Why Not a Sound Postulate?

Foundations of Physics 51 (3):1-20 (2021)

Abstract

What, if anything, would be wrong with replacing the light postulate in Einstein’s 1905 formulation of special relativity with a ‘sound postulate’, stating that the speed of sound is independent of the speed of the source? After reviewing the historical reasons underlying the particular focus on light in the special theory, we consider the circumstances under which such a theory of ‘sonic relativity’ would be justified on empirical grounds. We then consider the philosophical upshots of ‘sonic relativity’ for four contemporary areas of investigation in the philosophy of spacetime: global versus subsystem symmetries, dynamical versus geometrical approaches to spacetime, the possibility of a preferred frame in theories of quantum gravity, and spacetime functionalism.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,766

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-06-21

Downloads
13 (#775,987)

6 months
1 (#386,989)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

James Read
Oxford University

References found in this work

What is Structural Realism?James Ladyman - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29 (3):409-424.

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Einstein, Newton and the Empirical Foundations of Space Time Geometry.Robert DiSalle - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.
Was Newton Right After All?Irving F. Laucks - 1959 - Philosophy of Science 26 (3):229-239.
Sound Clocks and Sonic Relativity.Scott L. Todd & Nicolas C. Menicucci - 2017 - Foundations of Physics 47 (10):1267-1293.