Presentism and Relativity

Balashov, Yuri; Janssen, Michel

doi:10.1093/bjps/54.2.327

Cited by 147 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Spacetime structure on this account is reduced not to relations between bodies, but to symmetries of the laws themselves. 3 The arguments offered in both the book and the paper seem to support this reading. One of Brown's starting points is Einstein's distinction between principle and constructive theories.…”

Section: Dynamical Relativity As Relationismmentioning

confidence: 92%

Physical relativity from a functionalist perspective

Knox

2019

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper looks at the relationship between spacetime functionalism and Harvey Brown's dynamical relativity. One popular way of reading and extending Brown's programme in the literature rests on viewing his position as a version of relationism. But a kind of spacetime functionalism extends the project in a different way, by focussing on the account Brown gives of the role of spacetime in relativistic theories. It is then possible to see this as giving a functional account of the concept of spacetime which may be applied to theories that go beyond relativity. This paper explores the way in which both the relationist project and the functionalist project relate to Brown's work, despite being incompatible. Ultimately, these should not be seen as two conflicting readings of Brown, but two different directions in which to take his project.

show abstract

Section: Dynamical Relativity As Relationismmentioning

confidence: 92%

Physical relativity from a functionalist perspective

Knox

2019

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Michel Janssen has offered a very influential argument regarding the case of Lorentz vs. Einstein (1995, 2002a, 2002b, and Balashov and Janssen 2003. This argument relies on the different way in which the theories involved draw the line between dynamics and kinematics.…”

Section: Janssen's Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a subsequent paper, Balashov and Janssen (2003) tried to disentangle the argument from any ontological presuppositions about space-time, while conserving the COI kinematic explanation for Lorentzinvariance that special relativity offers. They make their point by means of an analogy.…”

Section: 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If, as Einstein's and Janssen's definition states, a constructive theory aims to unravel the underlying reality behind the phenomena, how is it possible that the Minkowskian formulation of special relativity can count as a constructive theory without in some 32 Notice that these remarks strengthen the view that when Janssen uses the expression Minkowski space-time we have to understand something like ‗the kinematics encoded in the Lorentz-invariance of physical laws'. 33 For his definition of the principle-constructive distinction, Janssen remits to the definition presented in (Balashov and Janssen 2003) that I quoted in footnote 28.…”

Section: 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the empirical equivalence between special relativity and Lorentz׳s ether theory

Acuña

2014

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In this paper I argue that the case of Einstein's special relativity vs. Hendrik Lorentz's ether theory can be decided in terms of empirical evidence, in spite of the predictive equivalence between the theories. In the historical and philosophical literature this case has been typically addressed focusing on non-empirical features (non-empirical virtues in special relativity and/or non-empirical flaws in the ether theory). I claim that non-empirical features are not enough to provide a fully objective and uniquely determined choice in instances of empirical equivalence. However, I argue that if we consider arguments proposed by Richard Boyd and by Larry Laudan and Jarret Leplin, a choice based on non-consequential empirical evidence favoring Einstein's theory can be made.

show abstract

“…Michel Janssen and Harvey Brown have driven it (Janssen 1995(Janssen , 2002a(Janssen , 2002b(Janssen , 2009Balashov and Janssen 2003;Brown 2003Brown , 2005aBrown , 2005bBrown & Pooley 2001, 2006, and it has become a much-discussed issue in the philosophy of physics literature (e.g., Norton 2008, Frisch 2011, Van Camp 2011, Dorato & Felline 2010, Felline 2011. The point in dispute concerns the direction of an alleged arrow of explanation between Minkowski spacetime structure and Lorentz invariance of physical laws: they argue about which is the cart and which is the horse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance: The cart and the horse or two sides of a single coin?

Acuña

2016

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brown have driven a prominent recent debate concerning the direction of an alleged arrow of explanation between Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance of dynamical laws in special relativity. In this article, I critically assess this controversy with the aim of clarifying the explanatory foundations of the theory. First, I show that two assumptions shared by the parties-that the dispute is independent of issues concerning spacetime ontology, and that there is an urgent need for a constructive interpretation of special relativity-are problematic and negatively affect the debate. Second, I argue that the whole discussion relies on a misleading conception of the link between Minkowski spacetime structure and Lorentz invariance, a misconception that in turn sheds more shadows than light on our understanding of the explanatory nature and power of Einstein's theory. I state that the arrow connecting Lorentz invariance and Minkowski spacetime is not explanatory and unidirectional, but analytic and bidirectional, and that this analytic arrow grounds the chronogeometric explanations of physical phenomena that special relativity offers.

show abstract

Presentism and Relativity

Cited by 147 publications

References 29 publications

Physical relativity from a functionalist perspective

Physical relativity from a functionalist perspective

On the empirical equivalence between special relativity and Lorentz׳s ether theory

Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance: The cart and the horse or two sides of a single coin?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About