Authors: ziaedin Shafiei
Special Relativity (SR) was introduced to the scientific world as a revolutionary new compound of ideas. The theory rightly rejected the idea of aether and presented the first case of uncertainty in physics, i.e. the absolute speed of no known frame is known . But, was SR really a paradigm shift in science or, in general, a giant step in wrong direction? Sceptics might think that SR brought ambiguities such as the twins paradox or relativistic mass but the main undesirable effects of SR, when it was presented in 1905, were: 1.Insisting on contemplating alone for discovering the reality of the universe with supposedly one unerring cool tool, thought experiment. 2.Introducing an instrument, e.g. the light clock with a supposed working characteristic that is not yet experimentally proven. 3.Introducing the constant relative speed, between two inertial reference frames (IRF), into the experimental setting. It then tried to do thought experiment in the new setting using the light clock. This introduction brought some challenges which SR tried to fix by time dilation, length contraction and relativistic mass. Relativistic mass was reluctantly excluded from SR by Einstein in a letter to L. Barnett in June 1948. But as relativistic mass was part and parcel of SR it was not quite easy for scientific community to part with it and forget about it . The subject is still under debate but by the end of the twentieth century mainstream physics was convinced that relativistic mass should be given a quiet farewell due to its controversial consequences. This article summarises the reasons that length contraction and time dilation should have the same fate. The author has already shown that: 1.Following the surprise null result from Michelson and Morley (M&M) experiment, the proposal of length contraction, and later on time dilation, was just based on a simple analytical oversight of the experiment as the movement of the half-silvered mirror was ignored in the analysis. In simple words, length contraction was founded on false foundation. This was a huge blunder that science should not be proud of, in the least, and should have been pointed out immediately and forgotten ever since. But, unfortunately, in the wake of the confusion not only no one noticed the mistake but also length contraction was found to be a useful platform for a new theory, namely special relativity. The realisation of this obvious mistake pulls the rug from under ensuing experiments or test theories such as Kennedy–Thorndike experiments or the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl test theory as they rely on length contraction as a proven premise. 2.Time dilation is not a well thought out scientific idea as initially proposed and believed by physicists as the theory is based on one specific position of the moving clock in relation to its observer. This recognition further undermines test results such as the Ives-Stilwell experiment . The article tries to put SR under further scrutiny and suggests SR to be considered as a metaphysical idea attired in an elaborate scientific and mathematical gown, such as the Lorentz Transformation Equation. It tries to dismiss SR experimental setting by a few examples. It shows that the theory can result in cases that even length contraction and time dilation are not able to fix, that is, to make laws of physics to be the same in all IRFs. More examples show why the insertion of relative speed in experimental setting cannot been beneficial to science.
Comments: 14 pages - Any negative scientific feedback is most welcomed
[v1] 2018-04-22 15:05:15
Unique-IP document downloads: 22 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.