Reichenbach and the prehistory of the dynamical approach to special relativity

The paper aims to revisit Reichenbach's interpretation of special relativity, making two different but interrelated claims: (I) Reichenbach's interpretation is best characterized not as a variant of the conventionalist interpretation, but rather an early form of the dynamical interpretation; (II) Reichenbach offers a more robust version of the dynamical interpretation than contemporary accounts. On this basis, the paper argues that Reichenbach's approach provides the conceptual resources to (I) strengthen the dynamical approach against common criticisms from defenders of the geometrical approach, (II) expose the true weak point of both approaches. Unlike the dynamical approach, special relativity does not require a specific theory of matter to explain ether drift experiments; rather, it demands that any such theory be Lorentz invariant. Unlike the geometrical approach, Minkowski's formalism helps test this requirement but lacks explanatory power. The paper concludes that, following Lange, special relativity provides an 'explanation by constraint'.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Published
2026-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2026.102221
Primary Topic
Relativity and Gravitational Theory
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Reichenbach and the prehistory of the dynamical approach to special relativity

Marco Giovanelli
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Relativity and Gravitational Theory
article

Reichenbach and the prehistory of the dynamical approach to special relativity

Marco Giovanelli
article en

Abstract

The paper aims to revisit Reichenbach's interpretation of special relativity, making two different but interrelated claims: (I) Reichenbach's interpretation is best characterized not as a variant of the conventionalist interpretation, but rather an early form of the dynamical interpretation; (II) Reichenbach offers a more robust version of the dynamical interpretation than contemporary accounts. On this basis, the paper argues that Reichenbach's approach provides the conceptual resources to (I) strengthen the dynamical approach against common criticisms from defenders of the geometrical approach, (II) expose the true weak point of both approaches. Unlike the dynamical approach, special relativity does not require a specific theory of matter to explain ether drift experiments; rather, it demands that any such theory be Lorentz invariant. Unlike the geometrical approach, Minkowski's formalism helps test this requirement but lacks explanatory power. The paper concludes that, following Lange, special relativity provides an 'explanation by constraint'.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part AVol. 119
University of Turin (IT)
Università degli Studi di Torino
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Relativity and Gravitational Theory
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Reichenbach and the prehistory of the dynamical approach to special relativity — Marco Giovanelli · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS