What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time
This concise book introduces nonphysicists to the core philosophical issues surrounding the nature and structure of space and time, and is also an ideal resource for physicists interested in the conceptual foundations of space-time theory.
Tim Maudlin's broad historical overview examines Aristotelian and Newtonian accounts of space and time, and traces how Galileo's conceptions of relativity and space-time led to Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. Maudlin explains special relativity using a geometrical approach, emphasizing intrinsic space-time structure rather than coordinate systems or reference frames. He gives readers enough detail about special relativity to solve concrete physical problems while presenting general relativity in a more qualitative way, with an informative discussion of the geometrization of gravity, the bending of light, and black holes. Additional topics include the Twins Paradox, the physical aspects of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, the constancy of the speed of light, time travel, the direction of time, and more.
Introduces nonphysicists to the philosophical foundations of space-time theory
Provides a broad historical overview, from Aristotle to Einstein
Explains special relativity geometrically, emphasizing the intrinsic structure of space-time
Covers the Twins Paradox, Galilean relativity, time travel, and more
Requires only basic algebra and no formal knowledge of physics
Tim Maudlin is professor of philosophy at New York University. His books include The Metaphysics within Physics and Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity.
Tim Maudlin's broad historical overview examines Aristotelian and Newtonian accounts of space and time, and traces how Galileo's conceptions of relativity and space-time led to Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. Maudlin explains special relativity using a geometrical approach, emphasizing intrinsic space-time structure rather than coordinate systems or reference frames. He gives readers enough detail about special relativity to solve concrete physical problems while presenting general relativity in a more qualitative way, with an informative discussion of the geometrization of gravity, the bending of light, and black holes. Additional topics include the Twins Paradox, the physical aspects of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, the constancy of the speed of light, time travel, the direction of time, and more.
Introduces nonphysicists to the philosophical foundations of space-time theory
Provides a broad historical overview, from Aristotle to Einstein
Explains special relativity geometrically, emphasizing the intrinsic structure of space-time
Covers the Twins Paradox, Galilean relativity, time travel, and more
Requires only basic algebra and no formal knowledge of physics
Tim Maudlin is professor of philosophy at New York University. His books include The Metaphysics within Physics and Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity.
183 pages, Hardcover
First published July 22, 2012
112 people are currently reading
1497 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
July 19, 2021
Remember those infamous postulates of special relativity? It seems as though Tim Maudlin wrote them on a piece of paper, crumpled it up and threw it away. He only reluctantly picked it up from the dustbin after examining the topology of Minkowski space-time. Gotta love mathematicians and philosophers. Of course as a physics student, I learnt special relativity in the conventional way: it all started with the postulates and Lorentz transformations. But Maudlin here, is defining the very structure of the space-time we are applying these transformations to. Noob that I am when it comes to topology, I had to do some additional reading, but this book is mostly sufficient by itself.
Using the postulates of Euclidean geometry and the two principles developed by Leibniz (principle of sufficient reason and the principle of identity of indiscernibles) Maudlin outlines the early and primary arguments against the absolute space proposed by Newton. He essentially establishes that the trajectory of light ray from an event in a vacuum is a straight line on the future light cone of the event (he calls this the law of light) and that this arises from the intrinsic geometry of Minkowski space-time. And voila! We have a completely geometrical description of STR and further into the book, of GTR too! I loved the elaboration of Einstein's field equation.
I also loved the outline of the hole argument in the book. If we have two states internal to a hole within spacetime while the conditions external to the hole are exactly identical, then the states inside the hole (which are related by topological transformations) must both be solutions to the Einstein field equation. They essentially represent physically possible but ontologically different situations, while the exterior of the hole is exactly the same in each case. As Maudlin writes, the Field equation seems to contain indeterminism of the most radical kind, because it seems that the situation outside the hole along with the laws of physics do not determine the physical situation inside the hole. This is very ironic to me, because indeterminacy and loss of causality are the very problems Einstein had with quantum mechanics.
I realise that this review might have been a tad bit too technical. This is why I hate writing reviews for physics books, I'm too used to the terminology and get bad at employing the Feynman technique due to lack of practice. Ugh.
Using the postulates of Euclidean geometry and the two principles developed by Leibniz (principle of sufficient reason and the principle of identity of indiscernibles) Maudlin outlines the early and primary arguments against the absolute space proposed by Newton. He essentially establishes that the trajectory of light ray from an event in a vacuum is a straight line on the future light cone of the event (he calls this the law of light) and that this arises from the intrinsic geometry of Minkowski space-time. And voila! We have a completely geometrical description of STR and further into the book, of GTR too! I loved the elaboration of Einstein's field equation.
I also loved the outline of the hole argument in the book. If we have two states internal to a hole within spacetime while the conditions external to the hole are exactly identical, then the states inside the hole (which are related by topological transformations) must both be solutions to the Einstein field equation. They essentially represent physically possible but ontologically different situations, while the exterior of the hole is exactly the same in each case. As Maudlin writes, the Field equation seems to contain indeterminism of the most radical kind, because it seems that the situation outside the hole along with the laws of physics do not determine the physical situation inside the hole. This is very ironic to me, because indeterminacy and loss of causality are the very problems Einstein had with quantum mechanics.
I realise that this review might have been a tad bit too technical. This is why I hate writing reviews for physics books, I'm too used to the terminology and get bad at employing the Feynman technique due to lack of practice. Ugh.
September 6, 2014
This is a wonderful book. I started reading it just to get a clearer picture on a couple of concepts of geometry, but the writing is so good that I kept turning the pages and eventually stuck with it to the end. The lessons on topology, transformations, and absolute space and time were just fantastic; I never knew something as commonsensical as Euclidean space would have so much involved. The book has 7 chapters, and the first 3 were easy, anyone can dive right in. Chapter 4, with the introduction of Special Relativity, requires much more focus from the reader as it goes against some popularizations of the theory, but it is still digestible. The last 3 chapters, however, tackle subjects that are difficult no matter how you look at them (e.g. compactification of space-time in space-like or time-like direction), and there is where I struggled. I need to make a second or third reading of them, but no more I should think. Still, this is a very accessible book if you're interested in an introduction to the philosophical aspects of theoretical physics, from Newtonian to Einsteinian. I, for one, am now more motivated to research the topics covered therein in more depth, even if that means getting into the nitty-gritty of mathematical formulas. Very much recommended!
Read
December 23, 2023When I read this for my thesis, I had nothing but good things to say about this book. But when I read it back to back for leisure, I realize now that I have mixed feelings toward it.
Concepts in general relativity (and manifold theory) are hard to explain without using the language of differential geometry. And some concepts, I would argue, are impossible to define without lending toward inaccurate analogies and explanations. While there is much to be gained from explaining concepts in GR and SR intuitively like how Maudlin does, e.g. by using analogies of the “straightedge,” “compass,” etc. which I thought excellently laid out the physical intuition of manifold theory without the jargon, one inevitably sacrifices the conciseness and exactness mathematical language affords.
Correct me if I am wrong, but one such inaccuracy Maudlin makes is attributing coordinate systems to be an indication of the underlying geometry it describes (this was in the chapter about Euclidean geometry). This is wrong. The geometry of a manifold does not rely on its coordinate systems. And the coordinates a geometry can have is not indicative of its underlying geometry. For example, the geometry of a spherically symmetric spacetime is often described by the coordinates the Schwarschild metric uses. One might be tempted to say that the fact that the spherically symmetric spacetime adopts the Schwarschild coordinates implies the spherically symmetric nature of the spacetime in question. However, our spherically symmetric spacetime can have any other crazy coordinate system that isn’t Schwarzschild’s and it will still be spherically symmetric. The point of Einstein’s formulation of gr using differential geometry is to extract from the definition of spacetime (or any manifold) the use of coordinates to describe our geometry. We only use coordinate systems for computational purposes.
Inaccuracies notwithstanding however, Maudlin gives a really good qualitative account of space and time. But that’s just it. The reason why I only had good things to say about this book during my thesis was because during my thesis, I was complementing the book with a whole load of other texts that took care of the mathematically intensive aspects of differential geometry (and by extension, gravity). But if we take the book on its own, I find that a lot can be explained more succinctly and accurately by investing more time on the mathematical language of differential geometry. I think this is also the reason why the book starts excellently with Newtonian and Galilean physics while my interest in it gradually declines as it gets to the concept of “spacetime.” Newtonian physics doesn’t necessarily need diff geom, but any rigorous explanation of “spacetime” (at least in my opinion) must depend on its exact definition, i.e. it being a non-Riemannian differential manifold that has a Lorentzian metric tensor (not function!). Any other qualitative definition of spacetime is only a shadow of what spacetime really is.
But then again, this is coming from the perspective of someone who (fortunately or unfortunately depending on how u look at it lol) spent 3 years of his life studying spacetime physics. I don’t think it’s Maudlin’s fault that I have mixed feelings toward it, and I’d definitely still recommend this book to other people. This book might appeal to nonspecialists precisely because of its qualitative nature. But my advice to people with a background in general relativity or differential geometry: Make sure to supplement this book with a mathematically intensive book on gr or differential geometry. I highly recommend Fecko’s or Nakahara’s differential geometry textbooks or Wald’s GR textbook. or better yet, have someone who’s already an expert in these fields whom you could ask as confusions arise. For me, it was my thesis adviser who already has an extensive research experience with differential geometry and GR.
Concepts in general relativity (and manifold theory) are hard to explain without using the language of differential geometry. And some concepts, I would argue, are impossible to define without lending toward inaccurate analogies and explanations. While there is much to be gained from explaining concepts in GR and SR intuitively like how Maudlin does, e.g. by using analogies of the “straightedge,” “compass,” etc. which I thought excellently laid out the physical intuition of manifold theory without the jargon, one inevitably sacrifices the conciseness and exactness mathematical language affords.
Correct me if I am wrong, but one such inaccuracy Maudlin makes is attributing coordinate systems to be an indication of the underlying geometry it describes (this was in the chapter about Euclidean geometry). This is wrong. The geometry of a manifold does not rely on its coordinate systems. And the coordinates a geometry can have is not indicative of its underlying geometry. For example, the geometry of a spherically symmetric spacetime is often described by the coordinates the Schwarschild metric uses. One might be tempted to say that the fact that the spherically symmetric spacetime adopts the Schwarschild coordinates implies the spherically symmetric nature of the spacetime in question. However, our spherically symmetric spacetime can have any other crazy coordinate system that isn’t Schwarzschild’s and it will still be spherically symmetric. The point of Einstein’s formulation of gr using differential geometry is to extract from the definition of spacetime (or any manifold) the use of coordinates to describe our geometry. We only use coordinate systems for computational purposes.
Inaccuracies notwithstanding however, Maudlin gives a really good qualitative account of space and time. But that’s just it. The reason why I only had good things to say about this book during my thesis was because during my thesis, I was complementing the book with a whole load of other texts that took care of the mathematically intensive aspects of differential geometry (and by extension, gravity). But if we take the book on its own, I find that a lot can be explained more succinctly and accurately by investing more time on the mathematical language of differential geometry. I think this is also the reason why the book starts excellently with Newtonian and Galilean physics while my interest in it gradually declines as it gets to the concept of “spacetime.” Newtonian physics doesn’t necessarily need diff geom, but any rigorous explanation of “spacetime” (at least in my opinion) must depend on its exact definition, i.e. it being a non-Riemannian differential manifold that has a Lorentzian metric tensor (not function!). Any other qualitative definition of spacetime is only a shadow of what spacetime really is.
But then again, this is coming from the perspective of someone who (fortunately or unfortunately depending on how u look at it lol) spent 3 years of his life studying spacetime physics. I don’t think it’s Maudlin’s fault that I have mixed feelings toward it, and I’d definitely still recommend this book to other people. This book might appeal to nonspecialists precisely because of its qualitative nature. But my advice to people with a background in general relativity or differential geometry: Make sure to supplement this book with a mathematically intensive book on gr or differential geometry. I highly recommend Fecko’s or Nakahara’s differential geometry textbooks or Wald’s GR textbook. or better yet, have someone who’s already an expert in these fields whom you could ask as confusions arise. For me, it was my thesis adviser who already has an extensive research experience with differential geometry and GR.
May 22, 2022
Un interesante libro que nos introduce en la idea de la estructura del universo desde una mirada geométrica y como está ha cambiado a medida que diferentes pensadores aportaban a la construcción de una mirada científica de comprensión del espacio-tiempo. En el viaje se analizan las visiones de Aristóteles, Newton, Galileo y Einstein sobre la manera como está configurado el tiempo y el espacio y su repercusión desde una mierda filosófica. El libro en su mayoría es claro y utiliza las matemáticas básicas para sus explicaciones, pero si no se es muy bueno en ellas puede ser tortuoso.
December 2, 2025
Some of the correct and interesting topics here are discussed, but with too much of a biased and personal angle on them. His conflation of the formal mathematical account of Minkowski space-time with empirical reality is also a beginners error. The difficulties involved here are much more intricate and an awareness of this is not illustrated. One cannot naively postulate that we are "in" minkowski space-time. We don't even know what it could mean to be "in" such a structure, for it is a block universe, it is not a container with a separate time, in which we could said to be in the spatial container over time. The problem with Minkowski space-time, regarding its being a part of the Lorentz group rather than the Orthogonal group, is that it thereby represents only a local structure, not a global structure. As a result the space-time is not simply ever pre-given as there. It is something that is constructed out of pieces. And also one has to bear in mind that the Minkowski space-time diagrams are deeply misleading as they give impression of an extended region being portrayed, but each diagram is only accurate for one position at one time. This just skims the surface of some of the difficulties involved, but you won't see any treatment of these things. There are some good ideas considered and it helps to clarify my own ideas and thoughts on the subject, but the dogmatic assertion of minkowski space-time as unproblematic makes for a philosophy of science that reduces to apologistics and merely affirming formally what the equations say in physics as somehow magically thereby having authority in relation to empirical reality. Foregoing the basic task of the philosopher which is to question and criticise this very authority.
[ADDITIONAL NOTE (02/12/25)]
Having looked through this work again I notice on multiple occasions in the chapter where he introduces the geometric structure of minkowski space-time he makes the palpably false claim that this 4 dimensional structure is topologically equivalent to a Euclidean 4 space. This is either a beginners error, or it is a purposeful mistake to give a false impression of the ease with which we can speak of a "structure" to minkowski space-time. The mathematical fact is that Minkowski space-time represents a non-compact space, due to the difference of sign between time and the spatial dimensions. It is not a member of the orthogonal group. And this has a significant impact on the kinds of structure that can be imputed to it. For a better understanding one needs to go back to Robb and the notion of temporal precedence. This is the kind of structure that one can actually get from special relativity, and in fact leads to a punctual view of space-time. I don't understand how such basic errors can get through supposed professional philosophical treatments of these things.
[ADDITIONAL NOTE (02/12/25)]
Having looked through this work again I notice on multiple occasions in the chapter where he introduces the geometric structure of minkowski space-time he makes the palpably false claim that this 4 dimensional structure is topologically equivalent to a Euclidean 4 space. This is either a beginners error, or it is a purposeful mistake to give a false impression of the ease with which we can speak of a "structure" to minkowski space-time. The mathematical fact is that Minkowski space-time represents a non-compact space, due to the difference of sign between time and the spatial dimensions. It is not a member of the orthogonal group. And this has a significant impact on the kinds of structure that can be imputed to it. For a better understanding one needs to go back to Robb and the notion of temporal precedence. This is the kind of structure that one can actually get from special relativity, and in fact leads to a punctual view of space-time. I don't understand how such basic errors can get through supposed professional philosophical treatments of these things.
August 10, 2023
This book a great introduction to what special and general relativity are about without the math behind it. The nature of physical space and time.
What is important in this is that a focus of the book is in “de-mathematizing” the claims made using mathematics. We may often be so involved in the mathematical representations that we forget that they are exactly that. Merely representations. Something about the structure and nature of the world is being claimed in the mathematical formulas. This is of course not to say math is invaluable to understanding the world, however we shouldn’t lose sight of the world behind the math.
This book covers classic accounts of space and time, and walks us from those of Aristotle to Newton to Galileo to Einstein. Our current theories do not just spawn out of no where. They are the result of a long continuous effort to explain the world around us. There are times when we have to abandon those ideas but also times when we still use them.
The difficulty does definitely ramp once it gets to special relativity but the author is trying to explain a theory that is typically best represented in a mathematical language after all.
This book is great for both physicist and non physicist.
My only complaint is that I think it could have been longer as the almost jarring difficulty from the first 3 chapters to the last 4 could have used more space to ease the difficulty.
What is important in this is that a focus of the book is in “de-mathematizing” the claims made using mathematics. We may often be so involved in the mathematical representations that we forget that they are exactly that. Merely representations. Something about the structure and nature of the world is being claimed in the mathematical formulas. This is of course not to say math is invaluable to understanding the world, however we shouldn’t lose sight of the world behind the math.
This book covers classic accounts of space and time, and walks us from those of Aristotle to Newton to Galileo to Einstein. Our current theories do not just spawn out of no where. They are the result of a long continuous effort to explain the world around us. There are times when we have to abandon those ideas but also times when we still use them.
The difficulty does definitely ramp once it gets to special relativity but the author is trying to explain a theory that is typically best represented in a mathematical language after all.
This book is great for both physicist and non physicist.
My only complaint is that I think it could have been longer as the almost jarring difficulty from the first 3 chapters to the last 4 could have used more space to ease the difficulty.
November 8, 2022
yeah fine
December 20, 2018
A fairly comprehensive overlook on the philosophical problems from Newton to Einstein in regards to our perception of time and space. From the ontological character of space and time in Euclidean space, to the extensive and still difficult subtleties of curved spacetime. Dr. Maudlin clarifies on only old, but rooted misconceptions, but also brings forth clear descriptions for these misapprehensions.
December 18, 2020
Worth if for the fresh take on geometry and coordinate systems alone (Why the hell didn't they explain it this way in school?).
July 15, 2021
This was a very strong book but difficult for beginners. Mauldin is an excellent writer and is very concise in explaining philosophical issues and their physical implementations. However, this was both a strength and weakness (at least IMO), as Mauldin's concise, technical language works to get the points across on some of the easier subjects, but leaves a lot to be desired on the dense topic of General Relativity.
I did not find his explanation of the GR theory to be very well done. They do say, after all, that the true measure of mastery in a topic is how well one is able to teach it. For most of the topics in this book Mauldin is clearly a master of the material, but his unclear and imprecise explanation of GR left some doubts. Either he is not as strong in this area as in other areas of physics, or his publisher would not allow him to write as in depth as he wanted. Whatever the reason, the last third of the book gets dense, fast, and Mauldin is unable to relay the information to the reader efficiently in the given pages.
I would recommend one read up on the theory of relativity before giving this book a swing. The first half is deceivingly simple, though Mauldin's precise writing shines throughout.
I did not find his explanation of the GR theory to be very well done. They do say, after all, that the true measure of mastery in a topic is how well one is able to teach it. For most of the topics in this book Mauldin is clearly a master of the material, but his unclear and imprecise explanation of GR left some doubts. Either he is not as strong in this area as in other areas of physics, or his publisher would not allow him to write as in depth as he wanted. Whatever the reason, the last third of the book gets dense, fast, and Mauldin is unable to relay the information to the reader efficiently in the given pages.
I would recommend one read up on the theory of relativity before giving this book a swing. The first half is deceivingly simple, though Mauldin's precise writing shines throughout.
May 19, 2015
Un excelente tratado de filosofía de la física, centrado en el concepto de espacio-tiempo. La exposición es buena, amena y muy rigurosa, lo que lo convierte en una lectura muy agradable. Presenta algunos puntos de vista sobre el significado de la relatividad especial que no se corresponden con la visión popular entre la mayoría de los físicos. Quizá lo mejor es la presentación de las ideas de espacio absoluto en mecánica clásica, y la parte dedicada a la relatividad especial. También comenta algunos temas muy interesantes de la relatividad general que no aparecen en otras obras, como el argumento del agujero. Aunque aparentemente es un libro para filósofos sobre física del espacio-tiempo, recomiendo especialmente su lectura a los físicos interesados en la filosofía del espacio tiempo.
A pleasant, rigorous and interesting book. The presentation of special relativity by the author is not the standard. Perhaps the best part of book is the exposure of the justification of absolute space in Newtonian physics. Apparently though as a book for philosophers on physics of space-time I recommend specially for physicists interested in the philosophy of space-time.
A pleasant, rigorous and interesting book. The presentation of special relativity by the author is not the standard. Perhaps the best part of book is the exposure of the justification of absolute space in Newtonian physics. Apparently though as a book for philosophers on physics of space-time I recommend specially for physicists interested in the philosophy of space-time.
July 4, 2019
This is Volume 1 of a 2 volume contribution by Tim Maudlin to the Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy series. Maudlin specializes in the philosophy of physics, and this volume introduces the concepts and questions relevant to understanding space and time. While most of us may take the meaning of the words "space" and "time" to be trivial and even uninteresting, Maudlin reveals that this is far from the truth. He begins by outlining some historical conceptions of space and time, but spends the majority of the book unpacking Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity (STR and GTR, respectively) and resulting implications. When all is said and done, one thing is for sure: the underlying concepts of space and time are much more complicated than we realize.
Anyone who has studied STR or GTR has probably felt at some point like they were being fooled by the math. That is, the calculations produce pretty counterintuitive results: time slows down and objects change size all based on how fast an object is moving and/or the strength of the local gravitational field. While most seem to accept this based on their trust in the coordinate transformations they learn in school (at least this was what I saw in my classes), Maudlin demonstrates how these results follow from the geometry and topology of space inherent to STR and GTR. This focus on a geometrical understanding of space and time rather than an algebraic and equation-centric understanding made the ideas much easier to grasp. With that said, there is no simple way to describe STR and GTR, which means some background in physics is necessary to understand the more technical discussions.
Overall, this is a great introduction into the topic. Due to the small size (only about 180 pages) there are some inevitable gaps in coverage. One example of this is that Maudlin never explicitly highlights the distinction between dynamic time and static time (otherwise known as A-theory and B-theory, respectively). Most of the discussions seem to assume static time, but those not familiar with the subject matter might not pick up on that, which could be a barrier to fully grasping Maudlin's explanations. Nevertheless, it was as an enjoyable read and succeeded in making the counter-intuitive implications of STR and GTR a little bit more intuitive.
Anyone who has studied STR or GTR has probably felt at some point like they were being fooled by the math. That is, the calculations produce pretty counterintuitive results: time slows down and objects change size all based on how fast an object is moving and/or the strength of the local gravitational field. While most seem to accept this based on their trust in the coordinate transformations they learn in school (at least this was what I saw in my classes), Maudlin demonstrates how these results follow from the geometry and topology of space inherent to STR and GTR. This focus on a geometrical understanding of space and time rather than an algebraic and equation-centric understanding made the ideas much easier to grasp. With that said, there is no simple way to describe STR and GTR, which means some background in physics is necessary to understand the more technical discussions.
Overall, this is a great introduction into the topic. Due to the small size (only about 180 pages) there are some inevitable gaps in coverage. One example of this is that Maudlin never explicitly highlights the distinction between dynamic time and static time (otherwise known as A-theory and B-theory, respectively). Most of the discussions seem to assume static time, but those not familiar with the subject matter might not pick up on that, which could be a barrier to fully grasping Maudlin's explanations. Nevertheless, it was as an enjoyable read and succeeded in making the counter-intuitive implications of STR and GTR a little bit more intuitive.
December 18, 2024
I became acquainted with Maudlin after his repeated appearances on Robinson Erhardt's wonderful podcast (e.g. https://youtu.be/qG5PzdbtoQo?feature=... ). Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have become the gifts that keep giving for disseminators of mystical mumbo-jumbo, but more disturbingly, it seems that even within the academic community there are serious disagreements over the foundational underpinnings. Thus we solve the same equations and come to the same results over measurable predictions, but we don't necessarily agree (if we care to pay them any attention) upon the status of absolute vs. relative space/time in Galilean vs. Newtonian mechanics vs. Special Relativity vs. General Relativity, whether matter-energy distribution determines the geometry of spacetime as opposed to constraining/influencing it (indeed - does there exist an intrinsic structure to spacetime at all), and so on. Building up from first principles, with a strong geometric focus, Maudlin does a conceptual examination of ideas such as "inertial reference frame", "relativity of simultaneity", "constancy of speed of light" and demonstrates gaping holes in understanding that arise out of unacknowledged metaphysical presumptions in standard physics literature.
These are not issues confined to undergraduate watercooler gossip - Maudlin cites Sean Carroll and Richard Feynman as having made errors in explaining the Twin Paradox and recounts John Bell's survey, where a majority of his colleagues at CERN gave the wrong answer to whether Lorentz contraction in a particular experimental setup will be merely a subjective artifact of one's choice of coordinates, or if it will physically manifest in breaking a very objective observer independent thread! Anyone who wants to grasp the import of the theories must confront the subtleties involved. Despite the intricate subject matter, the writing is engaging - embarrassingly entertaining even for a text on foundations of physics - and one cannot help feeling wistful that it could have been expanded at several places, particularly the last chapter on Time, which in contrast of the rest of the book makes some trivial observations without breaking much new ground. Nevertheless, to ponder upon the System of the World, as Newton would have it, this is one amazing place to start.
June 19, 2018
I finished this book today, though I can hardly say I grasped much of it with deep comprehension. Maudlin's treatment of the philosophy of the physics of space and time contains more mathematics than I can easily follow. It's been such a long time since I delved into mathematics beyond adding and subtracting in a bank account. Still, now and then I got some of the meanings of changing views of space and time from Euclidian geometry and Newtonian absolute space and absolute time to space-time configurations in other geometries and Special and General Relativity. I finished it because the topic fascinates me and because of a deep-seated sense of responsibility to finish a book once started. For this reason, I don't know that I have ever put aside a book I have started without finishing it. I have never lacked in stubbornness, as family and friends will attest, much to their annoyance. So if you have the math to grasp this book, I recommend it. And I will turn to other books on the subject to grow in understanding beyond what I can comprehend at this point.
April 16, 2020
The book begins with an excellent historical introduction about the physics of motion, and the notions of space and time in general. The first three chapters are philosophy for physicists and starting from the fourth chapter, it becomes physics+mathematics for philosophers. The author treats the theory of special relativity (SR) by asserting the Minkowski geometry for space-time, along with the Clock Hypothesis and "Law of light" and "Relativistic Law of Inertia" and claims to have arrived at the results of SR without positing about the speed of light. Personally, this is not as elegant as the author claims to be. I'd much rather start with the traditionally used axioms (laws of physics being same in all inertial frames and constancy of speed of light) which are grounded on empirical observations than postulating non-obvious hypothesis. The book was underwhelming and did not answer my questions about the ontological nature of space-time.
December 29, 2021
interesting
A good look at ideas about space and time - Aristotelian, Newtonian, Leibnizian Machian, and Einstein/Minkowskian ( relativistic. )
The author reminds us that it is useful and interesting to think about ideas and not just ‘shut up and calculate’.
Physicists on the whole are trained and encouraged to do the latter and an implicit graduation requirement is a sneering disdain for ‘philosophy’.
The ones who succumb to the pressure and merely conform and perform rarely go on to do anything particularly great.
The other point to be gained from this book is that Relativity ( special and general) is exquisitely subtle. If you think you understand it you probably don’t. It Confuses the hell out of me to be perfectly honest. And it’s not the math that’s puzzling. That’s the easy bit.
A good look at ideas about space and time - Aristotelian, Newtonian, Leibnizian Machian, and Einstein/Minkowskian ( relativistic. )
The author reminds us that it is useful and interesting to think about ideas and not just ‘shut up and calculate’.
Physicists on the whole are trained and encouraged to do the latter and an implicit graduation requirement is a sneering disdain for ‘philosophy’.
The ones who succumb to the pressure and merely conform and perform rarely go on to do anything particularly great.
The other point to be gained from this book is that Relativity ( special and general) is exquisitely subtle. If you think you understand it you probably don’t. It Confuses the hell out of me to be perfectly honest. And it’s not the math that’s puzzling. That’s the easy bit.
March 4, 2021
Leer este libro me hizo comprender que si hubiera tenido mejores profesores (i.e. profesores a los que no odiara) mi relación con las ciencias exactas no hubiera sido como usar guantes de lija.
Maudlin simplifica lo más que puede los conceptos de las teorías de Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Minkowksi, entre otros y los presenta como una breve historia del pensamientos tiempoespacial, y termina con un capítulo que a mí, como estudiante de "humanidades" la topología del espacio y el tiempo equivalgan a la paradoja de Aquiles y la tortuga de Zenón, y eso hace que admire lo que ha logrado el autor.
Maudlin simplifica lo más que puede los conceptos de las teorías de Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Minkowksi, entre otros y los presenta como una breve historia del pensamientos tiempoespacial, y termina con un capítulo que a mí, como estudiante de "humanidades" la topología del espacio y el tiempo equivalgan a la paradoja de Aquiles y la tortuga de Zenón, y eso hace que admire lo que ha logrado el autor.
December 2, 2024
Maudlin is great at stripping a theory to its bare essentials, emphasizing the distinction between its actual ontology, and elements introduced by its students for pedagogical purposes. Doing so, for example, he can strip the Newtonian mechanics from notions of absolute space and time. Or Special Relativity from choices of coordinate systems. Or Twin Paradox from acceleration. It's pretty refreshing.
Some knowledge of general relativity and Einstein's field equation is needed to properly follow the GR chapter. Special Relativity parts are better detailed out and therefore more self-contained, but still a layman's previous exposure surely served me well.
Some knowledge of general relativity and Einstein's field equation is needed to properly follow the GR chapter. Special Relativity parts are better detailed out and therefore more self-contained, but still a layman's previous exposure surely served me well.
June 23, 2018
This book is super dense. While it is not very long, it could easily be taught as a semester long college course. It is very informative and thorough in its exploration of the subject. It was just the wrong choice for me to try to take to the pool everyday. I may revisit it if I ever become an astronaut.
May 25, 2020
I wish every book on the philosophy of physics was as detailed as this one, Maudlin is not afraid to throw some technical details around which makes it even more compelling. My favorite book on the philosophy of physics by far I wish this kind of stuff was part of the physics curriculum
Read
August 5, 2020I found this book to be rather insightful as it details the concepts from general relativity and shows us how it works. I also liked the idea that Tim Maudlin strings ideas from Physics and Philosophy together. It really comes to show how the Natural Sciences are inseparable from Philosophy.
January 7, 2025
Excelente libro. Habiendo estudiado una licenciatura en física nunca vi la relatividad de esta manera tan profunda y atendiendo a la precisión filosófica de estos asuntos. Muy bien escrito, buenos chistes e increíble física. Más reconocimiento a Tim Maudlin.
July 28, 2017
Extremely well-written introduction to relativity. Must read for physicists.
September 2, 2019
Hello
I would like to present an interesting theory in the future
I would like to present an interesting theory in the future
May 26, 2020
Read this book to learn more about the concepts of time and space in regarding to physics and philosophy. Unfortunately, did not get much out of it. Maybe be better liked by pro philosophers.
November 4, 2023
Took me a while(almost 3 months!) but a very rewarding read. I got the chance to speak with Professor Maudlin in person, I’m still so impressed by how clear he is.
May 9, 2025
DNF, got bored about halfway in.
August 20, 2012
A concise, accessible, enjoyable, responsible and rewarding survey of the historical development of the physicist's conception of space and time.
I say it's concise because this volume weighs in at about 200 pages and covers spatial/temporal geometries from Aristotle, Newton, Galileo and Einstein.
There's certainly a bit of math in the book, but not so much as to exclude the layperson. The descriptions and diagrams provided are about as clear as they can be, given the subject.
I say it's responsible because the author makes use of clear arguments, makes assumptions and missing pieces clear and follows up with recommended readings.
The text is rewarding because it clears up many misconceptions about the theories it covers. I can certainly say this book helped sharpen my understanding of special & general relativity.
There's more physics than philosophy in this text. It serves as an excellent description of space and time for a philosopher. I don't see that it would give the physics student a strong philosophical hook, though it's certainly more philosophical than the average physics text. (The exception would be a relatively sizable discussion of the correspondence between Leibniz and Clarke on Newtonian absolute space, which I enjoyed having studied that debate previously.)
Overall a worthwhile read for anyone looking for an introduction to philosophy of physics, or anyone who could stand to improve their understanding of the theories presented.
I say it's concise because this volume weighs in at about 200 pages and covers spatial/temporal geometries from Aristotle, Newton, Galileo and Einstein.
There's certainly a bit of math in the book, but not so much as to exclude the layperson. The descriptions and diagrams provided are about as clear as they can be, given the subject.
I say it's responsible because the author makes use of clear arguments, makes assumptions and missing pieces clear and follows up with recommended readings.
The text is rewarding because it clears up many misconceptions about the theories it covers. I can certainly say this book helped sharpen my understanding of special & general relativity.
There's more physics than philosophy in this text. It serves as an excellent description of space and time for a philosopher. I don't see that it would give the physics student a strong philosophical hook, though it's certainly more philosophical than the average physics text. (The exception would be a relatively sizable discussion of the correspondence between Leibniz and Clarke on Newtonian absolute space, which I enjoyed having studied that debate previously.)
Overall a worthwhile read for anyone looking for an introduction to philosophy of physics, or anyone who could stand to improve their understanding of the theories presented.
August 20, 2013
This is a briskly paced survey of conceptual issues in physics, using light mathematics to illustrate the larger geometrical picture of space and time. Maudlin's writing style is dry but clear, and the material and its presentation are engaging. I found the discussion of the Newton/Leibniz dispute over absolute space to be quite illuminative, and it was interesting to see Maudlin parse out which conceptual facets of Relativity (Special and General) are truly a departure from Galilean space-time, and which components of Galileo's picture actually serve as *assumptions* for Einstein's Relativity. His points on the ontological priority of geometrical representations over coordinate systems (e.g., the priority of Minkowski's geometry over Lorentz's coordinatization of it; or, the priority of Euclid's geometry over Descartes' coordinatization of it) was a point that was consistently reinforced throughout the book in different examples. I found very little repetition in this book.
In all, I highly recommend the book to anyone with a basic understanding of physics (Maudlin does light speed past stuff like kinematics and F=ma, so I would suggest some pre-knowledge of that stuff. Just read the Wiki.). I found it thoroughly understandable, and my B.Sc. was in biology (only one year of college physics). Those with a philosophical background will also find themselves at home with the book. Bravo!
In all, I highly recommend the book to anyone with a basic understanding of physics (Maudlin does light speed past stuff like kinematics and F=ma, so I would suggest some pre-knowledge of that stuff. Just read the Wiki.). I found it thoroughly understandable, and my B.Sc. was in biology (only one year of college physics). Those with a philosophical background will also find themselves at home with the book. Bravo!
February 26, 2015
Maudlin’s introduction to the Philosophy of Physics (Volume 1): Space & Time is a brief and somewhat concise account of the key historical theories of space and time, and a few core philosophical concerns with these theories.
Maudlin offers clear explanations of the necessary components of each theory. However, some of the components explicitly skipped or left unaddressed could have been more smoothly transitioned, or even justified in greater detail. One issue specifically would be less historical perspective and more teasing out of the philosophical problems.
That being said, if Maudlin hadn’t focused as much as he did on explaining the derivation of the theoretical physics perhaps I would not have understood as much as I did. Overall, it was really enjoyable to grapple with an explanation of space and time from a new perspective, much of which was idea altering.
Maudlin offers clear explanations of the necessary components of each theory. However, some of the components explicitly skipped or left unaddressed could have been more smoothly transitioned, or even justified in greater detail. One issue specifically would be less historical perspective and more teasing out of the philosophical problems.
That being said, if Maudlin hadn’t focused as much as he did on explaining the derivation of the theoretical physics perhaps I would not have understood as much as I did. Overall, it was really enjoyable to grapple with an explanation of space and time from a new perspective, much of which was idea altering.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews