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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Relative Simultaneity in the Special Relativity.Frank Jackson & Robert Pargetter - 1977 - Philosophy of Science 44 (3):464-474.
Uniqueness of Simultaneity.Domenico Giulini - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):651-670.
On the Arbitrary Choice Regarding Which Inertial Reference Frame is "Stationary" and Which is "Moving" in the Special Theory of Relativity.Douglas M. Snyder - 1994 - Philosophical Explorations.
Did Malament Prove the Non-Conventionality of Simultaneity in the Special Theory of Relativity?Sahotra Sarkar & John Stachel - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (2):208-220.
Causality and Temporal Order in Special Relativity.Hanoch Ben-Yami - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (3):459-479.
David Malament and the Conventionality of Simultaneity: A Reply. [REVIEW]Adolf Grünbaum - 2010 - Foundations of Physics 40 (9-10):1285-1297.
Definition, Convention, and Simultaneity: Malament's Result and its Alleged Refutation by Sarkar and Stachel.Robert Rynasiewicz - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S345-.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #172,815 of 2,152,487 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,782 of 2,152,487 )
How can I increase my downloads?