

goals. In their confidence of ultimate success, proponents of such projects have proclaimed

that relativity theory vindicates the principles expressed in their philosophical goals. That is

premature.

Realism: Relativity theory is to be construed as literally as possible.

We seek morals about the nature of space and time. If we are allowed to construe Einstein's

theories metaphorically, then how do we distinguish the morals we draw from our

metaphorical inventions from those resulting from the physical content of the theory? To

preclude this difficulty we should construe the theories as literally as we can; in so far as it is

sustainable, the content of the theories is just what the theories literally say.

1 John D. Norton, " What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the
Theory of Relativity?" http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu, Document with ID Code PITT-PHIL-
SCI00000138.

-2-
 Robustness: We should not draw morals in one part of the theory that are
contradicted in others. In particular, the morals we draw from examination of special
relativity should survive the transition to general relativity.
Einstein developed the special theory of relativity before the general. That first theory has

long enjoyed more detailed philosophical scrutiny, in part because it is the easier theory to

learn and understand. However it deals only with a special case of the many spacetimes

dealt with in general relativity. So it has proven possible to settle on philosophical morals in

the special theory that do not survive in the general theory.

2. Whats IN; Whats OUT. An Opinionated Survey

I have divided the morals that I urge can be drawn ("What's in") into three groups, all

employing the banner of "entanglement". I list them below in three sections and also list

related candidate morals in each that fail one of the four requirements above ("What's out").

A final section lists some miscellaneous morals that fail.

2.1 Entanglement of Space and Time

IN
Relativity of Simultaneity. When Einstein presented his special theory of relativity,

he began with an analysis of simultaneity. On the basis of his light postulate, he showed that

observers in relative motion may disagree on the simultaneity of events at different spatial

locations. This proved to be the conceptual key that enabled consistent development of his

new theory of space and time. The result is threatened by robustness since it does not

survive in Einstein's original form in general relativity. However it does depend on a form of

the entanglement of space and time of importance to general relativity. It may be re-

expressed in weakened form in infinitesimal regions that surround events. The entanglement

it expresses is what makes the spacetime formulation of relativity theory so fertile.

OUT
Time is the fourth dimension. This tired slogan gains some credence since

Minkowski's spacetime formulation of relativity theory proved to be the most insightful and

-3-
fertile. However it is hard to see how it improves on the more precise notion of the relativity

of simultaneity. The slogan that time is the fourth dimension either fails for its banality: one

could always give spacetime formulations even of classical theories (violation of novelty). Or

it fails for its pretentiousness, if it is read as saying that time is a fourth dimension just like

space. It isn't in relativity theory (violation of modesty).

Determinateness of the future. If we assume that simultaneous event are

determinate with respect to each other, we can chain such events together and conclude

that future events are determinate as well. The thesis does not survive transition from

special to general relativity, since the geometric constructions it requires can no longer be

mounted in general. It violates robustness. In addition it is unclear that simultaneity does

entail determinateness and that the requisite transitivity of determinateness obtains, a

violation of modesty.

Conventionality of simultaneity. Famously, Reichenbach urged that simultaneity

is not only relative to the observer but, even for a particular observer, there is considerable

freedom of choice in deciding which events are simultaneous. The thesis does not survive

transition to general relativity. There is a unique relation of simultaneity in, for example, the

Robertson-Walker spacetimes of standard cosmology. The thesis violates robustness.

Whether the thesis is sustainable in the context of special relativity alone remains under

debate; my view is that the issue is clouded by the lack of clear, independent meaning for

the notion of simultaneity.

2.2 Entanglement of Spacetime and Matter

IN
Spacetime loses absoluteness: In earlier theories and in the special theory of

relativity, space and time or spacetime provided an immutable container for matter. That

container had an absolute status in the sense that it was entirely unaffected by how matter

may be distributed within it. Yet space and time themselves had a powerful causal effect on

matter. They determine which are the inertial trajectories of free bodies, for example. As

-4-
Einstein emphasized, general relativity altered that. Through his gravitational field

equations, the distribution of matter determines the curvature of spacetime; so spacetime is

now affected causally by matter and loses its absolute status.

Failure of spacetime (manifold) substantivalism. Spacetime interacts causally

with matter. Does it have an existence independent of that matter, as if it were a substance

itself, as the doctrine of spacetime substantivalism says? A modernized version of Einstein's

"hole argument" of 1913 and 1914 appears to show otherwise. If we assume that the events

of a spacetime manifold have that independent existence, then we are forced to a

conclusion most find unpalatable: we must accept that two spacetimes are distinct even

when the difference between them transcends all possible observation and even the

determining power of the equations of general relativity itself. It remains an open question,

however, whether these results pertain to general relativity alone or whether they can be

mounted in formulations of earlier theories as well. The latter case would be a violation

novelty.

Gravitational field energy and momentum compromised. In earlier theories,

what was distinctive about matter was that it carried energy and momentum. In general

relativity, however, the gravitational field (and thus the energy and momentum it carries) is

combined with the geometry of spacetime, blurring the distinction between spacetime the

container and matter the contained.. The outcome is that it is no longer possible to give an

observer independent judgment of the gravitational energy and momentum density present

at an event in spacetime or to say how much gravitational energy and momentum is present

in a region of spacetime, except in special cases.

OUT
Relational theory of space and time. Relativity theory has long been associated

with a relational theory of space and time. According to it, there are no independent entities

of space, time and spacetime. There are spatial points occupied by matter or spacetime

events occupied by processes; space, time and spacetime are abstractions constructed from

-5-
them. Popular as it is, this relational view violates a realistic interpretation of general

relativity. It is a theory not of occupied events, but of a spacetime that may be entirely

empty of matter. Thus realism is violated. Many theorists hope or have hoped that Einstein's

theory is an intermediate in the development of a fully relational theory of space and time.

That theory is not Einstein's, however, so we cannot claim the result for Einstein's theory

without violating modesty.

All is geometry. The striking novelty of Einstein's general theory is that it accounts

for gravitation not as a force but as a part of the geometry of a curved spacetime. This

raised the speculation that all known forces could be accounted for in some kind of

spacetime geometry; such was the presumption of Einstein's long standing quest for a

unified field theory. We cannot accept "all is geometry" as a moral of general relativity,

however, since that quest was never completed. To do so would violate modesty.

2.3 Entanglement of Spacetime and Causation

IN
New forms of causal isolation. That causation is tied up with space and time has

been long known. It has long been suspected that causal action must be contiguous is space

and time, although the action-at-a-distance accounts of Newtonian gravitation and other

forces did present awkward challenges. The general theory of relativity brought forth a new

repertoire of ways in which causal isolation might arise. Certain spacetimes, such as those

associated with black holes, involve the existence of worlds causally isolated from our own

on the other side of the black hole. Formerly, talk of worlds that are both real but causally

isolated from us would have been dismissed as confused metaphysics; Einstein's theory

gave them a serious physical foundation. Even within our world there might be unexpected

horizons for causation. For example, in big bang cosmology, all matter issues forth from a

past in which is was compressed to together to arbitrarily high density as we approach the

big bang. One might suppose that, as we approach these times of arbitrary high

compression, all matter must have been in causal communication. That proves not to be so.

-6-
In some cosmologies, our matter remains causally isolated from all but a small part of the

matter of the universe however far back we go in time.

New forms of causal entanglement. If general relativity provides further ways

that causal connections may fail, it also supplies the possibility of richer forms of causal

contact. There are many universes that solve Einstein's equations and admit causation into

the past, that is, time travel. The simplest is the Goedel universe in which all matter is in

cosmic rotation. Other spacetimes allow us to see the infinite lifetime of some entity; they

are now called "Malament-Hogarth spacetimes." So if ever we could construct a simple

computing machine that could compute for an infinity of its own experienced time, in the

right spacetime, we could find an event from which we could view the entire calculation. As

long as a suitable protocol for communication by signals is set up, we could know whether

an arbitrary program halts on some nominated input.

OUT
Constancy of speed of light . This constancy is the most conspicuous result one

first encounters in learning special relativity. Whether we want to count this as a

philosophical moral of relativity becomes moot when we realize that it does not survive into

the general theory. To proclaim it would violate robustness.

Causal theory of time. Reichenbach advocated a celebrated reduction of time to

causal relations. To say event E is earlier that event F means, in his theory, that event E can

causally affect event F. In its original form, the theory depended on a simple result in special

relativity. Events are causally connectible if a signal proceeding at or less than the speed of

light can connect them. If we specify which pairs of events are causally connectible in

spacetime, then it is possible to recover the full structure of a Minkowski spacetime. That

recoverability fails in the transition to general relativity and with it the project of the causal

theory of time in its original form; there are many geometrically distinct spacetimes that

share the same causal structure. The causal theory of time fails robustness. In addition we

-7-
may doubt the prudence of trying to account for something relatively well understood,

spacetime, in terms of notoriously poorly understood, causation.

2.4 Other Morals

OUT
All is relative. Einstein's theories are often called upon to license a relativity that

extends well beyond the relativity that Einstein advanced, the relativity of physical

quantities to observers' states of motion. We are urged to accept a relativity of truth, beauty

and the good. Whatever merit there may be in these further relativities, they have no

special relation to Einstein's theories, which can be recast equally effectively as a theory of

certain absolutes. To draw these further relativities as morals violates modesty.

Relativity of geometry. Following arguments of Poincar and Einstein, Reichenbach

urged that there was a considerable conventional freedom in our choice of geometry. We

cannot know the true geometry without interpreting the results of operations with

measuring rods. We cannot interpret those results without a theory of measuring rods. So we

can insist upon just about any geometry as long as we make compensating changes in our

theory of measuring rods. This thesis has been subject to much debate. While it was

advanced in the context of discussion of relativity theory, for our purpose, what matters is

that the arguments that support it can be mounted in a fully classical setting. So to claim it

as a moral of relativity theory would violate novelty.

Relativity of all motion. The novelty of Einstein's special theory of relativity was

the principle of relativity of inertial motion. In developing the general theory Einstein hoped

to extend this relativity to accelerated motion. Whether he succeeded or not remains a

matter of some debate. A considerable body of opinion denies his success and even

suggests that his general theory has no relativity of motion in it at all. If the latter is correct,

the relativity of motion cannot be drawn as a moral without violation of robustness.

Arbitrariness of coordinate systems. In his efforts to generalize the principle of

relativity to accelerated motion, Einstein was drawn to a formalism that employed arbitrary

-8-
spacetime coordinate systems, even suggesting controversially that this fact alone assured

a generalization of the principle of relativity to acceleration. While Einstein was one of the

first to use formalisms that admitted arbitrary spacetime coordinate systems, such

coordinate systems could have been employed in earlier theories. Shortly after Einstein's

work, simple ways of doing it were displayed. A spacetime coordinate system is merely a

convenient way of labeling events in spacetime in a continuous manner, so classical theories

place few constraints on how this might be done. To see novel philosophical import in the

use of these arbitrary coordinate systems would violate novelty.

-9-