Are Einstein and Minkowski's interpretations of special relativity different?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter matheinste
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Einstein Minkowski
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretations of special relativity (SR) as presented by Einstein and Minkowski, exploring whether these interpretations are fundamentally different and the implications of those differences. The conversation touches on philosophical perspectives, historical context, and the relationship between physics and philosophy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the clarity of the differences between Einstein's and Minkowski's interpretations, suggesting that Minkowski's approach is more geometrical but seeking further justification for labeling them as different interpretations.
  • Another participant posits that Minkowski's contributions were essential for transitioning from special relativity to general relativity, although they express uncertainty about whether this transition could have been achieved through other physicists' approaches.
  • A comparison is made between Einstein and Minkowski's contributions to relativity, likening Minkowski's work to an enhancement of Einstein's theory.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the philosophical interpretations of physics, suggesting that philosophers may overestimate their understanding of physical concepts.
  • There are references to philosophical critiques of the epistemology and ontology underlying special relativity, indicating a divide between physicists and philosophers on these issues.
  • Participants share humorous remarks about the perceived absurdities in philosophical interpretations of physics, reflecting a tension between the two fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretations of special relativity, with no consensus reached on whether Einstein's and Minkowski's interpretations are fundamentally different or how to evaluate the philosophical critiques of physics.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference the philosophical implications of time theories and the historical context of relativity, but these points remain unresolved and depend on varying interpretations.

matheinste
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
0
Regarding the book Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity edited by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith. Routledge 2008.

Chapter 1- The metaphysics of special relativity: three views. William Lane Craig.

This deals with the Einsteinian interpretation, the Minkowskian interpretation and the Lorentzian interpretation, but, to me, is not very clear about the difference in the case of the first two. My question is, how are these two different apart from the second being more geometrical in its treatment? In other words is the author justified in calling them different interpretations of SR?

The editors are philosophy professors.

Matheinste.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think if we didn't have Minkowski, and only had Einstein 1905, we could still do SR fine. But we really needed Minkowski to go from SR to GR.

Edit: Maybe not - could we have gotten there from Deser, Feynman, Weinberg's ungeometrical approach to GR? (reviewed here by Straumann http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0006423). But in the end we still end up with flat spacetime being unobservable, so I'd say Minkowski's recognition of the metric was crucial for it becoming the gravitational field.
 
Last edited:
It was a bit like Galileo and Newton.
E and M present the same theory, but M made it fly.
Lorentz is like the Aristotle of Relativity-- yesterday's news.
 
matheinste said:
The editors are philosophy professors.
:rolleyes: Need anything more be said?
 
DaleSpam said:
:rolleyes: Need anything more be said?

I cannot think why I added that particular bit of information!

Matheinste.
 
Not wanting to stir things up but Physicists among the posters here may also be interested in a quote from the same book. When talking about A and B theories of time ---

---- The problem here is, in a sense, the reverse of the first problem we mentioned above, namely, the physicists’ lack of awareness of the many arguments that philosophers have provided against the epistemology, philosophy of language, and ontology presupposed by the Special Theory.------

The authors’ sentiments, not mine.

Matheinste.
 
A surprisingly large number of philosopers think they understand physics better than physicists. I don't remember who it was, but there's a 'post-modern' philosoper who claims that E = mc2 is a "masculinist" equation! And they wonder why physicists don't take them seriously... :rolleyes:
 
dx said:
A surprisingly large number of philosopers think they understand physics better than physicists. I don't remember who it was, but there's a 'post-modern' philosoper who claims that E = mc2 is a "masculinist" equation! And they wonder why physicists don't take them seriously... :rolleyes:

Looking up "Fashionable Nonsense" in Wiki will reveal many equally ridiculous utterances from post moderrnists and is well worth a read if you are in need of a little light humour after a hard days physicing.

Matheinste.
 
matheinste said:
Looking up "Fashionable Nonsense" in Wiki will reveal many equally ridiculous utterances from post moderrnists and is well worth a read if you are in need of a little light humour after a hard days physicing.

Matheinste.

Good stuff indeed. From the back cover of one of WLC earlier books "Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity" http://books.google.com/books?id=EY...+Lane+Craig+relativity&source=gbs_navlinks_s: The present volume is part of a larger project, which is the attempt to craft a coherent dictrine of divine eternity and God's relationship to time. :smile:
 
  • #10
atyy said:
Good stuff indeed. From the back cover of one of WLC earlier books "Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity" http://books.google.com/books?id=EY...+Lane+Craig+relativity&source=gbs_navlinks_s: The present volume is part of a larger project, which is the attempt to craft a coherent dictrine of divine eternity and God's relationship to time. :smile:

In the originally mentioned book WLC deals briefly, early on, with the relevance of the nature of a god to Newton's views on time. I should have begun to smell a rat then. Having said that, there are some interesting quotes that I have not seen before, mostly by Lorentz, in the earlier parts of the book that I have read so far.

Matheinste.
 
  • #11
matheinste said:
In the originally mentioned book WLC deals briefly, early on, with the relevance of the nature of a god to Newton's views on time. I should have begun to smell a rat then.

I would have smelled a mouse! http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/mice.shtml
 

Similar threads

High School Understanding Minkowski: Einstein, Relativity & Absolute Simultaneity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad The wave equation interpretation of special relativity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Graduate Grasping the Properties of Minkowski Space
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Understanding Einstein's second postulate of special relativity
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
High School Special Relativity & Einstein's Equivalence Principle
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Einstein's train-lightning scenario doesn't demonstrate relativity
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
Undergrad Relativity of Simultaneity: What Einstein's Contribution Was
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Understanding Spacetime Diagrams from "Reality is not What it Seems
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate What is Minkowski Space and Its Role in Understanding Relativity?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
Graduate What is the problem with the Minkowski relationship in special relativity?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K