ABSTRACT The interpretation of time in special relativity remains philosophically contested. In the Minkowskian formulation, time appears as a fourth coordinate unified with space in a four-dimensional geometry. Operational approaches, by contrast, emphasize that time is defined in practice through the counting of regular periodic processes. This paper develops a constructive operational reconstruction of relativistic kinematics grounded in that metrological starting point. We assume only two premises. First, time is operationally defined as the count of a regular periodic process, as reflected in the SI definition of the second. Second, physical systems are subject to finite empirical bounds on rates of change, including the invariant maximum speed c. From these assumptions, we introduce a minimal two-component representation of change — periodic and persistent — constrained by a bounded quadratic relation. A single angular parameter α yields the standard Lorentz factor. Time dilation, length contraction, and the full Lorentz transformation then follow by elementary means. The Minkowski interval is recovered as a derived quantity rather than postulated as fundamental. This reconstruction shows that the four-dimensional interpretation, though mathematically powerful and historically fruitful, is not logically forced by the empirical content of special relativity. The resulting position occupies a middle ground between substantivalist spacetime realism and eliminativist accounts of time: time is neither a coordinate of an ontologically fundamental manifold nor an illusion, but a measured relation grounded in physical counting procedures.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
İlker Uğurlu
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
İlker Uğurlu (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/699fe34695ddcd3a253e700a — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18759929
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: