Absolute versus Relational Debate: a Modern Global Version

Abstract

Suppose one seeks to free oneself from a symmetric absolute space by quotienting out its symmetry group. This in general however fails to erase all memory of this absolute space's symmetry properties. Stratification is one major reason for this, which is present in both a) Kendall-type Shape Theory and subsequent Relational Mechanics, and b) General Relativity configuration spaces. We consider the alternative starting point with a generic absolute space, meaning with no nontrivial generalized Killing vectors whatsoever. In this approach, generically Shape-and-Scale Theory is but trivially realized, there is no separate Shape Theory and indeed no stratification. While the GR configuration space version of these considerations was already expounded in 1996 by Fischer and Moncrief, the Kendall-type shape theory version is new to the current article. In each case, this amounts to admitting some small deformation by which symmetry's hard consequences at the level of reduced configuration spaces are warded off.We end by discussing the senses in which each of the above two strategies retain absolutist features, each's main known technical advantages and disadvantages, and the desirability of replacing Kendall-type Shape Theory with a Local-and-Approximate Shape Theory. This article is in honour of Prof. Niall ó Murchadha, on the occasion of his Festschrift.

22 pages

Cited by in corpus (5)

• A Local Resolution of the Problem of Time. I. Introduction and Temporal Relationalism
• Geometry from Brackets Consistency
• $N$-Body Problem: Minimal $N$'s for Qualitative Nontrivialities
• Quadrilaterals in Shape Theory. II. Alternative Derivations of Shape Space: Successes and Limitations
• Isotropy Groups and Kinematic Orbits for 1 and 2-$d$ $N$-Body Problems