On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
In a previous work, we have shown that the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment in vacuum is deeply connected with the notion of time. The same is true for the postulate of constancy of the two-way speed of light in vacuum in all frames independently of the state of motion of the emitting body. The argumentation formerly given is very general and has to be true not only within Special Relativity and its “equivalence” of all inertial frames, but as well as in Lorentz-Poincaré scenario of a preferred reference frame. This paper is the second of a trilogy intending to revisit the foundations of Special Relativity, and addresses the question of the constancy of the one-way speed of light and of the differences and similarities between both scenarios. Although they manifestly differ in philosophy, it is debated why and how the assumption of a “special system of reference experimentally inaccessible” is indeed compatible with Einstein’s Special Relativity, as beautifully outlined and discussed by Bell [Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988)]. This rather trivial statement is still astonishing nowadays to a big majority of scientists. The purpose of this work is to bring such assertion into perspective, widening the somewhat narrow view of Special Relativity often presented in textbooks and scientific papers.
Keywordsspecial relativity synchronization one-way speed conventionality thesis absolute space
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bell J.S., (1988). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 6.M. Consoli and E. Costanzo, “The motion of the solar system and the Michelson–Morley experiment,” http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576 (2003).Google Scholar
- 8.R. T. Cahill and K. Kitto, “Re-analysis of Michelson–Morley experiments reveals agreement with COBE cosmic background radiation preferred frame so impacting on interpretation of general relativity,” http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205070 (2002).Google Scholar
- 9.Cahill R.T., Kitto K., (2003). “Michelson-Morley experiments revisited and the cosmic background radiation preferred frame”. Apeiron 10, 104Google Scholar
- 10.Cahill R.T., (2004). “Absolute motion and gravitational effects”. Apeiron 11, 53Google Scholar
- 12.V. Guerra and R. de Abreu, “Comment on ‘from classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window for a preferred frame’ [Phys. Lett. A 333, 355 (2004)],” Phys. Lett. A (2006) in press, doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2006.09.033Google Scholar
- 13.de Abreu R., Guerra V., (2005). Relativity—Einstein’s Lost Frame, 1st edn. Extramuros, LisboaGoogle Scholar
- 14.A. Einstein, in Einstein’s Miraculous Year, J. Stachel, ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998) [(the article first appeared in Ann. Phys. 17, 123–160 (1905)].Google Scholar
- 15.Feynman R.P., Leighton R.B., Sands M., (1979). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 13th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
- 16.Serway R.A., Beichner R.J., (2000). Physics For Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, 5th edn. Saunders College Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 18.M. C. Duffy, Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory IX (Proceedings), vol.1 (PD Publications, Liverpool, 2004), pp. 158–202.Google Scholar