1

Consider a general spacetime manifold $\mathcal{M}$ of a given dimension (usually $D = 4$). I call two physical constraints that should be imposed on any reasonable classical theory of physics :

Homogeneity (or universality) of physical laws

The local laws of physics should be the same everywhere on the manifold. In other words, the dynamical variables and fields should maintain the same relative relations at any point $\mathcal{P} \in \mathcal{M}$. Laws are the same everywhere and at any time. This is a physical constraint that has nothing to do with coordinates used to parametrize the manifold.

Coordinates are arbitrary labels, and the physical laws should be independant of the coordinates used to cover spacetime (covariance under coordinates reparametrization). This trivial constraint is not the same as asking that the dynamical variables should keep the same relationships everywhere and at any time.

Local isotropy

The local laws of physics should be the same for all orientations of the local space axis and for all local reference frames, i.e. for all observers located at the same point $\mathcal{P} \in \mathcal{M}$. This constraint is very well known as local Lorentz invariance, and is perfectly clear to me.

What is the proper mathematical formulation of the first meta-law (universality principle) above, in General Relativity? If it's the invariance under diffeomorphism, how is it different from the general covariance under changes of coordinates (i.e. changes of parametrization of the spacetime manifold), which is a mathematical triviality? (any equation that is true in one coordinates system is also true in all other coordinates systems and can be cast into a covariant formulation, with the use of some proper tensorial definitions).

How homogeneity (or universality) of physical laws is mathematically formulated, without any reference to a coordinate system? And how to express that constraint in a fixed coordinates system?

Cham
  • 7,391
  • This question is related but not the same as the one I've asked there : https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/400085/. – Cham Apr 23 '18 at 23:27
  • 1
    If spacetime metric is part of "physical laws" then general spacetimes are not homogeneous as metric spaces. The problem with the "meta-law" is that it is a purely verbal constraint, whatever is not homogeneous, like the distribution of matter, we simply do not call "physical laws". Homogeneity under diffeomorphism means that any point can be moved to any other by a diffeomorphism, and that is true for any connected manifold. It is obviously different from general covariance, which refers to the form of the GR equations, not to a property of manifolds. – Conifold Apr 23 '18 at 23:43
  • @Conifold, it's not clear what you're saying. I'm not considering "homogeneous spacetimes", ie. metrics with an isometry. A physical law is a relation (or constraint) imposed on dynamical variables (ex : Maxwell's equations). That law is the same for all points on the manifold, even if the metric don't have an isometry. Diffeomorphism invariance is stated equivalent as coordinates covariance by Uldreth with his answer in the link above. – Cham Apr 23 '18 at 23:59
  • Apparently, pages 5 and 6 of this paper : https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603087, are showing that the diffeomorphisms group of GR is really a "symetry" group which imposes a strong contraint on the acceptable "physical laws". I think that paper is really answering my question above, i.e. the difference between general covariance under all "passive" changes of coordinates and invariance under diffeomorphism (interpreted as active coordinates changes acting on dynamical variables only). – Cham Apr 28 '18 at 15:13

0 Answers0