ec+v8

It’s all relative...maybe.

“Two events simultaneous for a clock-observer at rest are not simultaneous for one in motion.” In essence, this is the gist of Einstein and Poincaré’s idea of simultaneity. Peter Galison explores how this revolutionary theory came about. I feel the article takes on the explanation poorly in that he doesn’t build up enough interest for me to care about how the great discovery was made. I understand he is interested with the founding of the idea, however, I think the explanation of simultaneity itself is too vague to develop a clear appreciation. For me, I felt it hard to get into the story without knowing exactly what simultaneity is and also its practical application in the world. By the end of the talk with Galison, I don’t think he answers the question of where it really came from in terms of why the information was useful. Yes, it complicated our understanding of modern physics in that everything physical was now seen with a different perspective. However, I wasn’t satisfied with the reasoning for Einstein’s need to explain a phenomenon such as that of the train example. From my understanding, Einstein realized there wasn’t absoluteness to space or even time. I don’t see how this translates to him realizing the significance of relativity and the implications that it would have for quantum physics. Galison leaps over a seemingly gap in the story, which I couldn’t fill in. He explains the process of HOW Einstein would possibly put forth a theory of relativity and then he recognizes that Einstein had deeply altered our perception of classical physics. In between this, I was still caught up in WHY Einstein would point out and write about a incongruence of time and space. Perhaps I needed a better explanation for me to grasp the ideas of relativity and simultaneity because by reading Galison, it left me with more questions than it provided answers. For that reason I leave “the theories” up to Einstein minds to mull over.