The Conventionality of Slow-Transport Synchrony
The conventionality of distant simultaneity, as maintained by Hans Reichenbach and Adolf Grünbaum, is by now so widely known that it can be stated very briefly. Let us consider two points A and B which are separated from one another in an inertial frame K. For a light signal emitted from A and reflected at B back to A, we compare the time interval for the out-going trip to that for the round trip. This ratio is called ‘epsilon’ (≤). In formulating the special theory of relativity, Einstein effectively took ≤ to be ½ thus, we may use ≤=½ in defining what is now called ‘standard signal synchrony’. Reichenbach views ⊀ as being restricted only by the causal relations involved in the signaling process. That is, the reflection of the light ray at B must take place after the ray’s emission at A but before its return to A. These considerations require us to restrict ∈ between zero and one, but Reichenbach (1958, p. 127) insists that within these limits values of ∈≠ ½ “could not be called false”. He claims that there are no facts which would mediate against using these values in definitions which are now called ‘nonstandard signal synchrony’. This allegedly physical possibility of choosing ∈ between zero and one is the conventionality of distant simultaneity as determined by signals. Grünbaum (1973, p. 353) also argues for this thesis, making clear that it obtains within a single inertial frame.1 In this paper I will not be concerned with the situation in more than one inertial frame.2 Rather, I will consider a nonsignaling definition of synchrony and ask what sort of conventionality it manifests in a single inertial frame.
KeywordsSpecial Relativity Inertial Frame Causal Explanation Relative Speed Electron Theory
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bowman, P. A.: 1972, ‘Conventionality in Distant Simultaneity: Its History and Its Philosophy’, Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
- Bowman, P. A.: 1976, ‘On Conventionality and Simultaneity — Another Reply’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VIII (ed. by J.Earman and C.Glymour), forthcomGoogle Scholar
- Bowman, P. A.: 1976a, ‘The Rejection of Newtonian Simultaneity by Lorentz and Larmor’, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Bowman, P. A.: 1976b, ‘Henri Poincaré and the Light Principle’, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Bridgman, P. W.: 1962, A Sophisticate’s Primer of Relativity, Wesleyan Univ. Press, Middletown, Conn.Google Scholar
- Ellis, B. D.: 1965, ‘The Origin and Nature of Newton’s Laws of Motion’, in R. G. Colodny (ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty, Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
- Ellis, B. D.: 1966, Basic Concepts of Measurement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Grünbaum, A.: 1973, Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Synthese Library), D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht and Boston; 1st ed. published 1963.Google Scholar
- Lorentz, H. A.: 1937, ‘Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körper’, in Collected Papers, Vol. V (ed. by P. Zeeman and A. D. Fokker), Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
- Poincaré, H.: 1954, Oeuvres de Henri Poincaré, Vol. IX, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.Google Scholar
- Reichenbach, H.: 1958, The Philosophy of Space and Time (translated by M. Reichenbach and J. Freund), Dover Publications, New York; German ed. published 1928.Google Scholar
- Reichenbach, H.: 1969, Axiomatization of the Theory of Relativity (translated by M. Reichenbach), University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles; German ed. published 1924.Google Scholar