Concurrent Events Jill North Concepts of Simultaneity: From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond. Ma Jammer. ii ! "#$ pp.

Johns %op&ins 'niversity (ress) *##+. ,-.../. Ma Jammer0s recent 1oo&) Concepts of Simultaneity: From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond) traces the history of our ideas on simultaneity as they evolved alon2side s3eepin2 chan2es in our understandin2 of physics. 4ne of the interestin2 lessons of the 1oo& is that) even as our physical theories have 1ecome increasin2ly successful) the question of the proper understandin2 or interpretation of those theories remains e tremely pu55lin2. 6he central issue is this: 7s the simultaneity of events a real feature of the 3orld8 4r does it depend on the particular choice of reference frame) 3ith any such frame as 2ood as any other8 7n ancient times) Jammer su22ests) most people too& the notion of simultaneity for 2ranted: 63o events 3ere simultaneous if they happened at the same time. Simultaneity 3as considered an o19ective feature of the 3orld. 6his simple idea appeared confirmed 1y classical Ne3tonian mechanics. 7n Ne3tonian physics different inertial reference frames :ones that move at a constant velocity relative to one another; are equally 2ood :the la3s of motion hold in all of them;) even thou2h some attri1utes of an o19ect) say velocity or momentum) differ from one reference frame to another. %o3ever) some features) such as simultaneity) hold in all allo3a1le reference frames and are thus frame independent and in some sense more o19ective. But 3hat if t3o events 3hose simultaneity is in question too& place far from each other8 %o3 3ould you &no3 3hether they 3ere simultaneous8 4ne solution :availa1le for the last fe3 centuries any3ay; is for the o1servers of each event to loo& at their :previously synchroni5ed; cloc&s. 6he question then 1ecomes) %o3 can cloc&s that are distant from one another 1e synchroni5ed8 6hat is the issue that spar&ed Al1ert Einstein0s special theory of relativity) in 3hich he shoc&ed the 3orld 1y ar2uin2 that the interval of time 1et3een t3o events depends on the motion of the o1server. 4ne o1server mi2ht perceive t3o events as happenin2 at the same time) 3hereas another) 3ho is movin2 relative to the first) mi2ht vie3 the t3o events as happenin2 in succession. 6hus simultaneity is <relative< to the o1server0s frame of reference. Just as a toddler) my 1rother and a professional 1as&et1all player 3ould 2ive different) equally le2itimate) ans3ers to the question of 3hether or not 7 am tall) so too 3ould o1servers in different inertial reference frames 2ive different) equally le2itimate ans3ers to questions a1out 3hether particular events are simultaneous. Accordin2 to special relativity theory) intervals of time in 2eneral) and simultaneity in particular) are <merely< frame=dependent quantities. Simultaneity 2ets even mur&ier 3ith the advent of 2eneral relativity and quantum mechanics. 7n 2eneral relativity) different &inds of spacetime are possi1le) not 9ust the <flat< one of special relativity. Still) it seems that in any of these spacetimes) simultaneity 3ill 1e a frame=dependent quantity. >et quantum mechanics thro3s another complication into the mi . 6he socalled <collapse of the 3ave function< is supposed to occur at the same time in all frames of reference. 7n a no3famous paper 3ritten in ?."/) Einstein) Boris (odols&y and Nathan @osen pointed out this pu55lin2 aspect of the theory: 7n quantum mechanics) a measurement done on a particle over here can immediately determine the outcome of a measurement done on a particle over thereAeven thou2h these events occur simultaneously) so that there can 1e no interaction 1et3een the t3o particles in the meantime) and even thou2h) 1efore the first measurement ever occurs) one cannot predict the outcome of the other measurement. Buantum mechanics seems to require a frame=independent notion of simultaneityAsomethin2 Einstein did a3ay

3ith 3hen he introduced his theories of relativityC 7n focusin2 our attention on simultaneityAfor 3hich de1ate is on2oin2 as to 3hether it is) after all) a 2enuine feature of our 3orldAJammer0s 1oo& does us a service. Also valua1le is the 3ay that it 2uides readers into the thic&et of some current controversies in the foundations of physics. 7ndeed) one 1enefit of the 1oo& is its vivid depiction of the fits=and=starts quality of scientific inquiry and of the 3ays empirical evidence) rational ar2ument and de1ate aid scientific pro2ress and help 2uide our choice of 3hich theories to accept. Jammer0s discussion sho3s that the process of scientific understandin2 and discovery) rather than 1ein2 incremental and linear) proceeds via leaps and 1ounds) re2resses and pro2resses) accompanied every step of the 3ay 1y dou1t and questionin2. 6hat said) 7 3ould hesitate to recommend the 1oo& to those 3ithout prior e posure to the material Jammer covers. Althou2h 9ac&et copy for Concepts of Simultaneity maintains that the 1oo& presents an accessi1le account) Jammer presupposes more &no3led2e and understandin2 on the part of the reader than can reasona1ly 1e e pected of the uninitiated. A num1er of concepts and technical terms 2o une plained: lo2ical paralo2ism) Min&o3s&i dia2rams) ether theory) li2ht=cone structure) philosophers0 Atime and Btime) and Ne3ton0s 1uc&et e periment) to name a fe3. And lon2 quotations in French 2o untranslated. Dhat0s more distur1in2) a reader 3ith only this volume as a 2uide mi2ht come a3ay 3ith a mista&en impression of 3hat lies 1ehind current de1ates amon2 physicists and philosophers on the nature of time. For e ample) Jammer doesn0t sufficiently e plore the modern 2eometric vie3 of spacetime) 3hich is the focus of much current 3or& in philosophy of physics) and accordin2 to 3hich the question of simultaneity 1ecomes a question a1out the underlyin2 structure of spacetime. Surely even in a volume 3hose primary aim is historical) it 3ould have 1een valua1le to cite considera1ly more 3or& from the past t3o decades. Many e citin2 developments directly related to the main themes of the 1oo& have ta&en place durin2 this time) 1oth in physics itself and in the philosophy of physics. 6here has 1een a lot of discussion on the 2eometric relation 1et3een li2ht=cone structure and metric structure in relativity) and 3hat these quantities mean for the reality of simultaneityE on 3hether current physics can e plain our sense that there is an o19ective distinction 1et3een the past and future directions of timeE on nocollapse theories of quantum mechanics) such as the <many=3orlds< interpretation) 3hich do not require a frame=independent quantity of simultaneityE on recent proposals for Forent5 invariant) or <relativity=friendly)< collapse theories of quantum mechanicsE and more 1esides. 7t is a pity that Jammer i2nores these. 4f course) some simplification is needed in any 1oo& of 9ust "## pa2es on a topic of this ma2nitude. But Jammer has a tendency to3ard un2enerous hyper1ole: <6he relation 1et3een 0no30 and 0simultaneity0 has scarcely ever 1een discussed)< he says. And he occasionally states a controversial thesis as thou2h it 3ere 2iven: <A ri2orous definition of simultaneity cannot 1e o1tained 3ithout the specification of a physical operational procedure.< Althou2h the informed reader may 1e in a position to overloo& these missteps) the neophyte may not 1e a1le to reco2ni5e them. 4ne misdirected attempt at simplification) 7 thin&) is Jammer0s decision to conflate certain distinctions that philosophers have 3or&ed hard to ma&e. 4ne is the distinction 1et3een our concept of simultaneity :the stated su19ect of the 1oo&; and simultaneity as potentially a thin2 out there in the 3orld. Jammer claims to trace the evolution of our ideas a1out this thin2 3e call <simultaneity<E yet ar2ua1ly) our concept of simultaneity) and 3hat 3e mean 1y events 1ein2 simultaneous) hasn0t chan2ed over the centuries. @ather) 3e0ve discovered) perhaps) that there is no thin2 in the 3orld correspondin2 to that

conceptA9ust as 3e0ve discovered that there is no thin2 in the 3orld correspondin2 to our concept of a <luminiferous aether)< say. 4ur concepts mi2ht have remained 9ust as they al3ays have 1een) 1ut 3e0ve discoveredAto our shoc& and surprise) dismay and even deli2htAthat reality doesn0t neatly map onto our pretheoretical concepts. 4ne main vie3 under consideration in the 1oo& is the socalled <conventionality thesis.< Jammer provides three chapters on the su19ect) yet he never e plicitly states 3hat this thesis is. %e seems to ta&e it to 1e the thesis that simultaneity is <conventional) as opposed to factual.< 'nfortunately) Jammer fails to note that 1ein2 conventional is not the same thin2 as 1ein2 3holly su19ective or nonfactual. Concepts of Simultaneity provides a 3elcome survey of the development of our vie3s and theories of simultaneity) 1rin2in2 to2ether sources in history) physics and philosophy. 6he 1oo& covers an impressive array of material. %o3ever) there are serious omissions. Because Jammer leaves out some of the most interestin2 discussions of recent years a1out the nature of time and simultaneity) 7 am left unconvinced at the end and remain concerned that this is not) after all) the deepest or most thorou2h introduction to the su19ect. @evie3er 7nformation Jill North is an assistant professor in the departments of philosophy and physics at >ale 'niversity. %er research interests include philosophy of physics) metaphysics and philosophy of science.