标题： 时空建构主义 versus 模态地域主义：或者，狭义相对论理论无需展示闵可夫斯基时间几何学 显示英文标题

标题： Space-time Constructivism vs. Modal Provincialism: Or, How Special Relativistic Theories Needn't Show Minkowski Chronogeometry

摘要： 1835年，罗巴切夫斯基提出了多（对立）几何的可能性。 这一思想偶尔重新出现过（例如，庞加莱），但在布朗的《\emph{物理 相对性}》（最终，这本书的解释性关键）之前，并未成为时空基础的关键内容。 他与正统“时空实在论”之间的一个关键区别在于模态范围。 建构主义适用于所有局部的经典场论，包括具有多种几何结构的理论。 但正统观点狭隘地假定唯一几何结构，就像熟悉的理论（牛顿、狭义相对论、诺德斯特伦和广义相对论）那样。 它们构成了正统的“经典”。 它们的历史角色暗示了一种不可避免的进步故事。 大约1920年之后的物理文献大多只是作为对经典理论的评论，而这些经典理论在1910年代已经关闭。 正统观点解释了物质行为是真实时空几何的表现，这种几何结构在经典理论框架内起作用。 正统观点、辉格史学和经典理论相互关联。 如果考虑经典理论之外的理论，时空实在论对物质行为的解释就显得苍白无力。 更糟糕的是，当应用于一个可能属于经典理论的例子——具有普遍耦合的重标量引力时，它给出了错误的答案：哪个才是真正的几何结构——是庞加莱对称性下的平直度规，还是由物质杆和时钟显示的共形平坦度规，或者两者都是——或者这个问题本身就有问题？ 时空实在论如何解释所有物质场看到相同的弯曲几何结构，尤其是在有如此多方式混合匹配的情况下？ 建构主义对动力学细节的关注得到了验证；几何捷径令人失望。 粒子物理学中对相对论场论（尤其是质量较大的场论）的更全面探索是基础研究中未被充分利用的资源。 显示英文摘要

摘要： In 1835 Lobachevski entertained the possibility of multiple (rival) geometries. This idea has reappeared on occasion (e.g., Poincar\'{e}) but didn't become key in space-time foundations prior to Brown's \emph{Physical Relativity} (at the end, the interpretive key to the book). A crucial difference between his constructivism and orthodox "space-time realism" is modal scope. Constructivism applies to all local classical field theories, including those with multiple geometries. But the orthodox view provincially assumes a unique geometry, as familiar theories (Newton, Special Relativity, Nordstr\"{o}m, and GR) have. They serve as the orthodox "canon." Their historical roles suggest a story of inevitable progress. Physics literature after c. 1920 is relevant to orthodoxy mostly as commentary on the canon, which closed in the 1910s. The orthodox view explains the behavior of matter as the manifestation of the real space-time geometry, which works within the canon. The orthodox view, Whiggish history, and the canon relate symbiotically. If one considers a theory outside the canon, space-time realism sheds little light on matter's behavior. Worse, it gives the wrong answer when applied to an example arguably in the canon, massive scalar gravity with universal coupling. Which is the true geometry---the flat metric from the Poincar\'{e} symmetry, the conformally flat metric exhibited by material rods and clocks, or both---or is the question bad? How does space-time realism explain that all matter fields see the same curved geometry, given so many ways to mix and match? Constructivist attention to dynamical details is vindicated; geometrical shortcuts disappoint. The more exhaustive exploration of relativistic field theories (especially massive) in particle physics is an underused resource for foundations.