Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?

[Perfectly Innocent]

Those who teach special relativity consider it a very important exercise to have students decide how to measure the length of a rapidly moving object. That's religious indoctrination and a wrongheaded approach to physics. The theoretical process that physicists talk about to measure the length of a rapidly moving object requires belief in simultaneity. In actual reality, according to the math of relativity theory, simultaneity doesn't exist.

Lorentz contraction is just a peculiarity of a simplistic coordinate system that physicists believe in.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Eugene Shubert

 

[quantumdude]

Oh, for Pete's sake, not another one.

Those who teach special relativity consider it a very important exercise to have students decide how to measure the length of a rapidly moving object.

We also consider it a very important exercise to have students derive the Lorentz transformation from first principles.

That's religious indoctrination and a wrongheaded approach to physics.

It's neither of those things, if you consider my remark above. Students don't just use the Lorentz transformation, they are required to know where it comes from and why they use it.

The theoretical process that physicists talk about to measure the length of a rapidly moving object requires belief in simultaneity. In actual reality, according to the math of relativity theory, simultaneity doesn't exist.

Wrong. According to SR, simultaneity is relative. That does not mean it does not exist.

Lorentz contraction is just a peculiarity of a simplistic coordinate system that physicists believe in.

Yes, we believe in it because it preserves the form of Maxwell's equations under changes of inertial frames, and because both the LT and the postulates from which it is derived have been experimentally verified.

For future reference, PF is not a place to post crackpot attacks against scientific theories. When I say "crackpot attack", I mean a criticism that has no experimental or valid mathematical basis.

 

[Graeme Robinson]

's argument that Lorentz contraction is not objectively real is an interesting one, but it is not widely accepted among physicists. While it is true that the concept of simultaneity is a theoretical construct in special relativity, this does not mean that Lorentz contraction is not a real phenomenon. In fact, there is abundant evidence to support its existence.

Firstly, Lorentz contraction has been experimentally observed in various forms, such as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and the Fizeau experiment. These experiments have been replicated multiple times, with consistent results, providing strong evidence for the validity of Lorentz contraction.

Furthermore, the effects of Lorentz contraction have been observed in practical applications, such as in particle accelerators. The calculations and predictions based on special relativity, including the concept of Lorentz contraction, have been proven accurate and essential for the functioning of these devices.

Moreover, the concept of Lorentz contraction is not limited to just special relativity. It is also a fundamental aspect of general relativity, which is a highly successful theory that has been extensively tested and verified.

Ultimately, the evidence from experiments and practical applications strongly supports the existence of Lorentz contraction as an objectively real phenomenon. While it may be a theoretical construct, it is a crucial one that has been integral to our understanding of the universe and has been consistently validated through empirical evidence. Therefore, it is not accurate to dismiss Lorentz contraction as just a peculiarity or a religious belief, but rather a fundamental aspect of physics.