Comparing Classical And Relativistic Kinematics In First-Order Logic

Koen Lefever, Gergely Székely


The aim of this paper is to present a new logic-based understanding of the connection between classical kinematics and relativistic kinematics.

We show that the axioms of special relativity can be interpreted in the language of classical kinematics. This means that there is a logical translation function from the language of special relativity to the language of classical kinematics which translates the axioms of special relativity into consequences of classical kinematics.

We will also show that if we distinguish a class of observers (representing observers stationary with respect to the “Ether”) in special relativity and exclude the non-slower-than light observers from classical kinematics by an extra axiom, then the two theories become definitionally equivalent (i.e., they become equivalent theories in the sense as the theory of lattices as algebraic structures is the same as the theory of lattices as partially ordered sets).

Furthermore, we show that classical kinematics is definitionally equivalent to classical kinematics with only slower-than-light inertial observers, and hence by transitivity of definitional equivalence that special relativity theory extended with “Ether” is definitionally equivalent to classical kinematics.

So within an axiomatic framework of mathematical logic, we explicitly show that the transition from classical kinematics to relativistic kinematics is the knowledge acquisition that there is no “Ether”, accompanied by a redefinition of the concepts of time and space.


Andréka, H., Madarász, J. X. and Németi, I. (2006), Logical axiomatizations

of space-time. Samples from the literature, in ‘Non-Euclidean Geometries:

János Bolyai Memorial Volume’, Springer Verlag, pp. 155–185.

Andréka, H., Madarász, J. X. and Németi, I. (2007), Logic of space-time and relativity theory, in ‘Handbook of Spatial Logics’, Springer Verlag, pp. 607–711.

Andréka, H., Madarász, J. X., Németi, I. and Székely, G. (2012a), ‘A logic road from special relativity to general relativity’, Synthese 186,3, 633–649.

Andréka, H., Madarász, J. X., Németi, I. and Székely, G. (2012b), ‘What are the numbers in which spacetime’. arXiv:1204.1350.

Andréka, H., Madarász, J. X., Németi, I., with contributions from: Andai, A.,

Sági, G., Sain, I. and Tőke, C. (2002), On the logical structure of relativity theories, Research report, Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungar. Acad. Sci., Budapest.

Andréka, H. and Németi, I. (2014a), Comparing theories: the dynamics of

changing vocabulary, in ‘Johan V. A. K. van Benthem on logical and infor-

mational dynamic’, Springer Verlag, pp. 143–172.

Andréka, H. and Németi, I. (2014b), ‘Definability theory course notes’.

Ax, J. (1978), ‘The elementary foundations of spacetime’, Found. Phys. 8(7–8), 507–546.

Barrett, T. W. and Halvorson, H. (2016a), ‘Glymour and quine on theoretical

equivalence’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 45(5), 467–483.

Barrett, T. W. and Halvorson, H. (2016b), ‘Morita equivalence’, The Review of Symbolic Logic 9(3), 556–582.

Bell, J. and Machover, M. (1977), A course in mathematical logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Benda, T. (2015), ‘An axiomatic foundation of relativistic spacetime’, Synthese 192,7, 2009–2024.

Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J. (1973, 1990), Model Theory, North–Holland, Amsterdam.

Corcoran, J. (1980), ‘On definitional equivalence and related topics’, History and Philosophy of Logic 1(1-2), 231–234.

Corcoran, J., Frank, W. and Maloney, M. (1974), ‘String theory’, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 39(4), 625–637.

de Bouvère, K. L. (1965), ‘Logical synonymity’, Indagationes Mathematicae

, 622–629.

Einstein, A. (1905), ‘Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper’, Annalen der Physik 17, 891–921.

Enderton, H. B. (1972), A mathematical introduction to logic, Academic Press, New York.

Friedman, H. A. and Visser, A. (2014), ‘When bi-interpretability implies syn-


Friend, M. (2015), ‘On the epistemological significance of the Hungarian

project’, Synthese 192,7, 2035–2051.

Goldblatt, R. (1987), Orthogonality and Spacetime Geometry, Springer–Verlag, Berlin.

Govindarajulu, N. S., Bringsjord, S. and Taylor, J. (2015), ‘Proof verification and proof discovery for relativity’, Synthese 192,7, 2077–2094.

Guts, A. K. (1982), ‘The axiomatic theory of relativity’, Russ. Math. Surv.

(2), 41–89.

Henkin, L., Monk, J. and Tarski, A. (1971 and 1985), Cylindric Algebras Parts I and II, North-Holland.

Hodges, W. (1993), Model Theory, Cambridge University Press.

Hudetz, L. (2016), ‘Definable categorical equivalence: Towards an adequate criterion of theoretical intertranslatability’. pre-print.

Lefever, K. (2017), Using Logical Interpretation and Definitional Equivalence

to compare Classical Kinematics and Special Relativity Theory, PhD thesis,

Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Madarász, J. X. (2002), Logic and Relativity (in the light of definability theory), PhD thesis, Eötvös Loránd Univ., Budapest.

Madarász, J. X. and Székely, G. (2013), ‘Special relativity over the field of rational numbers’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 52,5, 1706–1718.

Michelson, A. A. and Morley, E. W. (1887), ‘On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether’, American Journal of Science 34, 333–345.

Molnár, A. and Székely, G. (2015), ‘Axiomatizing relativistic dynamics using

formal thought experiments’, Synthese 192,7, 2183–2222.

Montague, R. (1956), Contributions to the axiomatic foundations of set theory, PhD thesis, Berkeley.

Mundy, B. (1986), ‘Optical axiomatization of minkowski space-time geometry’, Philosophy of Science 53(1), 1–30.

Pambuccian, V. (2007), ‘Alexandrov-Zeeman type theorems expressed in terms of definability’, Aequationes Mathematicae 74,3, 249–261.

Reichenbach, H. (1924), Axiomatik der relativistischen: Raum-Zeit-Lehre, F. Vieweg and Sohn Akt.-Ges.

Rindler, W. (2001), Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological, Oxford University, Oxford.

Robb, A. A. (1911), Optical geometry of motion, a new view of the theory of relativity., Cambridge, Heffner and Sons.

Schutz, J. (1997), Independent axioms for Minkowski space-time, Longoman, London.

Sen, A., Bringsjord, S., Marton, N. and Licato, J. (2015), ‘Toward diagrammatic automated discovery in axiomatic physics’. preliminary draft, presented at the 2nd International Conference on Logic, Relativity and Beyond.

Stannett, M. and Németi, I. (2014), ‘Using Isabelle/HOL to verify first order

relativity theory’, Journal of Automated Reasoning 52,4, 361–378.

Szabó, L. E. (2011), Lorentzian theories vs. einsteinian special relativity — a logico-empiricist reconstruction, in A. Máté, M. Rédei and F. Stadler, eds, ‘Der Wiener Kreis in Ungarn / The Vienna Circle in Hungary’, Springer Vienna, Vienna, pp. 191–227.

Székely, G. (2009), First-order logic investigation of relativity theory with an emphasis on accelerated observers, PhD thesis, Eötvös Loránd Univ., Budapest.

Székely, G. (2013), ‘The existence of superluminal particles is consistent with the kinematics of Einstein’s special thery of relativity’, Reports on Mathematical Physics 72,2, 133–152.

Szekeres, G. (1968), ‘Kinematic geometry; an axiomatic system for Minkowski space-time: M. l. urquhart in memoriam’, Journal of the

Australian Mathematical Society 8(2), 134–160.

Tarski, A. and Givant, S. (1999), ‘Tarski’s system of geometry’, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5,2, 175–214.

Vroegindewey, P. G. (1974), ‘An algebraic generalization of a theorem of E. C. Zeeman’, Indag. Math. 36(1), 77–81.

Vroegindewey, P. G., Kreinovic, V. and Kosheleva, O. M. (1979), ‘An extension of a theorem of A. D. Aleksandrov to a class of partially ordered fields’, Indag. Math. 41(3), 363–376.

Weatherall, J. O. (2016), ‘Are Newtonian gravitation and geometrized Newtonian gravitation theoretically equivalent?’, Erkenntnis 81(5), 1073–1091.

Winnie, J. A. (1977), The causal theory of space-time., in J. S. Earman, C. N.

Glymour and J. J. Stachel, eds, ‘Foundation of Space-Time Theories’, pp. 134–205.

Zeeman, E. (1964), ‘Causality implies the Lorentz group’, Journal of Mathematical

Physics 5, 490–493.


  • There are currently no refbacks.