On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of Reference and Special Relativity

Abstract

In a previous work, we have shown that the null result of the MichelsonMorley 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.

Testing Einstein’s Second Postulate with an Experiment of the Sagnac Type

“…It should be pointed out that the difference between (8) and (13) is precisely the time interval (12), , introduced by non-conservation of simultaneity. As pointed out above, according to S ′ and in agreement with standard special relativity, result (14) indicates that, for 0 C c ⇒ , the average counter-propagation speed, along the invariant ground length 2 L γ of the closed path, is superluminal and given by c v +  .…”

“…One important contribution to the subject was given by Bell [10], who stated that although there is a stringent "difference in philosophy" between the view of SR and that of a preferred frame theory, "The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other". Bell's assertion was used as a starting point in a series of works adopting the conventionalist thesis within relativistic theories [10][11][12][13][14], where it has been argued that there is essentially one theory, Bell's two philosophies corresponding rather to different aspects of the same theory [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

The Michelson–Morley experiment in an accelerated reference frame

“…There are no restrictions on the value of t m and we want to consider the general case with t m = 0 such that the interferometer has a nonzero velocity given by equation (4). Furthermore, we want to consider t m as a parameter and to solve for light travel times in terms of t m , thereby encoding the velocity dependence of the result.…”

“…It is an important point, however, that the special theory of relativity, though consistent with the non-existence of an absolute reference frame, does not prove this non-existence, only the impossibility of detecting it from an inertial reference frame [4].…”

Electromagnetic momentum in frontiers of modern physics

“…In the field of electromagnetism, a growing number of articles questioning the standard interpretation of special relativity have now appeared [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Some of the authors adhere to a point of view close to the historical works of Lorentz and Poincaré, who maintained thé existence of a preferred frame.…”