Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

What Price Fiber Bundle Substantivalism? On How to Avoid Holes in Fibers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dressed variables dissolve the hole argument for fiber bundles

desk verdict A useful systematic treatment of the generalized hole argument and a plausible relationalist package via the Dressing Field Method, but the global existence of the dressing field is assumed rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12876 v3 pith:VPSUOWNK submitted 2025-05-19 physics.hist-ph gr-qchep-th

Philipp Berghofer , Jordan François , Lucrezia Ravera This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phgr-qchep-th
keywords GaugetheoriesHoleargumentinvarianceDressingFieldMethodDressedspacesFiberbundlesubstantivalismPoint-coincidenceGeneral-relativistictheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the traditional hole argument, which threatens the reality of spacetime points in general relativity, has a direct analogue for the fiber bundles underlying gauge theories — and that this generalized hole argument can be dissolved by rewriting theories in manifestly invariant variables. The authors extend the hole and point-coincidence arguments from spacetime to the principal bundle $P$ with connection $\omega$, concluding that the bundle's points and fibers, like spacetime points, have no autonomous existence. They then show that the Dressing Field Method produces dressed fields, dressed regions, and a dressed bundle space $P^u := \mathrm{Im}(u^{-1})$ that are invariant under all local symmetries by construction, hence immune to hole-type arguments. If the construction works, a realist can keep the bundle as part of the ontology in a relationalized form: enriched spacetime exists only as a structural quality of the fields. This matters because it offers a principled way to say which parts of gauge theory are physical without resorting to gauge fixing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Dressing Field Method (DFM). A dressing field is a smooth map that transforms with the inverse of the symmetry: for internal gauge symmetries $u^\gamma = \gamma^{-1}u$, for diffeomorphisms $\upsilon^\psi = \psi^{-1}\circ\upsilon$, and for bundle automorphisms $u^\Xi = \Xi^{-1}\circ u$. The method's rule of thumb is to take a field's transformation law, substitute the symmetry parameter by the dressing field, and obtain an object that is invariant by construction. Applied to a complete dressing $(\upsilon,u)$, this yields dressed fields $\phi_{(\upsilon,u)}$, dressed regions $U_\upsilon := \upsilon^{-1}(U)$, and the dressed bundle space $P^u := \mathrm{Im}(u^{-1})$; the same rule defines the physical points $x_\upsilon := \upsilon^{-1}(x)$ that implement the point-coincidence argument. The method is not a gauge fixing: the dressing field is a field-dependent object extracted from the degrees of freedom, so the resulting variables are relational observables.

What would settle it

Take a principal bundle with a nontrivial characteristic class, so that no global trivialization exists, and attempt to construct a complete dressing field $(\upsilon,u)$ from the field content; if no global invertible dressing field exists on such a bundle, the dressed bundle space $P^u := \mathrm{Im}(u^{-1})$ is undefined and the claimed immunity to the generalized hole argument fails for that example.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the generalized hole argument — the analogue for the principal bundle of the spacetime hole argument, threatening any form of bundle substantivalism — is dissolved once the theory is rewritten in dressed variables. A complete dressing field $(\upsilon,u)$ combines an internal gauge dressing $u^\gamma = \gamma^{-1}u$ with a diffeomorphism dressing $\upsilon^\psi = \psi^{-1}\circ\upsilon$. It turns bare fields $\phi = \{A,\varphi,e/g\}$ into fully invariant dressed fields $\phi_{(\upsilon,u)} := \upsilon^*(\phi_u)$, which live on dressed regions $U_\upsilon := \upsilon^{-1}(U)$ and, globally, on a dressed bundle space $P^u := \mathrm{Im}(u^{-1})$ whose regions, fibers, and points are invariant under bundle automorphisms. Because invariance is built into the construction rather than imposed afterward, the dressed objects are immune to the generalized hole argument by construction and give a formal implementation of the generalized point-coincidence argument. The paper concludes that this makes a 'relationalized sophisticated substantivalism' about enriched spacetime $(P^u,\omega^u)$ defensible: the physical bundle exists only as a structural quality of the fields.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that a complete, globally defined, invertible dressing field can always be extracted from the field content of a given theory; no proof of global existence or invertibility is supplied, and if such a dressing field is missing the claimed immunity to hole arguments cannot be realized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any general-relativistic gauge field theory admitting a complete dressing field, the generalized hole argument is resolved at the kinematical level: dressed field equations are deterministic, and the dressed Lagrangian is what experiments actually test.
  • A realist about fiber bundles can keep the bundle in the ontology, but only in relationalized form: enriched spacetime $(P^u,\omega^u)$ and its points exist as structural qualities of the fields, not as an autonomous container.
  • Holonomies, often proposed as fundamental ontology for gauge theories, become derived quantities, and the Aharonov-Bohm effect is explained locally as differential parallel transport in the physical bundle space.
  • The point-coincidence argument is given a formal implementation: physical points, regions, and fibers are field-dependent invariant objects, so the metaphysics of symmetry-related models no longer needs an underdetermination step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If complete dressing fields exist only on local patches of a nontrivial bundle, the immunity claim would hold patchwise but a global obstruction would leave a residue of the generalized hole argument; testing the construction on bundles with nonzero characteristic classes would settle this.
  • A natural next step is to quantize the theory directly on the dressed field space; if the dressed variables are the physical ones, quantization would bypass the usual constraint-reduction problem for gauge theories.
  • The residual dressing ambiguities, when discrete, may correspond to genuine physical reference-frame choices; the paper's claim that no hole argument can be mounted in that case could be tested by checking whether the discrete ambiguity shows up in measurable relative phases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a philosophical and technical argument that the Dressing Field Method (DFM) provides a manifestly invariant reformulation of general-relativistic gauge field theories (gRGFTs), allowing the definition of dressed fields, dressed regions, and a dressed bundle space P^u = Im(u^{-1}) that are, by construction, immune to the generalized hole argument. Sections 2–4 review the standard hole argument in general relativity, introduce the geometry of principal bundles, and extend the hole and point-coincidence arguments to the automorphism group Aut(P) of a bundle with connection. Section 5 defines dressing fields for internal gauge symmetries and for diffeomorphisms, then combines them in Section 5.3 into a complete dressing field (υ, u) and a global dressed bundle space. The paper concludes that this construction realizes a relationalized sophisticated substantivalism about enriched spacetime, in which the bundle and its points exist only as structural qualities of the fields.

Significance. If the global construction could be established, the paper would provide a useful technical implementation of point-coincidence reasoning in the bundle setting, and it would strengthen the case for a relationalist yet realist view of principal bundles. The local algebraic construction is sound: once a dressing field with the stipulated transformation law is given, the dressed fields are invariant by construction, and the dressed regions defined by pullback are invariant under the relevant group action. The paper also offers a clear pedagogical synthesis of bundle geometry and the generalized hole argument, and it explicitly connects the formalism to a substantive philosophical position. However, the universal conclusion in Section 5.3 is conditional on an unproved existence and regularity assumption for complete dressing fields; the paper's own language in Section 5.1.1 ('Whenever possible', 'may be expected') signals this limitation without making it a stated qualification of the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Eqs. (23)–(26)] The global dressing field u : Q → P is defined by u^Ξ = Ξ^{-1}∘u, and the dressed bundle space is P^u := Im(u^{-1}). These definitions are meaningful only if u is a global bijection with a smooth inverse, but no proof of existence, global extension, or invertibility is supplied. Moreover, if Q is a trivial model bundle and u is a diffeomorphism, then P must be trivial; hence nontrivial principal bundles cannot be dressed globally in the proposed sense. Because the claimed immunity to the generalized hole argument rests on the global existence of P^u, this gap is load-bearing for the central conclusion.
  2. [§5.2, Eqs. (17)–(18)] The dressed regions U_υ := υ^{-1}(U) and the physical manifold M_υ := Im(υ^{-1}) require the diffeomorphism dressing field υ : N → M to be globally invertible, with υ∘υ^{-1} = id_M. The paper does not prove that such a global bijective υ can be extracted from the field content of a generic gRGFT. Standard examples invoked by the authors, such as Komar coordinates and dust-field coordinatizations, are generically only local diffeomorphisms, and scalar fields built from curvature invariants do not separate points in symmetric regions. Without global bijectivity, the dressed regions and points are only locally defined, and the paper's universal claim of immunity to hole-type arguments is not established.
  3. [§5.1–§5.3, Eqs. (11), (15), (21)] The invariance of the dressed fields follows by construction from the defining transformation law of the dressing field. Consequently, the assertion that the DFM 'formally implements the point-coincidence argument' and yields objects 'immune by construction' to hole arguments is partly a restatement of the definition rather than a derivation from an independent principle. This is not an error in the local mathematics, but it means the philosophical resolution is conditional on accepting the dressing field as the physically meaningful relatum. The paper should state this conditionality explicitly when presenting the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, first paragraph] The word 'wether' should be 'whether'.
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (13)] The model manifold N is introduced only in the definition of υ : N → M; its role as the 'model' manifold for the dressed regions should be explained earlier, since the subsequent interpretation of M_υ as the physical manifold depends on the status of N.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (17)] The notation U^ψ in Eq. (18) is not defined; the action of Diff(M) on open subsets of M should be stated explicitly to make the invariance computation fully transparent.
  4. [§5.3, after Eq. (21)] The paper switches between the local pair (υ, u) and the global map u : Q → P without spelling out the relation between Q and the local model N. Clarifying this hierarchy would help readers distinguish the local dressing construction from the global bundle-level construction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The formal immunity of dressed objects is definitional (invariance by construction), so the paper's core 'resolution' is partly a restatement of DFM's defining property; the interpretive thesis retains independent support from the point-coincidence argument.

  1. self definitional [Section 5 intro and Section 5.3 after Eq. (26)]
    "We shall see how the DFM technically implements the point-coincidence argument, meaning that dressed spaces are by definition immune to the hole argument, thus providing a transparent formal implementation of the conceptual insights discussed in sections 2 and 4. ... Both dressed fields (25) and regions (26) are thus immune to the generalized hole argument."

    The paper presents immunity to the (generalized) hole argument as the key output of the DFM. But dressing fields are defined by the equivariance laws u^γ=γ^{-1}u (Eq. 9) and υ^ψ=ψ^{-1}∘υ (Eq. 13), and dressed fields are then defined as composites such as ϕu={u^{-1}Au+u^{-1}du, ρ(u)^{-1}φ} (Eq. 11), ϕυ=υ*ϕ (Eq. 15), and ¯ϕu=u*¯ϕ (Eq. 25). Their invariance is a one-line consequence of these defining transformation laws, so the conclusion 'immune to the generalized hole argument' is another name for the construction, not an independent derivation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain in Sections 5.1–5.3 is self-contained as a piece of mathematics: once a dressing field (u or υ) with the stated equivariance and invertibility properties is available, the invariance of the dressed fields and regions follows by direct substitution. The circularity is limited to the status of the headline claim: the paper calls this 'immunity to the hole argument' and 'formal implementation of the point-coincidence argument,' but the immunity is the defining property of the dressing construction rather than a theorem established from independent physical principles. I do not count this as a fatal flaw because the paper openly says 'by definition' and 'by construction,' and the philosophical position (relationalized sophisticated substantivalism) is argued separately from the generalized hole and point-coincidence discussions in Sections 2 and 4. The unproved existence and global invertibility of a complete dressing field (υ,u), needed for Uυ=υ^{-1}(U), xυ=υ^{-1}(x), and P^u=Im(u^{-1}), is a substantive correctness gap but not a circularity: it concerns whether the construction can be realized, not whether the conclusion re-imports its premises. Delegation of technical determinism claims to the authors' own prior work (François & Ravera 2024, eqs. 390–391) is self-citation, but the present invariance computation is not reduced to that citation, and the determinism claim is ancillary to the kinematic immunity claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The central construction rests on the existence and invertibility of complete dressing fields, smoothness of moduli spaces, and standard bundle geometry. The dressed bundle space is not a new physical entity with predictive consequences; it is a formal reorganization of known physics.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The moduli space Phi/H of gauge orbits is a smooth manifold, and field space Phi is a smooth bundle over it.
    Section 4 defines the quotient M := Phi/H and projection pi without addressing singularities that arise in gauge theory and GR moduli spaces; smoothness of physical bundle P^u and M^upsilon depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper A complete dressing field (upsilon, u) can be extracted from the field d.o.f. for the theories under consideration.
    Sections 5.1 through 5.3 define dressed fields assuming such a dressing field exists; the existence and global extension are not proven, and the paper explicitly says 'whenever possible' only in the internal case in Section 5.1.1.
  • domain assumption The diffeomorphism dressing field upsilon: N -> M is invertible, so upsilon^{-1} and M_upsilon := Im(upsilon^{-1}) are well-defined.
    Equations (13), (17), and (18) use the inverse map without stating a bijectivity or non-degeneracy condition; for Brown-Kuchar dust fields this holds only in regions where the dust scalars form a coordinate system.
  • standard math Standard differential geometry of principal bundles and connections, including Cartan connections as soldered bundles, is taken as background.
    Section 3 reviews this framework and the subsequent hole arguments rely on it; this is a legitimate background assumption.
  • domain assumption The Lagrangian is Diff(M)-covariant and Hloc-quasi-invariant, so the dressed Lagrangian differs by a boundary term.
    Equations (7), (12), and (16) require this property; it is standard for gRGFTs but is an assumption about the class of theories to which the conclusions apply.
invented entities (2)
  • Dressed bundle space P^u = Im(u^{-1})
    purpose: Serves as the gauge-invariant, hole-immune locus of physical field degrees of freedom; the paper's proposed ontology for enriched spacetime.
    It is a mathematical re-description of an existing principal bundle with connection; no new particles, forces, or observables are predicted. Its physical status is the conclusion of the philosophical argument.
  • Dressed physical points and regions (M_upsilon, U_upsilon, x_upsilon)
    purpose: Formalize Einstein's point-coincidence argument by making points and regions field-dependent and Diff(M)-invariant.
    Defined via upsilon^{-1}(U); existence depends on invertibility of the dressing field. No independent empirical handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What Price Fiber Bundle Substantivalism? On How to Avoid Holes in Fibers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VPSUOWNK

@misc{pith2026250512876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What Price Fiber Bundle Substantivalism? On How to Avoid Holes in Fibers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VPSUOWNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12876}
}
read the original abstract

On a mathematically foundational level, our most successful physical theories (gauge field theories and general-relativistic theories) are formulated in a framework based on the differential geometry of connections on principal bundles. After reviewing the essentials of this framework, we articulate the generalized hole and point-coincidence arguments, examining how they weight on a substantivalist position towards bundle spaces. This question, then, is considered in light of the Dressing Field Method, which allows a manifestly invariant reformulation of gauge field theories and general-relativistic theories, making their conceptual structure more transparent: it formally implements the point-coincidence argument and thus allows to define (dressed) fields and (dressed) bundle spaces immune to hole-type arguments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toward Manifest Relationality in Transformers via Symmetry Reduction

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Transformer attention and parameter optimization can be rewritten on symmetry-reduced relational variables (Gram matrices and invariant parameter composites), removing coordinate redundancies by construction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    APACrefauthors \ 2012

    Arntzenius2012 APACrefauthors Arntzenius, F. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . Space, Time, and Stuff Space, time, and stuff . Oxford University Press

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    \ Fran c ois, J

    Attard-Francois2016_II APACrefauthors Attard, J. \ Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2017 March . Tractors and Twistors from conformal Cartan geometry: a gauge theoretic approach II. Twistors Tractors and Twistors from conformal Cartan geometry: a gauge theoretic approach II. Twistors . Class. Quantum Grav. 34 8

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    \ Fran c ois, J

    Attard-Francois2016_I APACrefauthors Attard, J. \ Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Tractors and Twistors from conformal Cartan geometry: a gauge theoretic approach I. Tractors Tractors and Twistors from conformal Cartan geometry: a gauge theoretic approach I. Tractors . ADV THEOR MATH PHYS 22 8 1831-1883

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    APACrefauthors \ 2018

    Berghofer2018 APACrefauthors Berghofer, P. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Ontic structural realism and quantum field theory: Are there intrinsic properties at the most fundamental level of reality? Ontic structural realism and quantum field theory: Are there intrinsic properties at the most fundamental level of reality? Studies in History and Philosophy of Moder...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    \ Fran c ois, J

    Berghofer-Francois2024 APACrefauthors Berghofer, P. \ Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Dressing vs. Fixing: On How to Extract and Interpret Gauge-Invariant Content Dressing vs. fixing: On how to extract and interpret gauge-invariant content . Foundations of Physics 54 6 72 . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-024-00809-y APACrefURL APACrefDOI...

    doi:10.1007/s10701-024-00809-y 2024

  6. [6]

    , Fran c ois, J

    Berghofer-et-al2023 APACrefauthors Berghofer, P. , Fran c ois, J. , Friederich, S. , Gomes, H. , Hetzroni, G. , Maas, A. \ Sondenheimer, R. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Gauge Symmetries, Symmetry Breaking, and Gauge-Invariant Approaches Gauge symmetries, symmetry breaking, and gauge-invariant approaches . Cambridge University Press

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    \ Kuchar, K V

    Brown-Kuchar1995 APACrefauthors Brown, J D. \ Kuchar, K V. APACrefauthors \ 1995 May . Dust as a standard of space and time in canonical quantum gravity Dust as a standard of space and time in canonical quantum gravity . Phys. Rev. D 51 5600--5629 . APACrefURL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.51.5600 APACrefURL APACrefDOI doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51....

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.51.5600 1995

  8. [8]

    APACrefauthors \ 2022

    Catren2022 APACrefauthors Catren, G. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . On gauge symmetries, indiscernibilities, and groupoid-theoretical equalities On gauge symmetries, indiscernibilities, and groupoid-theoretical equalities . Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91 244--261 . APACrefURL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368121001795 AP...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.002 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    APACrefauthors \ 2019 2025/04/22

    Dewar2019 APACrefauthors Dewar, N. APACrefauthors \ 2019 2025/04/22 . Sophistication about Symmetries Sophistication about symmetries \ [doi: 10.1093/bjps/axx021]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 2 485--521 . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx021 ...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    APACrefauthors \ 2004

    Earman2004 APACrefauthors Earman, J. APACrefauthors \ 2004 . Laws, symmetry, and symmetry breaking: Invariance, conservation principles, and objectivity Laws, symmetry, and symmetry breaking: Invariance, conservation principles, and objectivity . Philosophy of Science 71 1227-1241

    2004

  3. [11]

    \ Norton, J

    EarmanNorton APACrefauthors Earman, J. \ Norton, J. APACrefauthors \ 1987 . What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story What price spacetime substantivalism? the hole story . The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 515-525

    1987

  4. [12]

    APACrefauthors \ 1929

    Eddington1929 APACrefauthors Eddington, A S. APACrefauthors \ 1929 . The Nature of the Physical World The nature of the physical world . Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press

    1929

  5. [13]

    APACrefauthors \ 1952

    Einstein1952-EINRTS-3 APACrefauthors Einstein, A. APACrefauthors \ 1952 . Relativity: The Special and General Theory Relativity: The special and general theory \ ( 15th, 1st ed. 1916, reprint 2001 \ ). Routledge Classics . Translated by R. Lawson

    1952

  6. [14]

    APACrefauthors \ 2014

    Francois2014 APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2014 . \ Reduction of gauge symmetries: a new geometrical approach Reduction of gauge symmetries: a new geometrical approach \ Thesis Aix-Marseille Universit \'e . \ APACrefURL https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-012...

    2014

  7. [15]

    APACrefauthors \ 2019

    Francois2019 APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Artificial versus Substantial Gauge Symmetries: A Criterion and an Application to the Electroweak Model Artificial versus Substantial Gauge Symmetries: A Criterion and an Application to the Electroweak Model . ...

    2019

  8. [16]

    APACrefauthors \ 2021

    Francois2021_II APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Differential geometry of gauge theory: an introduction Differential geometry of gauge theory: an introduction . PoS Modave 2020 002 . APACrefDOI doi:10.22323/1.389.0002 APACrefDOI

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    , Seminar at the physics department of University at Albany, NY. ``On the ontology of gauge field theory

    Francois2023-gRGFT-ontology APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2023 October 6th . ``On the ontology of gauge field theory", Seminar at the physics department of University at Albany, NY. ``On the ontology of gauge field theory", Seminar at the physics department of...

    2023

  10. [18]

    \ Ravera, L

    JTF-Ravera2024NRrelQM APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. \ Ravera, L. APACrefauthors \ 2025 1 . Relational bundle geometric formulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics Relational bundle geometric formulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics . arXiv:2501.02046 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    \ Ravera, L

    JTF-Ravera2025DFMSusyReview&Misu APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. \ Ravera, L. APACrefauthors \ 2025 2 . Relational Supersymmetry and Matter-Interaction Supergeometric Framework Relational Supersymmetry and Matter-Interaction Supergeometric Framework . arXiv: 2503.19077 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    APACrefauthors \ 2024

    Francois2023-a APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . The dressing field method for diffeomorphisms: a relational framework The dressing field method for diffeomorphisms: a relational framework . J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57 30 . APACrefURL http://iopscience.iop....

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    \ Ravera, L

    JTF-Ravera2024gRGFT APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. \ Ravera, L. APACrefauthors \ 2024 2024/12/17 . Geometric Relational Framework for General-Relativistic Gauge Field Theories Geometric relational framework for general-relativistic gauge field theories . Fortschritte der Physik...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    \ Ravera, L

    JTF-Ravera2024c APACrefauthors Fran c ois, J. \ Ravera, L. APACrefauthors \ 2025 . On the Meaning of Local Symmetries: Epistemic-ontological Dialectics On the meaning of local symmetries: Epistemic-ontological dialectics . Foundations of Physics 55 3 38 . APACrefURL https://do...

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    APACrefauthors \ 2003

    French2003 APACrefauthors French, S. APACrefauthors \ 2003 . Scribbling on the blank sheet: Eddington's structuralist conception of objects Scribbling on the blank sheet: Eddington's structuralist conception of objects . Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Stu...

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    APACrefauthors \ 2014

    French APACrefauthors French, S. APACrefauthors \ 2014 . The Structure of the World The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation The structure of the world The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation . Oxford University Press

    2014

  17. [25]

    , Hofmann, S

    Giesel-et-al2010 APACrefauthors Giesel, K. , Hofmann, S. , Thiemann, T. \ Winkler, O. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . Manifestly gauge-invariant general relativistic perturbation theory: I. Foundations Manifestly gauge-invariant general relativistic perturbation theory: I. foundations...

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    APACrefauthors \ 2021

    Giovanelli2021 APACrefauthors Giovanelli, M. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Nothing but coincidences: the point-coincidence and Einstein's struggle with the meaning of coordinates in physics Nothing but coincidences: the point-coincidence and einstein's struggle with the meaning of c...

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Field's Dilemma

    Guttmann-Lyre2000 APACrefauthors Guttmann, G. \ Lyre, H. APACrefauthors \ 2000 . Fiber Bundle Gauge Theories and "Field's Dilemma". Fiber bundle gauge theories and "field's dilemma". APACrefURL https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0005051 APACrefURL

    2000 arXiv

  20. [28]

    \ Manchak, J

    Halvorson-Manchak2022 APACrefauthors Halvorson, H. \ Manchak, J. APACrefauthors \ 2022 2025/04/17 . Closing the hole argument Closing the hole argument \ [doi: 10.1086/719193]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.1086/719193 APACre...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    APACrefauthors \ 2017

    Hamilton2017 APACrefauthors Hamilton, M. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Mathematical Gauge Theory Mathematical gauge theory . Springer

    2017

  22. [30]

    APACrefauthors \ 2001

    Healey2001 APACrefauthors Healey, R. APACrefauthors \ 2001 . On the Reality of Gauge Potentials On the reality of gauge potentials . Philosophy of Science 68 432-455

    2001

  23. [31]

    APACrefauthors \ 2007

    Healey2007 APACrefauthors Healey, R. APACrefauthors \ 2007 . Gauging What's Real Gauging what's real . Oxford University Press

    2007

  24. [32]

    APACrefauthors \ 2023

    Jacobs2023 APACrefauthors Jacobs, C. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . The metaphysics of fibre bundles The metaphysics of fibre bundles . Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 97 34--43 . APACrefURL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368122001777 APACrefURL A...

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    APACrefauthors \ 1958 Aug

    Komar1958 APACrefauthors Komar, A. APACrefauthors \ 1958 Aug . Construction of a Complete Set of Independent Observables in the General Theory of Relativity Construction of a complete set of independent observables in the general theory of relativity . Phys. Rev. 111 1182--118...

    1958 doi

  26. [34]

    APACrefauthors \ 2023

    sep-structural-realism APACrefauthors Ladyman, J. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Structural Realism Structural Realism . E N. Zalta\ U. Nodelman\ ( ), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy \ ( S ummer 2023 \ ). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanf...

    2023

  27. [35]

    APACrefauthors \ 1999

    Lyre1999 APACrefauthors Lyre, H. APACrefauthors \ 1999 . Gauges, Holes, and their 'Connections'. Gauges, holes, and their 'connections'. arXiv:gr-qc/9904036

    1999 arXiv

  28. [36]

    APACrefauthors \ 2004 1

    Lyre2004 APACrefauthors Lyre, H. APACrefauthors \ 2004 1 . Holism and structuralism in U(1) gauge theory Holism and structuralism in U(1) gauge theory . Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35 643-670

    2004

  29. [37]

    APACrefauthors \ 2004 2

    Lyre2004book APACrefauthors Lyre, H. APACrefauthors \ 2004 2 . Lokale Symmetrien und Wirklichkeit Lokale Symmetrien und Wirklichkeit . mentis Verlag

    2004

  30. [38]

    APACrefauthors \ 2007

    Maudlin2007 APACrefauthors Maudlin, T. APACrefauthors \ 2007 . The Metaphysics within Physics The metaphysics within physics . Oxford University Press

    2007

  31. [39]

    APACrefauthors \ 1996

    Neeman1996 APACrefauthors Ne'eman, Y. APACrefauthors \ 1996 . Plato Alleges that God forever Geometrizes Plato alleges that god forever geometrizes . Foundations of Physics 26 575-583

    1996

  32. [40]

    APACrefauthors \ 1987

    Norton1987 APACrefauthors Norton, J. APACrefauthors \ 1987 . Einstein, The Hole Argument and the Reality of Space Einstein, the hole argument and the reality of space . J. Forge\ ( ), Measurement, Realism and Objectivity: Essays on Measurement in the Social and Physical Scienc...

    1987 doi

  33. [41]

    APACrefauthors \ 1989

    Norton1989 APACrefauthors Norton, J. APACrefauthors \ 1989 . The Hole Argument The hole argument . PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2 56-64

    1989

  34. [42]

    APACrefauthors \ 2003

    Nounou2003 APACrefauthors Nounou, A M. APACrefauthors \ 2003 . A Fourth Way to the Aharonov-Bohm Effect A Fourth Way to the Aharonov-Bohm Effect . K. Brading\ E. Castellani\ ( ), Symmetries In Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Symmetries in physics: Philosophical reflections...

    2003

  35. [43]

    APACrefauthors \ 1997

    ORaif1997 APACrefauthors O'Raifeartaigh, L. APACrefauthors \ 1997 . The Dawning of Gauge Theory The dawning of gauge theory . Princeton University Press

    1997

  36. [44]

    APACrefauthors \ 2013

    Pooley2013-POOSAR APACrefauthors Pooley, O. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Substantivalist and Relationalist Approaches to Spacetime Substantivalist and relationalist approaches to spacetime . R. Batterman\ ( ), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics. The oxford handbook of phi...

    2013

  37. [45]

    APACrefauthors \ 2008

    Rickles2008 APACrefauthors Rickles, D. APACrefauthors \ 2008 . Symmetry, Structure and Spacetime Symmetry, structure and spacetime . ( 3, 1 - 241). Elsevier

    2008

  38. [46]

    APACrefauthors \ 1991

    Rovelli1991 APACrefauthors Rovelli, C. APACrefauthors \ 1991 . What is observable in classical and quantum gravity? What is observable in classical and quantum gravity? Classical and Quantum Gravity 8 2 297 . APACrefURL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/011 APACrefURL A...

    1991 doi

  39. [47]

    APACrefauthors \ 2002 Jan

    Rovelli2002b APACrefauthors Rovelli, C. APACrefauthors \ 2002 Jan . GPS observables in general relativity Gps observables in general relativity . Phys. Rev. D 65 044017 . APACrefURL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.044017 APACrefURL APACrefDOI doi:10.1103/PhysRevD....

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    APACrefauthors \ 1986

    Stachel1986 APACrefauthors Stachel, J. APACrefauthors \ 1986 . What a physicist can learn from the discovery of general relativity. What a physicist can learn from the discovery of general relativity. Fourth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity Fourth marcel grossman...

    1986

  41. [49]

    APACrefauthors \ 1989

    Stachel1989 APACrefauthors Stachel, J. APACrefauthors \ 1989 . Einstein’s search for general covariance, 1912–1915 Einstein’s search for general covariance, 1912–1915 . D. Howard\ J. Stachel\ ( ), Einstein and the History of General Relativity . Einstein and the History of Gen...

    1989

  42. [50]

    APACrefauthors \ 2014

    Stachel2014 APACrefauthors Stachel, J. APACrefauthors \ 2014 . The Hole Argument and Some Physical and Philosophical Implications The hole argument and some physical and philosophical implications . Living Reviews in Relativity 17 1 1 . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-...

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    APACrefauthors \ 1980

    Trautman1980 APACrefauthors Trautman, A. APACrefauthors \ 1980 . Fiber Bundles, Gauge Fields and Gravitation Fiber Bundles, Gauge Fields and Gravitation . A. Held\ ( ), General Relativity and Gravitation . General Relativity and Gravitation . Plenum Press

    1980

  44. [52]

    APACrefauthors \ 2018 2025/04/17

    Weatherall2018 APACrefauthors Weatherall, J. APACrefauthors \ 2018 2025/04/17 . Regarding the `Hole Argument' Regarding the `hole argument' \ [doi: 10.1093/bjps/axw012]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 2 329--350 . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/a...

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    \ Yang, C N

    WuYang APACrefauthors Wu, T T. \ Yang, C N. APACrefauthors \ 1975 . Concept of nonintegrable phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields Concept of nonintegrable phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields . Physical Review D 12 12 3845

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.