Presentism and relativity
By Yuri Balashov, M. Janssen. 2003
138 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/de195af3553757ddee2332a7faff778d133a6109
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Astronomy and Astrophysics
In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Citations in the corpus
- Drawing the line between kinematics and dynamics in special relativity (2009, background): “First, how can Minkowski space–time do any explanatory work if it is not a substance? As Brown writes commenting on the statement of the COI to Minkowski space–time by Balashov and Janssen (2003): ‘‘Here we are at the heart of the matter. It is wholly unclear how this geometrical explanation is supp”
- Explanation, understanding, and control (2014, unknown): “For example, one can provide both a geometrical as well as a dynamical explanation of length contraction and time dilation in Special Relativity (Balashov and Janssen 2003; Brown and Pooley 2006; Brown 2005), and despite having identical consequences these explanations each appear uniquely…”
- Substantivalist and Relationalist Approaches to Spacetime (2012, background): “78Noteworthy examples are Hofmann (1904), Reissner (1914), Schrödinger (1925), Barbour (1974a), Barbour and Bertotti (1977) and Assis (1989).”
- Minkowski space-time: A glorious non-entity (2004, background): “It is for this reason that we can rule out the sort of mismatch between space-time symmetries and dynamical symmetries that are a feature of Craig’s interpretation, and that so trouble Balashov and Janssen. Balashov and Janssen acknowledge that some of their readers will have this ‘relationist’ intu”