Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:27:38.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Does The Principle of Relativity Imply Winnie's (1970) Equal Passage Times Principle?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Harvey R. Brown
Harvey R. Brown*
Affiliation:
Sub-Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The kinematical principle of Equal Passage Times (EPT) was introduced by Winnie in his 1970 derivation of the relativistic coordinate transformations compatible with arbitrary synchrony conventions in one-dimensional space. In this paper, the claim by Winnie and later Giannoni that EPT is a direct consequence of the relativity principle is questioned. It is shown that EPT, given Einstein's 1905 postulates, is equivalent to the relativistic (synchrony independent) clock retardation principle, and that for standard synchrony it reduces to an isotropy condition for contraction (and dilation) effects.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 313 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I wish to thank Rob Clifton, Gordon Fleming, Sara Foster, and particularly Robert Weingard for their comments and help. Any errors are, of course, solely my responsibility.

References

REFERENCES

Earman, J., Glymour, C., and Stachel, J. (eds.) (1977), Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 8. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. (1963), “Special Relativity in Anisotropic Space”, American Journal of Physics 31: 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1905), “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”, Annalen der Physik 17: 891–921. See English translation by A. I. Miller, in appendix to Miller's Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, pp. 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1957), Relativity. The Special and General Theory. A Popular Exposition. Translated by W, R. Lawson, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Fock, V. (1959), The Theory of Space, Time and Gravitation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1977), “Simultaneity in Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity”, in Earman, J., Glymour, C., and Stachel, J. (eds.) Foundations of Space Time Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 8, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 403–432.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983), Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Giannoni, C. (1978), “Relativistic Mechanics and Electrodynamics Without One-Way Velocity Assumptions”, Philosophy of Science 45: 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannoni, C. (1979), “Clock Retardation, Absolute Space and Special Relativity”, Foundations of Physics 9: 426–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. (1981), Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Mundy, B. (1983), “Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations from the Constancy of the Speed of Light”, Philosophical Studies 44: 291–303.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (1986), “The Quest for the One Way Speed of Light”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 118–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M. (1983), “Relativity, Causality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox: Nonlocality and Peaceful Coexistence”, in R. Swinburn (ed.), Space, Time and Causality, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1974), “Einstein versus Lorentz: Research Programmes and the Logic of Comparative Theory Evaluation”, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 25: 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torretti, R. (1983), Relativity and Geometry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Tzanakis, C., and Kyritsis, C. (1984), “On Special Relativity's Second Postulate”, Annales de la Foundation Louis de Broglie 9: 343–352.Google Scholar
Ungar, A. (1986), “The Lorentz Transformation Group of the Special Theory of Relativity Without Einstein's Isotropy Convention”, Philosophy of Science 53: 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingard, R. (1985), “Remark on 'The Special Theory of Relativity and the One-Way Speed of Light”, American Journal of Physics 53: 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnie, J. (1970), “Special Relativity Without One Way Velocity Assumptions”, Philosophy of Science 37: 81–99, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnie, J. (1986), “Invariants and Objectivity”, in R. G. Colodny (ed.), From Quarks to Quasars: Philosophical Problems in Modern Physics, Pittsburgh Series in Philosophy of Science, vol. 7, pp. 71–180.Google Scholar
Zahar, E. (1977), “Mach, Einstein and the Rise of Modern Science”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28: 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar