Two Views on Time Reversal.
In a recent paper, Malament (2004) employs a time reversal transformation that differs from the standard one, without explicitly arguing for it. This is a new and important understanding of time reversal that deserves arguing for in its own right. I argue that it improves upon the standard one. Rece...
| Publicado en: | Philosophy of Science Vol. 75; no. 2; pp. 201 - 224 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
Apr2008
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=34310993&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 34310993 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00318248 PSC jtl: Philosophy of Science issn: 00318248 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Apr2008 vid: 75 iid: 2 pid: 15979 pub: Cambridge University Press artinfo: ui: 34310993 10.1086/590199 ppf: 201 ppct: 23 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 168KB tig: atl: Two Views on Time Reversal. aug: au: North, Jill affil: Department of Philosophy, Yale University, P.O. Box 208306, New Haven, CT 06520-8306 su: Time reversal Spacetime Malament, David Quantum theory Albert, David sug: subj: Time reversal Spacetime Malament, David Quantum theory Albert, David ab: In a recent paper, Malament (2004) employs a time reversal transformation that differs from the standard one, without explicitly arguing for it. This is a new and important understanding of time reversal that deserves arguing for in its own right. I argue that it improves upon the standard one. Recent discussion has focused on whether velocities should undergo a time reversal operation. I address a prior question: What is the proper notion of time reversal? This is important, for it will affect our conclusion as to whether our best theories are time-reversal symmetric, and hence whether our spacetime is temporally oriented. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Philosophy of Science is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Philosophy of Science holder: Cambridge University Press dt: @attributes: year: 2008 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|