Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:18:26.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Kinematic versus Dynamic Approaches to Special Relativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Wesley Van Camp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Janssen argues that special relativity is preferable to Lorentzian dynamics due to its kinematic structure. Brown, along with others, raises an objection, arguing that a dynamical understanding of special relativity is explanatorily prior and hence more fundamental than the principle theory-based kinematic structure of Minkowski space-time. This article challenges this objection, arguing that both Janssen and Brown miss the essential aspect of the principles of special relativity that underwrite its interpretational success. It is not its kinematic structure but the constitutive nature of the principles it employs, by providing a coherent conceptual framework, that does the foundational work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1097 - 1107
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Balashov, Yuri, and Janssen, Michel. 2003. “Presentism and Relativity.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54:327–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey. 2005. Physical Relativity: Space-Time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey, and Pooley, Oliver. 2006. “Minkowski Space-Time: A Glorious Non-entity.” In The Ontology of Spacetime, ed. Dieks, Dennis, 67–89. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey R., and Timpson, Christopher G.. 2006. “Why Special Relativity Should Not Be a Template for a Fundamental Reformulation of Quantum Mechanics.” In Physical Theory and Its Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Bub, ed. Demopoulos, William and Pitowsky, Itamar, 29–42. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSalle, Robert. 2006. Understanding Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert. 1905. “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.” Annalen der Physik 322:891–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert. 1954. “What Is the Theory of Relativity?” In Ideas and Opinions, 227–32. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1974. “Explanation and Scientific Understanding.” Journal of Philosophy 71:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Michel. 2002. “Reconsidering a Scientific Revolution: The Case of Einstein versus Lorentz.” Physics in Perspective 4:421–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Michel. 2008. “Drawing the Line between Kinematics and Dynamics in Special Relativity.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 40 (1): 26–52.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Phillip. 1989. “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13, ed. Phillip Kitcher and Wesley Salmon, 410–503. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon. 2003. The Theory of Electrons and Its Applications to the Phenomena of Light and Radiant Heat. 2nd ed. New York: Courier Dover.Google Scholar
Michelson, Albert A., and Morley, Edward W.. 1887. “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether.” American Journal of Science 34:333–45.Google Scholar