Foundations of Physics Letters

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 273–283 | Cite as

Spatial measures in special relativity do not empirically determine simultaneity relations: A reply to Coleman and Korté

  • Ronald Anderson
  • Geoffrey E. Stedman
Article
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

Coleman and Korté have restated and defended an earlier attempt to refute the traditional thesis of the conventionality of simultaneity within special relativity. Here we argue their attempt still fails and respond to criticisms of a paper in which we addressed the inadequacies of their earlier paper. The spatial criterion they use to argue for standard synchronization throughout an inertial frame is merely a definition and provides no demonstration that a unique distant simultaneity relation exists in nature.

Key words

conventionality simultaneity special relativity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Anderson and G. E. Stedman, “Distance and the conventionality of simultaneity in special relativity,”Found. Phys. Lett. 5, 199–220 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Anderson and G. E. Stedman, “Dual Observers in Operational Relativity,”Found. Phys. 7, 29–34 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Arzeliès,Relativité Généralisée Gravitation, Fascicule I (Gau-thier-Villars, Paris, 1961).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. A. Basri,A Deductive Theory of Space and Time (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. A. Basri, “Operational foundation of Einstein's general theory of relativity,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 37, 288–315 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. A. Coleman and H. Korté, “An empirical, purely spatial criterion for the planes of F-simultaneity,”Found. Phys. 21, 417–437 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. A. Coleman and H. Korté, “On attempts to rescue the conventionality thesis of distant simultaneity in STR,”Found. Phys. Lett. 5, 535–571 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Ellis and P. Bowman, “Conventionality in distant simultaneity,”Phil. Sci. 34, 116–136 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Göckeler and T. Schücker,Differential Geometry, Gauge Theories, and Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,The Classical Theory of Fields, 2nd edn. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1962).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. R. Lucas and P. E. Hodgson,Spacetime and Electromagnetism (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Malament, “Causal theories of time and the conventionality of simultaneity,”Noûs 11, 293–300 (1977).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Møller,The Theory of Relativity, 2nd edn. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. D. Norton, “Philosophy of space and time,” inIntroduction to the Philosophy of Science (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1992), pp. 179–231.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. H. Payne and G. E. Stedman, “Electrodynamics of rotating superconducting interferometers,”Phys. Lett. 50A, 415–416 (1975).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. L. G. Redhead, “The conventionality of simultaneity,” inAt the Cutting Edge of the Philosophy of Science (University of Pittsburgh/University of Konstance, Pittsburgh, to be published, 1993).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. C. Salmon, “The conventionality of simultaneity,”Phil. Sci. 36, 44–6 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. L. Synge,Relativity: The General Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1964).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. E. Stedman, “Reply to Erlichson: is the apparent speed of light independent of the sense in which it traverses a closed polygonal path?”Am. J. Phys. 41, 1300–1302 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. E. Stedman, “Ring interferometric tests of classical and quantum Gravity,”Contemp. Phys. 26, 311–332 (1985).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. A. Ungar, “Formalism to deal with Reichenbach's special theory of relativity,”Found. Phys. 21, 691–726 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Anderson
    • 1
  • Geoffrey E. Stedman
    • 2
  1. 1.Dibner Institute for the History of Science and TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge
  2. 2.Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations