Is simultaneity conventional despite Malament's result?
|Abstract||Many take Malaments result that the standard Einstein simultaniety relation is uniquely definable from the causal structure of Minkowski space-time to be tantamount to a refutation of the claim that criterion for simultaneity in the special theory of relativity (STR) is a matter of convention. I call into question this inference by examining concrete alternatives and suggest that what has been overlooked is why it should be assumed that in STR simultaneity must be relative only to a frame of reference (or an inertial observer) and not to other parameters as well.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Frank Jackson & Robert Pargetter (1977). Relative Simultaneity in the Special Relativity. Philosophy of Science 44 (3):464-474.
Bas C. Van Fraassen (1969). Conventionality in the Axiomatic Foundations of the Special Theory of Relativity. Philosophy of Science 36 (1):64 - 73.
Domenico Giulini (2001). Uniqueness of Simultaneity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):651-670.
Douglas M. Snyder (1994). On the Arbitrary Choice Regarding Which Inertial Reference Frame is "Stationary" and Which is "Moving" in the Special Theory of Relativity. .
Sahotra Sarkar & John Stachel (1999). Did Malament Prove the Non-Conventionality of Simultaneity in the Special Theory of Relativity? Philosophy of Science 66 (2):208-220.
Hanoch Ben-Yami (2006). Causality and Temporal Order in Special Relativity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (3):459-479.
Robert Rynasiewicz (2001). Definition, Convention, and Simultaneity: Malament's Result and its Alleged Refutation by Sarkar and Stachel. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S345-.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #74,686 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?