广义相对论经典与现代检验中的不充分决定性
Underdetermination in Classic and Modern Tests of General Relativity
AI总结：
本文通过构造能通过广义相对论经典与现代检验的替代理论，揭示广义相对论实验确证中的不充分决定性问题，并促使人们重新审视这些检验的真实对象。
摘要：
按照通常的界定，广义相对论（GR）的“经典”检验包括水星近日点进动、光线在恒星附近的弯曲以及引力红移；“现代”检验则涉及相对论性时间延迟、等效原理检验、引力透镜、强场引力以及引力波等。正统观点认为，经典和现代检验都为广义相对论这一特定理论提供了实验确证。本文对这一正统观点提出质疑，通过展示存在两类同样能通过这些检验的理论：一类是相对论性理论（其时空几何性质不同于广义相对论），另一类是非相对论性理论（其中相对论时空的光锥被“加宽”）。因此，（a）在广义相对论语境下的不充分决定性问题远比人们可能设想的更为突出；（b）有鉴于此，人们必须更仔细地思考这类检验实际上究竟在检验什么。
英文摘要：
Canonically, `classic' tests of general relativity (GR) include perihelion precession, the bending of light around stars, and gravitational redshift; `modern' tests have to do with, inter alia, relativistic time delay, equivalence principle tests, gravitational lensing, strong field gravity, and gravitational waves. The orthodoxy is that both classic and modern tests of GR afford experimental confirmation of that theory in particular. In this article, we question this orthodoxy, by showing there are classes of both relativistic theories (with spatiotemporal geometrical properties different from those of GR) and non-relativistic theories (in which the lightcones of a relativistic spacetime are `widened') which would also pass such tests. Thus, (a) issues of underdetermination in the context of GR loom much larger than one might have thought, and (b) given this, one has to think more carefully about what exactly such tests in fact are testing.
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。
