Simultaneity

In recent articles, Zangari (1994) and Karakostas (1997) observe that while an &unknown;-extended version of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group O + (1,3) exists for values of &unknown; not equal to zero, no similar &unknown;-extended version of its double covering group SL(2, C) exists (where &unknown;=1-2&unknown; R , with &unknown; R the non-standard simultaneity parameter of Reichenbach). Thus, they maintain, since SL(2, C) is essential in describing the rotational behaviour of half-integer spin fields, and since there is empirical evidence for (...) such behaviour, &unknown;-coordinate transformations for any value of &unknown;<>0 are ruled out empirically. In this article, I make two observations:(a)There is an isomorphism between even-indexed 2-spinor fields and Minkowski world-tensors which can be exploited to obtain generally covariant expressions of such spinor fields.(b)There is a 2-1 isomorphism between odd-indexed 2-spinor fields and Minkowski world-tensors which can be exploited to obtain generally covariant expressions for such spinor fields up to a sign. Evidence that the components of such fields do take unique values is not decisive in favour of the realist in the debate over the conventionality of simultaneity in so far as such fields do not play a role in clock synchrony experiments in general, and determinations of the one-way speed of light in particular.I claim that these observations are made clear when one considers the coordinate-independent 2-spinor formalism. They are less evident if one restricts oneself to earlier coordinate-dependent formalisms. I end by distinguishing these conclusions from those drawn by the critique of Zangari given by Gunn and Vetharaniam (1995). (shrink)

This is a short, nontechnical introduction to features of time in classical and relativistic physics and their representation in the four-dimensional geometry of spacetime. Topics discussed include: the relativity of simultaneity in special and general relativity; the ‘twin paradox’ and differential aging effects in special and general relativity; and time travel in general relativity.

I reconstruct from Rietdijk and Putnam’s well-known papers an argument against the applicability of the concept of becoming in Special Relativity, which I think is unaffected by some of the objections found in the literature. I then consider a line of thought found in the discussion of the possible conventionality of simultaneity in Special Relativity, beginning with Reichenbach, and apply it to the debate over becoming. We see that it immediately renders Rietdijk and Putnam’s argument unsound. I end by comparing (...) my approach to others found in the literature, primarily Stein’s. (shrink)

David Malament tried to show that the causal theory of time leads to a unique determination of simultaneity relative to an inertial observer, namely standard simultaneity. I show that the causal relation Malament uses in his proofs, causal connectibility, should be replaced by a different causal relation, the one used by Reichenbach in his formulation of the theory. I also explain why Malament's reliance on the assumption that the observer has an eternal inertial history modifies our conception of simultaneity, and (...) I therefore eliminate it. Having made these changes, Malament's uniqueness result no longer follows, although the conventionality of simultaneity is not reinstated. I contrast my approach with previous criticisms of Malament. Introduction Causality and Temporal Order Malament's Argument Causality versus Causal Connectibility Simultaneity and History Conclusion. (shrink)

Malament (Noûs 11:293–300, 1977) proved a certain uniqueness theorem about standard synchrony, also known as Poincaré-Einstein simultaneity, which has generated many commentaries over the years, some of them contradictory. We think that the situation called for some clarification. After reviewing and discussing some of the literature involved, we prove two results which, hopefully, will help clarifying this debate by filling the gap between the uniquess of Malament’s theorem, which allows the observer to use very few tools, and the complete arbitrariness (...) of a time coordinate in full-fledged Relativity theory. In the spirit of Malament’s theorem, and in opposition to most of its commentators, we emphasize explicit definability of simultaneity relations, and give only constructive proofs. We also explore what happens when we reduce to “purely local” data with respect to an observer. (shrink)

Though Einstein explained time dilation without recourse to a universal frame of reference, he erred by abolishing universal present moments. Relative simultaneity is insufficiently relativistic insofar as it depends on the absolute equality of reference frames in the measurement of the timing of events. Yet any given set of events privileges the frame in which the events take place. Relative to those events, the privileged frame yields the correct measurement of their timing while all other frames yield an incorrect measurement. (...) Instead of multiple frames occupying multiple times, one frame is correct and all others incorrect within a shared present moment. With the collapse of relative simultaneity, we may regard time as a succession of universal moments. Absolute simultaneity, in turn, explains why an accelerated inertial frame dilates in time rather than regressing to a prior moment relative to non-accelerated frames. In the context of flowing time, absolute simultaneity predicts time dilation while relative simultaneity predicts time regression. Einstein's explanation of time dilation is therefore incomplete. (shrink)

By eliminating the need for an absolute frame of reference or ether, Einstein resolved the problem of the constancy of light-speed in all inertial frames but created a new problem in our understanding of time. The resolution of this problem requires no experimentation but only a careful analysis of special relativity, in particular the relativity of simultaneity. This concept is insufficiently relativistic insofar as Einstein failed to recognize that any given set of events privileges the frame in which the events (...) occur; relative to those events, only the privileged frame yields the correct measurement. Instead of equally valid frames occupying different times, one frame is correct and all others incorrect within a shared present moment. I conclude that (1) time is a succession of universal moments and (2) in the context of flowing time, time dilation requires absolute simultaneity, whereas relative simultaneity predicts a nonexistent phenomenon here dubbed time regression. (shrink)

Recently a suggestion has been made that standard textbook representations of hypersurfaces of simultaneity for the travelling twin in the twin 'paradox' are incorrect. This suggestion is false: the standard textbooks are in agreement with a proper understanding of the relativity of simultaneity.

This paper is a response to the "panel discussion of simultaneity by slow clock transport in the special and general theories of relativity" ("philosophy of science", 36, (march, 1969), Pp. 1-81) which arose out of a paper by brian ellis and peter bowman on "conventionality in distant simultaneity", ("philosophy of science", 34, (june, 1967), Pp. 116-36). It is argued that the basic disagreement between the pittsburgh panel and us is an epistemological one. In particular, Our concept of a good physical (...) reason is radically different from the pittsburgh panel's. For us the known existence of a number of concordant, Isotropic, And logically independent criteria for distant simultaneity, And the non-Existence of any known discordant but isotropic criteria for distant simultaneity is a good physical reason for choosing one of these criteria. For the pittsburgh panel it is not. (shrink)

Thought experiments are described in which the one-way velocity of light appears as a physical quantity. A rotating shaft is used to define distant synchrony for a system of clocks along the shaft. In this context Einstein's definition of distant simultaneity is seen as based on a physical assumption (and not merely on an overwhelmingly sensible choice in a range of conventional possibilities).

We investigate whether standard counterfactual analyses of causation imply that the outcomes of space-like separated measurements on entangled particles are causally related. Although it has sometimes been claimed that standard CACs imply such a causal relation, we argue that a careful examination of David Lewis’s influential counterfactual semantics casts doubt on this. We discuss ways in which Lewis’s semantics and standard CACs might be extended to the case of space-like correlations.

This four-phase thought experiment compares possible wormhole worldlines and flat Minkowski spacetime worldlines. For example, possible wormhole worldlines can connect an observer to an otherwise causally disconnected event; while they also exclude closed timelike curves that are theoretically impossible. The first phase of the experiment has flat Minkowski spacetime worldlines and two observers of two causally disconnected events. The two observers detect a relativistic reversal of chronology for the two events. The second phase has the same two observers and the (...) same two events, but adds possible wormhole worldlines between the observers and the events. This gives each observer two respective worldlines for each event. The flat Minkowski spacetime worldlines observations are the same as above with the reversal of chronology for the two events. However, in the case of possible wormhole worldlines observations, the same two observers detect the same two events without a relativistic reversal of chronology. The third and fourth phases of the experiment assume the certainty of quantum logic and indicate that two durable observers in otherwise causally disconnected regions had access to an omnicluster of possible wormhole worldlines. Both observers with the omnicluster detected the same chronology for the Hilbert spacetime of every quantum system in the observable universe or multiverse. For instance, the wormhole worldlines have no universal spacetime scale and nonetheless support a universal chronology with the concepts of before, during, and after. (shrink)

Alternative theories of relativistic rotation considered viable as of 2004 are compared in the light of experiments reported in 2005. En route, the contentious issue of simultaneity choice in rotation is resolved by showing that only one simultaneity choice, the one possessing continuous time, gives rise, via the general relativistic equation of motion, to the correct Newtonian limit Coriolis acceleration. In addition, the widely dispersed argument purporting Lorentz contraction in rotation and the concomitant curved surface of a rotating disk is (...) analyzed and argued to be lacking for more than one reason. It is posited that not by theoretical arguments, but only via experiment can we know whether such effect exists in rotation or not. The Coriolis/simultaneity correlation, and the results of the 2005 experiments, support the Selleri theory as being closest to the truth, though it is incomplete in a more general applicability sense, because it does not provide a global metric. Two alternatives, a modified Klauber approach and a Selleri–Klauber hybrid, are presented which are consistent with recent experiment and have a global metric, thereby making them applicable to rotation problems of all types. (shrink)

It is said what aggregative properties are and also what emergent properties are, and examples are given each of kind of property. It is also explained why, even though all emergent properties are aggregative properties, not all aggregative properties are emergent properties. It is further made clear that, strictly speaking, emergence is a property of one's knowledge of a given kind of aggregate, and not of such aggregates themselves, this being why a property that is emergent at one time will, (...) when additional information becomes available, cease to be emergent. And it is explained why, for this very reason, the right answer to the question 'why does X exist?' is never 'because X is an emergent property.'. (shrink)

It is clearly stated what time-travel would be, were it possible, and it is thereby shown that the very concept of time-travel is incoherent.

This paper deals with the concept of simultaneity in classical and relativistic physics as construed in terms of group-invariant equivalence relations. A full examination of Newton, Galilei and Poincaré invariant equivalence relations in ℝ4 is presented, which provides alternative proofs, additions and occasionally corrections of results in the literature, including Malament’s theorem and some of its variants. It is argued that the interpretation of simultaneity as an invariant equivalence relation, although interesting for its own sake, does not cut in the (...) debate concerning the conventionality of simultaneity in special relativity. (shrink)

In a recent issue of this journal Berit Brogaard and Kristian Marlow claim that an absolute frame of reference is compatible with Einstein’s Special Relativity. To achieve this they tweak Einstein’s famous train and embankment thought experiment and unjustifiably attribute, to Einstein, Hans Reichenbach’s claim that cause and effect are always temporally separated. Their conclusion is incompatible with the proper Lorentz transformations to show how time dilates from one frame of reference to another; transformations they show no evidence of having (...) done. I refute their conclusion by doing the calculations. (shrink)

Two radically different views about time are possible. According to the first, the universe is three dimensional. It has a past and a future, but that does not mean it is spread out in time as it is spread out in the three dimensions of space. This view requires that there is an unambiguous, absolute, cosmic-wide "now" at each instant. According to the second view about time, the universe is four dimensional. It is spread out in both space and time (...) - in space-time in short. Special and general relativity rule out the first view. There is, according to relativity theory, no such thing as an unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide "now" at each instant. However, we have every reason to hold that both special and general relativity are false. Not only does the historical record tell us that physics advances from one false theory to another. Furthermore, elsewhere I have shown that we must interpret physics as having established physicalism - in so far as physics can ever establish anything theoretical. Physicalism, here, is to be interpreted as the thesis that the universe is such that some unified "theory of everything" is true. Granted physicalism, it follows immediately that any physical theory that is about a restricted range of phenomena only, cannot be true, whatever its empirical success may be. It follows that both special and general relativity are false. This does not mean of course that the implication of these two theories that there is no unambiguous cosmic-wide "now" at each instant is false. It still may be the case that the first view of time, indicated at the outset, is false. Are there grounds for holding that an unambiguous cosmic-wide "now" does exist, despite special and general relativity, both of which imply that it does not exist? There are such grounds. Elsewhere I have argued that, in order to solve the quantum wave/particle problem and make sense of the quantum domain we need to interpret quantum theory as a fundamentally probabilistic theory, a theory which specifies how quantum entities - electrons, photons, atoms - interact with one another probabilistically. It is conceivable that this is correct, and the ultimate laws of the universe are probabilistic in character. If so, probabilistic transitions could define unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide "nows" at each instant. It is entirely unsurprising that special and general relativity have nothing to say about the matter. Both theories are pre-quantum mechanical, classical theories, and general relativity in particular is deterministic. The universe may indeed be three dimensional, with a past and a future, but not spread out in four dimensional space-time, despite the fact that relativity theories appear to rule this out. These considerations, finally, have implications for views about the arrow of time and free will. (shrink)

Henri Bergson is perhaps most remembered for his bold challenge to Einstein's theory of the relativity of simultaneity. Bergson maintained that Einstein's theory did not cope with our intuition of time, which is an intuition of duration. Einstein retorted that there may be psychological time, but there is no special philosopher's time. For Einstein, time forms the fourth dimension of a so-called Parmenidean "block universe". I argue that we must be on our guard not to read into the work of (...) even greatest intellectual predecessors ideas and levels of sophistication that we take for granted in modern theories. For example, it would be silly to suggest that Democritus's atomic theory - though important in the development of the testable modern atomic theory - has anything new to say about modern quantum theory. (shrink)

Does the status of certain temporal experiences as illusory depend on one’s conception of time? Our concept of time in part determines our concept of what we hold to be real and unreal; what we hold to be real and unreal partially determines what we hold to be illusory; thus, our concept of time in part determines what we hold to be illusory. This paper argues that this dependency of illusions on the concept of time is applicable to illusions of (...) time. Two possible temporal illusions given the evidence are examined, simultaneity and the experience of the past; it is argued that the evidence points at temporal illusions depending on which conception of time is true. (shrink)

The Special Theory of Relativity (STR) holds sway as a theory of time due to its apparently successful predictive structure regarding time-related phenomena such as the increased life spans of mesons or retarded clocks on jets circling the globe, and due to the relativization of simultaneity intrinsic to this theoretical structure. Yet the very structure of the theory demands that such very real physical effects be construed as non-ontological. The scope and depth of this contradiction is explored and, if these (...) time-changes are indeed viewed as ontological effects within STR, an additional problem for the theory is introduced in the context of perception. The origins of this confused situation arise as a result of the fact that STR is an expression of a classical, spatial metaphysic – a framework that equally underpins current discussions of the hard problem. This metaphysic holds an inadequate concept of time and a failure to acknowledge the reality of simultaneous causal flows. These problems are developed against the background of an alternative, namely, the temporal metaphysic of Bergson – a framework that provides a profoundly different base for viewing both relativity and consciousness. (shrink)

As is well know from Einstein the choice of a criterion for distant simultaneity is equivalent to stipulating one-way speeds for the transit of light. It is shown that any choice of non-standard synchrony is equivalent to a Lorentz local time boost. From this and considerations from the hole argument, it follows that there is a non-trivial sense in which distant simultaneity is conventional, at least to the extent that the “gauge freedom” arising in the hole argument is non-trivial.

After describing a new method of synchronizing spatially separated clocks by means of clock transport, this paper discusses the philosophical import of the existence of such methods, including those of Ellis and Bowman and of Bridgman, with special reference to the Ellis-Bowman claim that "the thesis of the coventionality of distant simultaneity... is thus either trivialized or refuted." I argue that the physical facts do not support this philosophical conclusion, and that a substantial part of their argument against Reichenbach, in (...) particular, is misdirected. Finally, I suggest that Ellis and Bowman employ seriously unclear notions of triviality and "good physical reasons" that tend to obscure rather than clarify the basic philosophical issues. An objective criterion of nontriviality of conventions is advanced. (shrink)

David Malament's (1977) well-known result, which is often taken to show the uniqueness of the Poincare-Einstein convention for defining simultaneity, involves an unwarranted physical assumption: that any simultaneity relation must remain invariant under temporal reflections. Once that assumption is removed, his other criteria for defining simultaneity are also satisfied by membership in the same backward (forward) null cone of the family of such cones with vertices on an inertial path. What is then unique about the Poincare-Einstein convention is that it (...) is independent of the choice of inertial path in a given inertial frame, confirming a remark in Einstein 1905. Similarly, what is unique about the backward (forward) null cone definition is that it is independent of the state of motion of an observer at a point on the inertial path. (shrink)

This paper presents an attempt to define temporal coincidence starting from the first principles. The temporal coincidence defined here differs from Einstein’s simultaneity for it is invariant across inertial frames - not relative. The meaning and significance of temporal coincidence is derived from axioms of existence and it somehow relates to Kant’s notion of simultaneity. Consistentl y applied to the Special Theory of Relativity framework, temporal coincidence does not in any way create mathematical contradictions; however it allows looking at some (...) common relativity claims with a dose of scepticism. Time, as derived from Lorentz transformations, appears to be conventional in order to match the postulate of constancy of the speed of light. The relative simultaneity is only apparent due to that convention. There are insufficient grounds to claim that inertial systems moving relatively to each other have their own different temporal realities. Overall, the innate temporal logic we have is not erroneous and does not need to be replaced contrary to the claims of some relativity educators. (shrink)

This paper presents the proof of the apparent nature of relative simultaneity originally derived from Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR). The proof does not challenge the validity of the STR but uncovers fundamental and widespread error in understanding of practical implications of Lorentz transformations. It is demonstrated that more than a century long debates generally miss the point. This results in counterintuitive claims of coexisting multiple time realities by mere equivalence of equal clock indications and simultaneity. Such claims have (...) little empirical significance but they are substantial in education and philosophy which has become utterly confused after universal acceptance of the STR and rejections of Henri Bergson’s challenge. There is nothing more to “relative simultaneity” other than the effect of identical clocks being shifted by an offset which depends on synchronisation method. (shrink)

The paper defends the thesis of conventionality in distant simultaneity within the special theory of relativity. The thesis can be expressed in the following way: There is no method independent of standard synchronization by which the one-way velocity of light can be measured if all empirical consequences of the special theory of relativity are to be accepted. Three methods which have recently been suggested are investigated. It is shown that they all depend on the method of standard synchronization. It is (...) finally claimed that nobody has suggested a method which cannot be shown to depend on the method of standard synchronization. (shrink)