<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-04-04T06:41:57Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:www.recercat.cat:10256/25523" metadataPrefix="marc">https://recercat.cat/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:recercat.cat:10256/25523</identifier><datestamp>2024-10-29T20:42:19Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_2072_452955</setSpec><setSpec>com_2072_2054</setSpec><setSpec>col_2072_453063</setSpec></header><metadata><record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
   <leader>00925njm 22002777a 4500</leader>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="042">
      <subfield code="a">dc</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Mozota Frauca, Álvaro</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="260">
      <subfield code="c">2024-10-11</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="520">
      <subfield code="a">Some authors have defended the claim that one needs to be able to define ‘physical coordinate systems’ and ‘observables’ in order to make sense of general relativity. Moreover, in Rovelli (Physical Review D, 65(4), 044017 2002), Rovelli proposes a way of implementing these ideas by making use of a system of satellites that allows defining a set of ‘physical coordinates’, the GPS coordinates. In this article I oppose these views in four ways. First, I defend an alternative way of understanding general relativity which implies that we have a perfectly fine interpretation of the models of the theory even in the absence of ‘physical coordinate systems’. Second, I analyze and challenge the motivations behind the ‘observable’ view. Third, I analyze Rovelli’s proposal and I conclude that it does not allow extracting any physical information from our models that wasn’t available before. Fourth, I draw an analogy between general relativistic spacetimes and Newtonian spacetimes, which allows me to argue that as ‘physical observables’ are not needed in Newtonian spacetime, then neither are they in general relativity. In this sense, I conclude that the ‘observable’ view of general relativity is unmotivated</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="520">
      <subfield code="a">Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind1="8" ind2=" " tag="024">
      <subfield code="a">http://hdl.handle.net/10256/25523</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Relativitat general (Física)</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">General relativity (Physics)</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Sistema de posicionament global</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Global Positioning System</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2="0" ind1="0" tag="245">
      <subfield code="a">GPS observables in Newtonian spacetime or why we do not need ‘physical’ coordinate systems</subfield>
   </datafield>
</record></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>