宇宙学常数$Λ$与大质量引力子：广义相对论例外论与粒子物理平等论的一个实例研究
Cosmological Constant $Λ$ vs. Massive Gravitons: A Case Study in General Relativity Exceptionalism vs. Particle Physics Egalitarianism
摘要：
广义相对论的复兴见证了理解和证明爱因斯坦方程的巨大进步。广义相对论的学者和历史学家都倾向于持有一种观点，即广义相对论例外论。但是，在理解和证明爱因斯坦方程方面的一些复兴进展是否要归功于粒子物理学的平等主义呢？如果是这样的话，引力的历史编纂和爱因斯坦的方程应该如何反映这一事实？引力子质量的概念在19世纪的诺依曼和西利格的引力长距离修正中有着牛顿的前史，这（特别是对诺依曼）改变了泊松方程，给出了质点的势能$e^{-mr}/r$，改善了均匀物质的收敛性。爱因斯坦在引入他与$Λ$的错误类比之前重新发明了这个想法。这种混淆首先在20世纪40年代被赫克曼批评（没有效果），在20世纪60年代被特劳特曼、德威特、特雷德、林德勒和弗罗因德等人批评，尤其是最近被舒金批评，但它误导了诺斯、贾默、派斯、科兹伯格、爱因斯坦论文和克拉格。如果一个人厌恶微扰思维，那么这个错误就很难发现，但如果一个人沿着粒子物理学的思路思考，那么这个错误就很难犯。$Λ$ -引力子质量混淆不仅扭曲了爱因斯坦理论的解释，而且还掩盖了一个潜在的严重粒子物理学动机的竞争（无质量与有质量自旋2）。如果人们认为$Λ$已经与诺伊曼-西利格标量理论类似，那么人们怎么能接受自旋为2的大质量引力呢？历史编纂学和物理学一样，最好是克服引力的两种观点之间的分歧。
英文摘要：
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 $Λ$. 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 Schücking, 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 $Λ$-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 $Λ$ 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.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
