There isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity! It’s said that special relativity can be used to interpret phenomena such as mass increase of high-energy electron, life-time dilation of high-energy meson and so on, so it’s assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity in the field of physics. However, Lorentz’s theory can also be used to interpret these phenomena which will be considered as the experimental evidence to support Lorentz’s theory in the field of physics if there is no special relativity. For example, in 1938 Ives and Stilwell first detailed spectral measurement of the hydrogen atom and proved that movement results in a time delay, which is assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity. But Ives fought against special relativity throughout his life, and repeatedly emphasized that the purpose of this experiment is not to test special relativity while the same equation can be obtained using Lorentz’s theory. He used Lorentz’s theory and his experimental results prove the correctness of this theory. Therefore, these experiments can’t be assumed as the experimental evidence to support special relativity. If someone must believe these phenomena can prove special relativity, then Ptolemy’s followers also say that the earth is the center of the universe because the sun rise in the east and set in the west every day. What experiment can serve as the experimental evidence to support special relativity? Only these experiments that are able to prove the two hypotheses of special relativity, one of which is the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity, can serve as its experimental evidence. What does the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity mean? Does it mean the velocities of light in all directions in one media are the same? No, it doesn’t. If it did then the velocities of sound in all directions in one media are also the same, so we can make hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity. Does it mean the movement of source does not affect the velocity of light? No, it doesn’t. If it did then the movement of source does not affect the velocity of sound, so we can make hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity. What does it exactly mean? It exactly means that the velocity of light is constant when we observe the same beam of light in vacuum in different inertial frames. However, is there any experimental evidence to support this hypothesis? Let us analyze the so-called experimental evidences proving the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. 1) Closed optical path experiments (including Michelson-Morley experiment, Essen’s experiment, Jaseja’s experiment, Silvertooth’s experiment, Trimmer’s experiment, Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, etc.) and unidirectional optical experiments (including Cedarholm’s two masers experiment, Champeney’s Mössbauer effect experiment, Cialdea’s two lasers experiment). They show that the velocity of light is isotropic on the Earth’s surface. Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the velocity of sound is isotropic on the Earth’s surface and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too! 2) Moving light source experiments, including the double star observation, Majorana’s rotating mercury lamp experiment, Michelson’s rotating mirror experiment, Kantor’s rotating glass experiment, Luckey-Weil γ-radiation experiment, Sadeh’s positron-electron annihilation experiment, Fillippas-Fox π-meson decay experiment, etc. They show that the movement of light source does not affect the velocity of light. Can these experiments prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity? If they could, then the movements of train, plane and bullet do not affect the velocities of their sound and the hypothesis of constancy of sound velocity is true too! Many people believe that Luckey-Weil γ-radiation experiment, Sadeh’s positron-electron annihilation experiment and Fillippas-Fox π-meson decay experiment can prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. They think that velocity of movement of light source is v and the velocity of the light from the source is c relative to light source, while the velocity of the γ photon measured in the ground reference frame is c but not c + v, which proves the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. In this regard I want to ask how do you know that the velocity of theγ photon given out form microscopic particle is c relative to the source. Have you measured it? You can only guess it. But what is the basis of this guess? It remains the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity. They consider the proposition need to prove as the basis, which is a logical error. Have the velocities of the sound given out from high-speed train, plane and bullet been 330 m/s relative to the source? Of course, it’s not! Therefore, how can you identify that the velocity of the γ photon given out form microscopic particle is 30 million km/s relative to the source? Moreover, these experiments can be explained with the ether theory and can be considered as the experimental evidence to support this theory! Please note: The velocity of the same beam of light in vacuum wasn’t tested in different inertial frames in all experiment above! The all experiments above were carried out on ground which is an approximate inertial frame, while the observer doesn’t position in another inertial frame which is moving relative to the ground to examine whether the velocity of light is c or not. Can these experiment carried out in only one inertial frame prove the same results will be in different inertial frames? According to the analysis above, we can conclude that there isn’t any experimental evidence to prove the hypothesis of constancy of light velocity and there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity!
The Michael-Morley experiment circa 1885 is experimental evidence that the velocity of light is constant.
Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment? Please See h t t p: //w w w.vintagemediashop.com/showthread.php?t=100454
Xinwei Huang: There is an alternative interpretation of the results of the Michael-Morley experiment: The Earth is stationary. The above interpretation would be pleasing to those who required Galileo to recant his support of Copernicus, who proposed that the Earth rotated around SOL & not vice versa. I prefer the traditional interpretation, which led to Special Relativity: The Velocity of light in a vacuum is constant.
Most people think there is no experiment against the special theory of relativity. This is because most people do not in-depth analyze these experiments. If we carefully analyze the current experiments, we will find there isn’t any experimental evidence to support special relativity! Instead, there are some experiments against special relativity.
Pete: You were correct. It is a waste of time to stir that kettle. Xinwei Huang reminds me of a poster from long ago who was always dissing Relativity. I think his Forum name was GenX.
Suggestion to Mods: This nonsense isn't even good enough to qualify as : Pseudoscience and should be tossed immediately into the Cesspool.
Most people do not have the insight of Copernicus and Galileo so they can not find special theory of relativity is wrong. This is a fable that reflects the history of scientific development. Biologist Robert found a fly lying on the table. He coughed so the fly were scared to fly. Later, he caught the fly and cut off its wings and placed it on the table. He coughed again but the fly did not fly away. So he concluded that fly heared sounds depend on it's wings, and the wings of fly is equivalent to person's eardrum. Smith, another biologist was against this interpretation. He believes that fly should also hear sounds depend on it's ear. However, he could not point out where is the ear of fly. He also could not explain why fly without wings did not respond on sounds. Other biologists repeated the Robert's experiment at different times, different places, different environments with different sounds such as cough sound, alarm sound, explosion sound. They found the same results as Robert. So they agreed that many experiments show that fly heared sounds by it's wings, and the theory that all animals heared sounds depend on ear was wrong. They also believed that Robert changed the biology, he was the greatest biologist in human history.
Actually I've heard this a lot, as I am sure you have. It seems however that the constant speed of light can be allowed to vary in a vacuum so can technically mean that the speed of light can vary by varying itself the density of the vacuum, so changing the value of \(\mu \epsilon= \frac{1}{c^2}\) is permissible in a vacuum, and I can think of several prominent scientists who believe it has such as John Barrow.
