If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Definition, Convention, and Simultaneity: Malament's Result and Its Alleged Refutation by Sarkar and Stachel

Robert Rynasiewicz
Philosophy of Science
Vol. 68, No. 3, Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers (Sep., 2001), pp. S345-S357
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3080957
Page Count: 13
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Definition, Convention, and Simultaneity: Malament's Result and Its Alleged Refutation by Sarkar and Stachel
Preview not available

Abstract

The question whether distant simultaneity (relativized to an inertial frame) has a factual or a conventional status in special relativity has long been disputed and remains in contention even today. At one point it appeared that Malament (1977) had settled the issue by proving that the only non-trivial equivalence relation definable from (temporally symmetric) causal connectability is the standard simultaneity relation. Recently, however, Sarkar and Stachel (1999) claim to have identified a suspect assumption in the proof by defining a non-standard simultaneity relation from causal connectability. I contend that their critique is based on a misunderstanding of the criteria for the definability of a relation, a misunderstanding that Malement's original treatment helped to foster. There are in fact a variety of notions of definability that can be brought to bear. They all, however, require a condition that suffices to secure Malament's result. The non-standard relation Sarkar and Stachel claim to be definable is not so definable, and, I argue, their proposal to modify the notion of "causal definability" is misguided. Finally, I address the relevance of Malament's result to the thesis of conventionalism.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
S345
    S345
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S346
    S346
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S347
    S347
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S348
    S348
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S349
    S349
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S350
    S350
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S351
    S351
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S352
    S352
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S353
    S353
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S354
    S354
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S355
    S355
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S356
    S356
  • Thumbnail: Page 
S357
    S357