arxiv:physics/ v1 [physics.class-ph] 8 Aug 2003

Transcription

1 arxiv:physis/ v1 [physis.lass-ph] 8 Aug 003 On the meaning of Lorentz ovariane Lszl E. Szab Theoretial Physis Researh Group of the Hungarian Aademy of Sienes Department of History and Philosophy of Siene Etvs University, Budapest leszabo@hps.elte.hu Abstrat In lassial mehanis, the Galilean ovariane and the priniple of relativity are ompletely equivalent and hold for all possible dynamial proesses. In relativisti physis, on the ontrary, the situation is muh more omplex: It will be shown that Lorentz ovariane and the priniple of relativity are not equivalent. The reason is that the priniple of relativity atually holds only for the equilibrium quantities haraterizing the equilibrium state of dissipative systems. In the light of this fat it will be argued that Lorentz ovariane should not be regarded as a fundamental symmetry of the laws of physis. Key words: speial relativity, spae-time, Lorentz ovariane, speial relativity priniple PACS: w, p Introdution It is a widely aepted view that speial relativity beyond its metaphysial ommitment with respet to what we should regard as spae and time (f. Szab 003a,b) is a prinipal theory providing a powerful method for the physis of objets moving at onstant veloities. The basi idea is the following: Consider a physial objet at rest in an arbitrary inertial frame K. Assume we know the relevant physial equations and know the solution of the equations desribing the physial properties of the objet in question when it is at rest. All these things are expressed in the terms of the spae and time oordinates x 1, x, x 3, t and some other quantities defined in K on the basis of x 1, x, x 3, t. We now inquire as to the same physial properties of the same objet when it is, as a whole, moving at a given onstant veloity relative to K. In other words the question is how these physial properties are modified when the objet is in motion. Now, it follows from the ovariane of the laws of nature relative to Lorentz transformations that the same equations hold for the primed variables x 1, x, x 3, t,... defined in the o-moving inertial frame K. On the other hand, sine the moving objet is at rest in the o-moving referene frame K, the same solution holds for the primed variables. We obtain the solution desribing the system moving at onstant veloity by expressing the primed variables through the original x 1, x, x 3, t,... of K, applying the Lorentz transformation. Usually, in this way we solve the problem of the eletromagneti field of a moving point harge, the Lorentz deformation of a rigid body, the loss of phase suffered by a moving lok, the dilatation of the mean life of a osmi ray µ-meson, et. In this paper I would like to show that the situation is muh more omplex, and that the solutions thus obtained are not neessarily orret. The reason is, as we will see, that Lorentz ovariane in itself does not guarantee that the physial laws in question satisfy the speial relativity priniple. 1

2 Empirial definitions of spae and time oordinates In order to elaborate a preise language for our further onsiderations, reall how spae and time oordinates are operationally defined in speial relativity. Denote K the referene frame in whih the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris is at rest, together with the etalons (the standard measuring rod, the standard lok, et.), and let K be a frame moving with onstant veloity v relative to K. We are interested in the operational reonstrution of the spae and time oordinates defined in both frames K and K aording to speial relativity. For the sake of simpliity onsider only one spae dimension and assume that the origin of both K and K is at the BIPM at the initial moment of time. (D1) Time oordinate in K aording to speial relativity Take a synhronized opy of the standard lok at rest in the BIPM, and slowly move it to the lous of event A. The time tag t (A) is the reading of the transfered lok when A ours. 1 (D) Spae oordinates in K aording to speial relativity The spae tag x(a) is the distane between the origin of K and the lous of A along the x-axis, measured by superposing the standard measuring-rod, suh that the rod is always at rest relative to K. (D3) Time oordinate in K aording to speial relativity Take a synhronized opy of the standard lok at rest in the BIPM, gently aelerate it from K to K and set it to show 0 when the origins of K and K oinide. Then slowly (relative to K ) move it to the lous of event A. The time tag t (A) is the reading of the transfered lok when A ours. (D4) Spae oordinates in K aording to speial relativity The spae tag x (A) is the distane between the origin of K and the lous of A along the x-axis, measured by superposing the standard measuring-rod, suh that the rod is always at rest relative to K, in just the same way as if all were at rest. Now, from the perpendiular Doppler effet we know that the standard lok (atomi lok) slows down by fator when it is gently aelerated from K to K (Jnossy 1971, p. 37). From the Mihaelson Morley experiment we know that a rigid rod suffers a ontration by fator when it is gently aelerated from K to K. Taking into aount these effets, one an diretly alulate the oordinates x (A) and t (A), following definitions (D3) (D4). First, let us alulate the reading of the lok slowly transported in K from the origin to the lous of an event A. The lok is moving with a varying veloity 3 v C (t) = v + w(t) where w(t) is the veloity of the lok relative to K, that is, w(0) = 0 when it starts at x C (0) = 0 (as we assumed, t = 0 and the transported lok shows 0 when the origins of K and K oinide) 1 With this definition we atually use the standard ε = 1 -synhronization. I do not want to enter now into the question of the onventionality of simultaneity, whih is a hotly disussed separate problem. (See Reihenbah 1956; Grnbaum 1974; Salmon 1977; Malament 1977; Friedman 1983.) The straight line is defined by a light beam. 3 For the sake of simpliity we ontinue to restrit our alulation to the ase of one spae dimension. For the general alulation of the phase shift suffered by moving loks, see Jnossy 1971, pp

3 and w(t 1 ) = 0 when the lok arrives at the plae of A. The reading of the lok at the time t 1 will be t1 (v + w(t)) T = 1 (1) 0 Sine w is small we may develop in powers of w, and we find from (1) when negleting terms of seond and higher order ( t1 ) T = t t 1v+ w(t) v 0 1 = t(a) x(a)v () (where, without loss of generality, we take t 1 = t(a)). Thus the reading of the lok slowly transported to the plae of event A differs from t(a) beause of the loss of phase aumulated by the lok during its journey. Now, taking into aount that the length of the o-moving meter stik is only, the distane of event A from the origin of K is the following: x(a) = t(a)v + x (A) (3) and thus x (A) = x(a) v t(a) (4) Taking into aount definitions (D3) (D4), from () and (4) we obtain the Lorentz transformation t (A) = x (A) = v x(a) t(a) (5) x(a) v t(a) (6) Note that if there were no slowing down of the standard lok and ontration of the meter stik then there would be no fators 1 (v+w(t)) and in (1) and (3), and we would have whih is nothing else but the Galilean transformation. The speial relativity priniple t (A) = t(a) (7) x (A) = x(a) v t(a) (8) Before entering on the disussion of Einstein s speial relativity priniple, it is worth while to reall how the Galilean relativity priniple works. Consider a system onsisting of two point masses onneted with a spring (Fig. 1). The equations of motion in K, m d x 1 (t) = k (x (t) x 1 (t) L) (9) m d x (t) = k (x (t) x 1 (t) L) (10) are ovariant with respet to the Galilean transformation t = t (11) x = x vt (1) 3

4 m m k, L 0 x x 1 x Figure 1: Two point masses are onneted with a spring of equilibrium length L and of spring onstant k that is, expressing (9) (10) in terms of variables x, t they have exatly the same form as before: m d x 1 (t ) = k (x (t ) x 1 (t ) L) (13) m d x (t ) = k (x (t ) x 1 (t ) L) (14) Due to this Galilean ovariane of (9) (10), from any solution of the original equations one an onstrut a new solution by putting primes on all the variables and then eliminating these primes by means of (11) (1). Beyond the mathematial beauty, suh a symmetry in itself were not of signifiane for physis. But, transformation (11) (1) has two important features. One is the meaning of the new solution thus obtained, the other is the meaning of the primed variables. The meaning of x and t is obvious from (7) (8): they are the spae and time tags measured in K with the o-moving meter stik and standard lok, if there are no distortions of the measuring equipments. Consider an arbitrary solution of the (9) (10) belonging to the initial ondition x 1 (t = 0) = x 10 x (t = 0) = x 0 dx 1 (15) = v 10 = v 0 dx It follows from the symmetry that equations (13) (14) have a solution of the same form in the primed variables, satisfying x 1 (t = 0) = x 10 x (t = 0) = x 0 dx 1 t = v 10 (16) =0 dx t = v 0 =0 Eliminating the primed variables by means of (11) (1) we find x 1 (t = 0) = x 10 x (t = 0) = x 0 dx 1 = v 10 + v = v 0 + v dx The motion of the system determined by initial ondition (17) is a superposition of the original motion determined by the original initial ondition (15) and a olletive translation at veloity v. That is, the system in question is idential with the original one, but o-moving with the frame K. In other words, the system satisfies what we all (speial or restrited) Relativity Priniple: The behaviour of the moving system, expressed in terms of the results of measurements obtainable by means of measuring-rods and loks o-moving with K is the same as the behaviour of the original system, expressed in terms of the measurements with the equipments at rest in K. Exatly as Galilei desribes it: (17) 4

5 ... the butterflies and flies will ontinue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will it ever happen that they are onentrated toward the stern, as if tired out from keeping up with the ourse of the ship, from whih they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some inense, it will be seen going up in the form of a little loud, remaining still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The ause of all these orrespondenes of effets is the fat that the ship s motion is ommon to all the things ontained in it [my italis], and to the air also. (Galilei 1953, p. 187) Or, in Einstein s formulation: If, relative to K, K is a uniformly moving o-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their ourse with respet to K aording to exatly the same general laws as with respet to K. (Einstein 190, p. 16) As we have seen, in lassial mehanis the Galilean ovariane of the equations desribing the system guarantees the satisfation of the priniple of relativity. In speial relativity Galilean ovariane is replaed by Lorentz ovariane: Aording to the speial relativity priniple the laws of Nature must be ovariant relative to Lorentz transformations. (Einstein 1979, p. 54) Consider a set of (differential) equations expressing some laws of physis, in the terms of variables x 1, x, x 3, t,.... Lorentz ovariane means that when the equations are expressed in terms of the variables x 1 = x 1 x = x x 3 = x3 vt 1 v t = t vx 3 1 (18) v they have exatly the same form as before. With the same reasoning as in the ase of Galilean ovariane, from any solution of the original equations one an onstrut a new solution by putting primes on all the variables and then eliminating these primes by means of (18). Again, beyond the mathematial usefulness of suh a symmetry in generating new solutions the physial importane of Lorentz ovariane onsists in the meaning of the primed variables and the meaning of the new solution thus obtained. The meaning of x 1, x, x 3, t in (18) is lear from (5) and (6): they are the spae and time tags measured in K with the o-moving meter stik and standard lok, taking into aount the distortions of these measuring equipments when they are moved from K to K. 4 Now let us turn to the meaning of the new solution we an obtain from the Lorentz ovariane. It is a widespread onvition that suh a new solution, as in the ase of Galilean ovariane, desribes a system idential with the original one, but o-moving with the frame K, and that the behaviour of the moving system, expressed in terms of the results of measurements obtainable by means of measuring-rods and loks o-moving with K is, due to Lorentz ovariane, the same as the behaviour of the original system, expressed in terms of the measurements with the equipments at rest in K in aordane with the priniple of relativity. Einstein shows the following example: (4). Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod whih is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of o-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with veloity v along the axis of x in the diretion of inreasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be asertained by the following two operations: (a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod diretly by superposing the measuringrod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest. 4 The dots in (18) stand for some possible other variables based on the spae and time tags. See, for example, 5

6 (b)... In aordane with the priniple of relativity the length to be disovered by the operation (a) we will all it the length of the rod in the moving system must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod. (Einstein 1905) Contrary to this ommon view, the situation is muh more omplex. Consider the system of n harged partiles oupled with eletromagneti field. The system an be desribed by the retarded potentials (derived from the Maxwell equations) A(r, t) = 1 n ϕ(r, t) = d = i=1 n i=1 q i d q i d r r i dr i (t) t d (19) (0) ( t d ) (1) and the dynamial equations of the partiles d m i 1 1 ( dri(t) ) dr i (t) = q i gradϕ(r i (t), t) q i A (r i (t), t) t + q i [ dri (t) ], rota (r i (t), t) () This system of equations is ovariant with respet to the following Lorentz transformations: x 1 = x 1 x = x x 3 = x3 vt 1 v A 1 = A 1 A = A A 3 = A3 v ϕ 1 v t = t vx 3 1 (3) ϕ = ϕ v A3 1 v (4) i.e., when equations (19) () are expressed in terms of variables (3) (4) they have exatly the same form as before A (r, t ) = 1 n q i dr i (t ) d (5) i=1 t d n ϕ (r, t q i ) = d (6) i=1 ) d = r r i (t d (7) d m i 1 1 ( dr i (t ) ) dr i (t ) = q i gradϕ (r i (t ), t ) q i + q i [ dr i (t ] ), rota (r i (t ), t ) A (r i (t ), t ) t (8) Now, onsider the following partiular situations: 6

7 Example 1. The system is suh that some of the partiles are in equilibrium and they are at rest just like in a solid body. In other words, onsider the solution of equations (19) () satisfying the following onditions: r α (t = 0) = R α = R α1 R α (9) R α3 for some α I 1 ( I 1 n), and dr α (t) r α (t) = R α = = 0 (30) R α1 R α R α3 ( t 0) (31) It follows from the Lorentz ovariane that there exists a solution of equations (5) (8) with the same initial onditions, in partiular r α (t = 0) = R α = R α1 R α (3) R α3 dr α (t ) = 0 (33) satisfying t =0 r α (t ) = R α = R α1 R α R α3 ( t 0) (34) Eliminating the primes by means of (3) (4) we obtain a new solution of the original equations (5) (8). From (3) we an express the time tag t α and the orresponding spae tag r α (t = t α ) of the α-th partile when t = 0 and r α = R α : Applying the relation between dr t α = r new α (t = t α ) = and dr dr new α v R α3 (35) R α1 R α R α3 1 v (36), derived from (3), (t) = 0 0 (37) t v We find that (37) holds for all t t α. It is to be noted that although in general t α 0 and they are of different values, onditions (36) and (37) are proper initial onditions, sine, aording to the existene and uniity theorem, they (together with the remaining similar initial onditions for the other partiles not investigated here) determine a unique solution of (19) (). For large t, t > t α ( α I 1 ), we have R α1 r new α (t) = R α (38) vt + R α3 7

8 that is, those partiles that were originally in equilibrium at rest are again in equilibrium but performing a olletive motion at the uniform veloity (0, 0, v). It an be easily verified that in the partiular ase of n = 1, when the system onsists of one single harged partile, the original equilibrium solution orresponds to the Coulomb field of a point harge at rest, and the new solution obtained through the above Lorentz transformation method is the well known eletromagneti field of a point harge moving at onstant veloity. Let us illustrate how the well known phenomena of the Lorentz ontration and the time dilatation work out. Consider two equilibrium partiles, say the α -th and the β-th. Their original distane in the diretion of the motion was l = R α3 R β3 In the new equilibrium solution, when the system is moving at veloity v, l new = r α3 new (t) rnew β3 (t) = l That is, the size of the moving objet in the diretion of motion has ontrated. Consider two events A and B in the original objet at rest: let A denote the meeting of the γ I 1 -th partile with some partile of index a / I 1, and let event B be a similar event with partile of index b / I 1. That is, r γ (t A ) = r a (t A ) (39) r γ (t B ) = r b (t B ) (40) The time interval between A and B is T = t B t A. From (39) (40) r γ (t A ) = r a (t A ) (41) r γ (t B) = r b (t B) (4) Consequently, in the new solution, the time tags of the two events are A = t A + v r γ3 (t A ) t new B = t B + v r γ3 (t B ) t new Hene r γ (t A ) = r γ (t B ), therefore r γ (t A ) = r γ (t B ), T new = t new B t new A = T Thus the elapsed time between two episodes of the life of the system in motion is longer than the elapsed time between the same episodes in the system at rest. Thus, in this partiular ase, the system desribed by the new solution we obtained from the Lorentz ovariane of the original equations, is leastwise very similar to the original system when it moves, as a whole, at veloity v, and the usual relativisti phenomena like the Lorentz ontration and the time dilatation seem to be reonstruted. This is, however, an illusion. The solution belonging to the initial ondition (35) (36) is not a simple superposition of the original motion of the system and a olletive translation at veloity v as it was the ase in (17). For (38) desribes the motion of the partiles only for t > t α ( α I 1). Before that time there is a deformation of the system, sine the partiles start their motions at different moments of time from various plaes. The truth is that there are many different initial onditions and many orresponding solutions whih ould be, intuitively, regarded as like the original system when it is moving as a whole and the Lorentz ovariane does not guarantee that the one we obtained is the right one. As the next two examples will show, the situation an be even more omplex. 8

9 Example. The above result is valid even if we turn off the interations between the partiles. Compare it with the following system: All the partiles are initiated with the same onstant veloity (0, 0, v): r new α (t) = R α1 R α R α3 + vt (43) This system is idential with the original one but in a olletive motion at veloity v. However, it is totally different from the system orresponding to the solution (38). (No Lorentz ontration, for example). Example 3. On the other hand, onsider the general ase: r i (t = 0) = R i = R i1 R i (44) dr i (t) = w i1 w i w i3 R i3 (45) Then, there exists a solution of equations (5) (8) with the same initial onditions, r i(t = 0) = R i = R i1 R i (46) dr i (t ) t =0 = w i1 w i w i3 Eliminating the primes by means of the Lorentz transformation we obtain and t i = r new i (t = t i ) = (t) = t α dr new i R i3 (47) v R iα3 (48) R i1 R i R i3 1 v w i1 1 v / 1+w i3v/ w i 1 v / 1+w i3v/ w i+v 1+w i3v/ (49) (50) It is diffiult to tell what the solution belonging to suh a omplex initial ondition is like, but it is not expeted that it desribes something similar to the original system in olletive motion at veloity (0, 0, v). Let us ontinue the train of thought in Example with the following thought experiment: Consider a rod at rest in K. The length of the rod is l. At a given moment of time t 0 we take a reord about the positions and veloities of all partiles of the rod: r i (t = t 0 ) = R i1 R i (51) dr i (t) = t=t0 R i3 w i1 w i w i3 (5) 9

10 Region III t Region II (t t ) 0 t=t 0 Region I Figure : Sheme of regions I, II and III Then, forget this system, and imagine another one whih is initiated at moment t = t 0 with the initial ondition (51) (5). No doubt, the new system will be idential with a rod of length l, ontinuing to be at rest in K. Now, imagine that the new system is initiated at t = t 0 with the initial ondition r i (t = t 0 ) = R i1 R i (53) dr i (t) = t=t0 R i3 w i1 w i w i3 + v (54) instead of (51) (5). No doubt, in a very short interval of time (t 0, t 0 + t) this system is a rod of length l, moving at veloity v; the motion of eah partile is a superposition of its original motion, aording to (51) (5), and the olletive translation at veloity (0, 0, v). In other words, it is a rod o-moving with the referene frame K. Still, its length is l, ontrary to the priniple of relativity, aording to whih the rod should be of length l as a onsequene of l = l. The resolution of this ontradition is that the system initiated in state (53) (54) at time t 0 finds itself in a non-equilibrium state. Therefore, due to ertain dissipations, it relaxes to the equilibrium state. As we have seen from the above examples, the Lorentz ovariane does not guarantee, that the equilibrium state in question is idential with the one belonging to (48) (50). What suh a new equilibrium state is like, depends on the details of the dissipation/relaxation proess in question. It is basially a thermodynamial question. One an easily follow how this relaxation goes on in the ase of one single point harge aelerated from K to K (see Jnossy 1971, pp ). Suppose the partile is at rest for t < 0, the aeleration starts at t = 0 and the partile moves with onstant veloity v for t t 0. Using the retarded potentials (19) (1) we an alulate the field of the moving partile at some time t > t 0. We find three zones in the field (see Fig. ). In Region I, surrounding the partile, we find the Lorentz-transformed Coulomb field of the point harge moving at onstant veloity the solution we usually find in the textbooks. In Region II, surrounding Region I, we find a radiation field travelling outward whih was emitted by the partile in the period 0 < t < t 0 of aeleration. Finally, outside Region II, the field is produed by the partile at times t < 0. The field in Region III is therefore the Coulomb field of the harge at rest. Thus, the priniple of relativity does never 10

11 exatly hold. Although, Region I where the priniple holds is blowing up with the speed of light. In this way the whole onfiguration is relaxing to the solution whih follows from the priniple of relativity. From these examples we an draw the onlusion that whether or not the Lorentz ovariane of the physial equations implies the satisfation of the priniple of relativity depends on the details of the dissipation/relaxation proess in question. How to explain then that in many textbook examples, applying the priniple of relativity, we obtain the orret results onfirmed by the experimental findings? The answer is very simple: it is a typial feature of a dissipative system that it unlearns the initial onditions; some of the properties of the system in equilibrium state, after the relaxation, are independent from the initial onditions. The limiting (t ) eletromagneti field of the moving harge and the equilibrium length of a solid rod are good examples. These equilibrium properties are ompletely determined by the equations themselves independently of the initial onditions. If so, the Lorentz ovariane of the equations in itself guarantees the satisfation of the priniple of relativity with respet to these properties: Let X be the value of suh a physial quantity haraterizing the equilibrium state of the system in question, fully determined by the equations independently of the initial onditions asertained by the equipments at rest in K. Let X be the value of the same quantity of the same system when it is in equilibrium and at rest relative to the moving referene frame K, asertained by the measuring equipments o-moving with K. If the equations are Lorentz ovariant then X = X. Whenever we derive orret results by applying the priniple of relativity, we apply it for suh partiular equilibrium quantities. Conlusions 1. In lassial mehanis, the Galilean ovariane and the priniple of relativity are ompletely equivalent.. In lassial mehanis, the priniple of relativity holds for all situations (desribed by lassial mehanis). 3. In relativisti physis, on the ontrary, Lorentz ovariane and the priniple of relativity are not equivalent. In general, Lorentz ovariane does not guarantee the satisfation of the priniple of relativity. 4. The priniple of relativity is not a general priniple. It holds only for the equilibrium quantities haraterizing the equilibrium state of dissipative systems. Sine dissipation, relaxation and equilibrium are thermodynamial oneptions par exellene, the speial relativisti priniple of relativity is atually a thermodynamial priniple, rather than a general priniple satisfied by all dynamial laws of physis desribing all physial proesses in details. One has to reognize that the speial relativisti priniple of relativity is experimentally onfirmed only in suh restrited sense. 5. The satisfation of the priniple of relativity in suh restrited sense is guaranteed by the Lorentz ovariane of those physial equations that determine, independently of the initial onditions, the equilibrium quantities for whih the priniple of relativity holds. 6. Another onsequene of the fat that the priniple of relativity holds only in suh a restrited sense is that Lorentz ovariane is a suffiient but not a neessary ondition for (the restrited sense) priniple of relativity. Consequently, from the experimental findings onfirming the priniple of relativity, one annot infer to the Lorentz ovariane of the laws of physis. Beyond the fat that some of the experimentally onfirmed theories are ab ovo Lorentz ovariant, nothing experimentally neessitates the hypothesis that all laws of physis must be Lorentz ovariant. Lorentz ovariane is not a fundamental symmetry of physis. 7. The spae and time tags obtainable by means of measuring-rods and loks o-moving with different inertial referene frames an be onneted through the Lorentz transformation. As 11

12 we have seen, this fat an be derived independently of the Lorentz ovariane of the laws of physis and of the priniple of relativity, in general. Although it is ompatible with the general observation that the priniple of relativity holds for suh equilibrium quantities as the length of a rigid body or the harateristi periods of a lok-like system. Aknowledgement The researh was supported by the OTKA Foundation, No. T and No. T Referenes Einstein, A. (1905): On the Eletrodynamis of Moving Bodies, in A. Einstein et al, Priniple of Relativity, Dover Pubns, London 194. Einstein, A. (190): Relativity: The Speial and General Theory, H. Holt and Company, New York. Einstein, A. (1979): Fundamental Ideas and Problems of the Theory of Relativity, in Albert Einstein s theory of general relativity, Gerald E. Tauber (ed.), Crown Publishers, New York. Friedman, M. (1983): Foundations of Spae-Time Theories Relativisti Physis and Philosophy of Siene, Prineton University Press, Prineton. Galilei, G. (1953): Dialogue onerning the two hief world systems, Ptolemai & Copernian, University of California Press, Berkeley. Grnbaum, A. (1974): Philosophial Problems of Spae and Time, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Siene, Vol. XII. (R. S. Cohen and M. W. Wartofsky, eds.) D. Reidel, Dordreht. Jnossy, L. (1971): Theory of relativity based on physial reality, Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest. Malament, D. (1977): Causal Theories of Time and the Conventionality of Simultaneity, Noûs 11, p. 93. Reihenbah, H. (1956): The Diretion of Time, University of California Press, Berkeley. Salmon, W. C. (1977): The Philosophial Signifiane of the One-Way Speed of Light, Noûs 11, p. 53. Szab, L. E. (003a): Lorentz s theory and speial relativity are ompletely idential, arxiv:gr-q/ Szab, L. E. (003b): Does speial relativity theory tell us anything new about spae and time?, arxiv:gr-q/