Real Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction

[heldervelez]

Heldervelez:

This is a quote from Gjurchinovski -

"Consequently, it emphasizes the fact that the length of a uniformly moving object will be physically contracted along its velocity vector by the usual Lorentz factor."

The Lorentz factor applies between any two inertial frames. This statement says that a rod has a physical length corresponding to every possible inertial observer !

That sentence is the the last one there. It is Gjurchinovski conclusion, with an conceptual experiment that is not observer dependent. He concluded a reallity of contraction on the 'object', not observer/light dependent.

Before disagreeing with the conclusion one's must point a faulty step along the derivation of the conclusion.

What he said is along with the references cited in the paper. The author merit becames clear after he imagined an experiment that is observer independent, and cristal clear.

This is such an obvious contradiction/paradox that I cannot see how anyone can think for a moment it can be true.

I see no paradox, nor contradiction, not clashing with SR.
Einstein paper does not rule out 'absolute space', it just do not need it.

The author seems to be under the impression that there is only one factor that can be applied, which must be assuming an absolute frame in which velocity is measurable.

Yes, it cames with the conclusion. The Einstein SR is observer/light dependent.
Things change when we remove the constraint imposed by light travel time/observer.

Even if this were the case the Lorentz factor applies between two frames and is based on their relative velocity.

observer dependent applies to SR not to this perspective.

Get a grip, man !

At last I agree with you .

If it exists a 'really' an object contration, as it seems, and a cumulative observer dependent contraction, as it seems,
then the observed contraction would be lambda^2.
Am I wrong?

 

[Mentz114]

Heldervelez,
The problem with Gjurchinovski's paper is this

Obviously, simultaneity of the events A′ and B′ becomes irrelevant because the rod is stationary.

which is not true. In the frame of the ground, where the scorch marks are, the rod is not stationary. When the marks are measured, we are in the ground frame, not the moving rod frame. If we had fired the crackers without moving the rod, the distance between the marks would be the 'natural' length of the rod ( ie measured in its own frame). Because the rod was moving when the crackers were fired the distance between the marks is foreshortened. It is an observer dependent effect ! It depends on the relative velocity when the crackers were fired.
( remember, in the ground frame the crackers did not go off simultaneously, which accounts for the foreshortening ).

You are entitled to hold any view you like, and I respect your freedom to do so, but you are being mislead if you believe Gjurchinovski's nonsense.

Some of your remarks lead me to believe that you may be talking about something other than Lorentz contraction ( or doing a quick sidestep ). If this effect depends on lambda ( cosmological constant ) it has nothing to do with SR and Lorentz.

I wish you goodnight.

 

[heldervelez]

I really think you'll enjoy the link in #27 (or at least find it thought provoking).

I have read it (and others pages on your site) and I'm glad that you, independently, derive it simply after established theory. All we know that even with strict SR the shape had to change.
GR is all about rulers/clocks change. They are not invariants.
We can find software in the net with a visual approach (find: relativity software renderer download)

I do not understand so much 'horror' just because things are broader than what we are used to.
Physics is about evolving concepts and Einstein is not the end of story.
The study of relativity under the perspective of an 'instant observer' (not dependent on light to ackowledge events) is welcome, to my enlightment, and to challenge the intelectual criticism of those that do not believe in the 'absolute space'.
I already know that the study is available. It does not destroy the Einstein work, it makes the analise from a different perspective and spread the horizont.

Lorentz work gives us a real length contraction, time dilation, shape modification, based on the properties of electromagnetic field (not observer dependent).
Matter can move and survive (i.e. Maxwell equations are Lorentz invariants).
With a change on the geometrical properties of the atom we can expect, and explore, the consequences. GR is also about changing rods/matter/clocks/time.

 

[heldervelez]

its gamma, not lambda. Sorry. I'm not proficient in English and Greek
I will study the paper next.
Good nigth to you too.

 

[yuiop]

Let us analyse length contraction from the point of view of Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) and see if it gives us any insights. LET is widely accepted as giving the same predictions as classic SR so I think it valid to use LET in some circumstances. Consider 2 rods, A and B that have equal proper length that are moving with respect to each other. For the sake of argument let us assume A is at rest with the ether and B is moving with respect to the ether. In this situation rod B is "really" length contracted because of B's motion relative to the ether. B also experiences "real" time dilation due to motion relative to the ether. The "real" length contraction and time dilation experienced by B (and a difference in simultaneity) causes the illusion that rod A is length contracted from B's point of view. We can now reverse the situation and assume B is at rest with the ether and now it is A that is "really" length contracted. Now it is A that is under the illusion that B is length contracted due to physical changes in the measuring apparatus of A. The end result is that we have no way of determining whether it is rod A or B that is really length contracted and consistent with SR both measure the other be length contracted. All we can say in LET terms (by applying simple logic) is that if A and B have motion relative to each other, then at least one of the rods is really length contracted. What we can NOT say, is that if B is moving relative to A, that B must be "really" length contracted, because it might well be that B is the rod that is "really" stationary in LET terms.

However we can look at length contraction in terms of a rotating ring and this has the benefit that rotation has an absolute nature that is missing when considering purely linear inertial motion in SR. Imagine that we have a hollow tube formed into a ring to create a circular tunnel. This tunnel is non rotating and supported on the outside by rocket thrusters or hydraulic pistons so that its radius does not alter under stress. Inside the tunnel we have a train moving at relativistic speeds relative to the tunnel. The train and its carriages completely occupy the tunnel comfortably without any stresses parallel to its length. Let us say speed of the train is such that the gamma factor of the moving train is 2.0 and we now try to bring the train smoothly to a stop relative to the tunnel. The train would be physically crushed when it stopped because its rest length is now twice the circumference of the non rotating tunnel it was moving inside of and can no longer fit inside the tunnel. Hopefully, this demonstrates the physical nature of length contraction because the physical crushing of the train can not be explained as an illusion brought about by differences in point of view.

Conversely, we could take a stationary train that completely occupies the circular tunnel and is connected all the way around. If we try to smoothly accelerate the train it would be ripped apart by length contraction forces as it tried to contract to a length that is shorter than the non rotating tunnel it occupies. Essentially this is the Ehrenfest paradox, which is only a paradox if you do not consider length contraction to be physically real.

 

[Dale]

Good point kev, even in LET the measured length contraction is frame dependent. There is some "real" length contraction, but it cannot be observed.

In any case, heldervelez, as I have said to you several times before, if you are philosophically comforted by LET then you are free to use it. You are just wasting your time trying to convince others of its superiority over SR since there is no evidence supporting (nor opposing) your preference. It is entirely a matter of taste and not really worth arguing for or against.

 

[Mentz114]

In my opinion, heldervelez and others do not accept the first tenet of relativity - 'one cannot distinguish between rest and a state of uniform motion'. They believe there is absolute motion and can't let go of that idea.

Have we unequivocally ruled out the existence of a "primary" (or "ether" or "dark matter" or ...) frame? In truth we have not, although we must acknowledge the possibility that no experiment can differentiate such a frame from all the other inertial frames. Perhaps, with advances in astronomy, we can attempt to narrow the search and define the "primary" frame to be the frame in which the center of mass of the known universe is at rest. Perhaps. But what will such an exercise gain us?

One thing does seem certain. The length contraction of moving systems appears not to be an illusion, even though K and K’ each measures such effects for systems moving relative to himself. Such effects are real, and are predicted by the remarkable fact that the physics of Newton, Maxwell and Lorentz work equally well in every inertial frame of reference.

This is from http://www.maxwellsociety.net/LovingLorentz.html .These two paragraphs show that GRDixon has not grasped the meaning of motion and rest. "Primary Frame" ? Center of the universe at rest ? Always the insistence on absolutism.

I don't think this thread is about LET vs SR. These guys don't believe relativity.

 

[Dale]

I don't think this thread is about LET vs SR. These guys don't believe relativity.

You are probably right. Heldervelez in particular has repeatedly tried to assert some measurement of absolute speed, which is inconsistent with LET as well as SR.

However, to the extent that he correctly understands and applies LET then I have no problem with his philosophical preference for that over SR. His trying to proselytize it is annoying, but harmless.

 

[heldervelez]

Why should somebody in the Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Lodz, dedicate time and money exploring such an old subject as MMX?

This paper seems interesting:

http://versita.metapress.com/content/9740621616717848/fulltext.pdf"
Bogus law Broda and Marcin Ostrowski
Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Lodz,
published in Concepts of Physics (Lodz University, Poland)

Abstract
The idea of the Michelson–Morley experiment is theoretically
reanalyzed. Elementary arguments are put forward to
precisely derive the most general allowable form of the directional
dependence of the one-way velocity of light.

-------------------------------
I stated here, without any reserves, that the SR is correct. But we can not dismiss other viewpoints. They have been explored (but not completelly) and the subject is not a dead end.
I am not trying to convince anyone of this or that.
We are free to explore, (I think that it is the very essence of this forum) and I follow the rules.
I'm in this forum to explore my limits and I tanks anyone that show me the errors based in reasoning and knowledge. I can learn.
The building of Physics will never be fully writen. IMO it is unfounded the common belief that Teoretical Physics can only progress within the walls of academia.
Mr Dixon contributed with calculations and showed, what is known in SR, that bodies change shape under motion because, for now, only the longitudinal component is affected. The Lorentz paper showed also a transversal effect (later he droped it, I think).

OK, there is no way to distinguish experimentally the existence of an 'absolute referential'.
By the rules of this forum I will not try to show you differently.
But the its existence is a different issue and, in another thread, having the time, I will try to show why I consider it mandatory.

In post #1 I quoted Einstein, Lorentz, and other papers, relative to the subject that do not contradict me.
In post #2 I show that a body under acceleration must shorten physically. I urge anyone to show that the reasoning contains errors.

 

[Dale]

In post #2 I show that a body under acceleration must shorten physically.

Sure, but as I already mentioned several times, that is simply not what Lorentz contraction is.

 

[A.T.]

OK, there is no way to distinguish experimentally the existence of an 'absolute referential'.

Then it is not physics.

But the its existence is a different issue

In physics it is the same.

 

[GRDixon]

a real length contraction must exist.
Then I searched the words of Lorentz, Einstein and also what others are saying.

Good Stuff! Here's more fodder for the realness of length contraction:

"In classical physics it was always assumed that clocks in motion and at rest have the same rhythm, that rods in motion and at rest have the same length. If the velocity of light is the same in all coordinate systems, if the relativity theory is valid, then we must sacrifice this assumption. It is difficult to get rid of deep-rooted prejudices, but there is no other way." A. Einstein and L. Infeld, "The Evolution of Physics" (1938.

 

[Al68]

any[/i] two inertial frames. This statement says that a rod has a physical length corresponding to every possible inertial observer !

This is such an obvious contradiction/paradox that I cannot see how anyone can think for a moment it can be true.

That would depend on how "physical length" is defined. If it's defined as the distance between the coordinate positions of an object's endpoints at a specified time, then the rod would have a different "physical length" in each inertial frame with no contradiction or paradox.

 

[Mentz114]

Good Stuff! Here's more fodder for the realness of length contraction:

"In classical physics it was always assumed that clocks in motion and at rest have the same rhythm, that rods in motion and at rest have the same length. If the velocity of light is the same in all coordinate systems, if the relativity theory is valid, then we must sacrifice this assumption. It is difficult to get rid of deep-rooted prejudices, but there is no other way." A. Einstein and L. Infeld, "The Evolution of Physics" (1938).

I'm glad to see you're quoting the latest works available to defend your absurdist position !

That would depend on how "physical length" is defined. If it's defined as the distance between the coordinate positions of an object's endpoints at a specified time, then the rod would have a different "physical length" in each inertial frame with no contradiction or paradox.

What you have described is just the length of the rod measured from another frame, which is an observer dependent quantity.

 

[Dale]

That would depend on how "physical length" is defined. If it's defined as the distance between the coordinate positions of an object's endpoints at a specified time, then the rod would have a different "physical length" in each inertial frame with no contradiction or paradox.

What you have described is just the length of the rod measured from another frame, which is an observer dependent quantity.

This is exactly my point from https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2494738&postcount=3" in this thread. The reality of length contraction is purely semantic based on the definition of "real" (I have yet to find a definition of "real" that I like).

 

[Hans de Vries]

There is a very convincing argument for physical length contraction:All relativistic wave equations exhibit physical Lorentz contraction. These wave equations can be implemented with ordinary mechanical mass/spring
systems which show physical Lorentz contraction. For example: A mass/spring grid
with a characteristic speed of 1 meter/second shows the same Lorentz contraction
at 0.9 meter/second as matter wave packets show at 0.9c.It is actually very easy to proof. To start with the classical wave equation:

<br /> \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial t^2}\ -\ c^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial x^2}\ -\ c^2 \frac{\partial^2<br /> \Phi}{\partial y^2}\ -\ c^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial z^2}\ =\ 0<br />

This equation governs propagation in all kinds of classical situations as well as the
propagation of the electromagnetic (potential) field. c is the characteristic speed.

Mathematically, any arbitrary function which is stable (doesn't change in time) and
which shifts along with a velocity v obeys mathematical relations like:

<br /> \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial t}\ =\ -v \frac{\partial<br /> \Phi}{\partial x} \qquad \qquad \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial<br /> t^2}\ =\ v^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial x^2}<br />

These expressions are always valid independent of the shape of the wave function.
We can use the quadratic one to eliminate the dependence on t from the equation:

<br /> \left(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right) \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial x^2}\ +\ \frac{\partial^2<br /> \Phi}{\partial y^2}\ +\ \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial z^2}\ =\ 0<br />

This shows that the solutions are Lorentz contracted in the direction of v by a factor
gamma, The first order derivatives are higher by a factor gamma and the second order
ones are higher by a factor gamma^2. It shows that velocities higher as c are impossible.

The proof can't hardly be any simpler.
It is from this chapter of my book: http://physics-quest.org/Book_Chapter_EM_LorentzContr.pdfRegard, Hans

 

[matheinste]

This is exactly my point from https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2494738&postcount=3" in this thread. The reality of length contraction is purely semantic based on the definition of "real" (I have yet to find a definition of "real" that I like).

An interesting quote from an early Rindler book. Special Relativity, Oliver and Boyd Ltd. First published 1960, second edition 1966. Page 26. Unfortunately his use of the word "real" is also open to interpretation.

-----Although relativity offers no detailed explanation in terms of cohesive forces or the like, yet it predicts the contraction phenomenon as inevitable. (This is comparable to some of the predictions based on the energy principle.) It must be stressed that the phenomenon is not to be regarded as illusory, due perhaps to some peculiarity in our methods of measurement: relative to a given frame it is real in every possible sense. But for the practical difficulties involved, the following experiment, for example, could demonstrate the existence of length contraction----

He then goes on to describe a well known demonstation which, as far as I know, has not yet been carried out due to these practical difficulties.

Matheinste.

 

[Mentz114]

Hi Hans,

as far as I can see you have only 'proved' that an observer from a moving frame will see a wave packet contracted. This is not surprising because its momentum observed from the moving frame is different. Lorentz contraction is a function of the relative velocity between the frames and so cannot be real in the sense that in the rest frame of the wave packet something changes.

Suppose I am in my kitchen eating a shami kebab, and being watched by someone from a spaceship at rest wrt to me. They zoom off and reach a high velocity; according to you my kebab shrinks to half its previous length. But what about all the other 'observers' in the universe. Are you saying that my kebab will vary in size according my relative velocity wrt them also ? That's more like a sort of Machian kebab principle than Lorentz contraction.

The only things I can regard as real are those that are agreed by all (IRF) observers. Einstein's principle of covariance explicitly states that anything that can be altered by a change of coordinates ( eg LT) is not a real physical effect !

 

[jtbell]

Suppose I am in my kitchen eating a shami kebab,

This cries out for a relativity limerick that starts with something like "There was a young fellow named Bob".

 

[Mentz114]

There was a young man called Hans
who thought he could tell at a glance
that things on the move
(it is easy to prove)
are somewhat in length a bit sans

Sorry I had to use French.

matheinste,

since Rindler's name is associated with accelerated frames, are you sure that the quote you gave isn't referring to those, rather than IFR's ?

 

[Hans de Vries]

Hi Hans,

as far as I can see you have only 'proved' that an observer from a moving frame will see a wave packet contracted. This is not surprising because its momentum observed from the moving frame is different. Lorentz contraction is a function of the relative velocity between the frames and so cannot be real in the sense that in the rest frame of the wave packet something changes.

Suppose I am in my kitchen eating a shami kebab, and being watched by someone from a spaceship at rest wrt to me. They zoom off and reach a high velocity; according to you my kebab shrinks to half its previous length. But what about all the other 'observers' in the universe. Are you saying that my kebab will vary in size according my relative velocity wrt them also ? That's more like a sort of Machian kebab principle than Lorentz contraction.

The only things I can regard as real are those that are agreed by all (IRF) observers. Einstein's principle of covariance explicitly states that anything that can be altered by a change of coordinates ( eg LT) is not a real physical effect !

Realize that the characteristic speed is only 1 meter/second in the example with
the spring/mass grid.

Another example is that of the rubber sheet: If you press your finger in a rubber
sheet then it deforms in a circular symmetric way. However, if you move your finger
in a straight line then the deformation becomes a "Lorentz contracted" oval.

Again, this happens with respect to the slow mechanical propagation speed in the rubber.

There was a young man called Hans
who thought he could tell at a glance
that things on the move
(it is easy to prove)
are somewhat in length a bit sans

Sorry I had to use French.

Sans problème Regards, Hans

 

[heldervelez]

Thanks Hans de Vries. I've already cited your delicious book at #28 and #45.

I'm reading Poincaré's papers (*) and Logunov's comments on his work.
I like and surprised to acknowledeg Poincaré historical precedence on SR concepts (simultaneity, syncronism, Lorentz group, etc...).

"REAL"
Quoting Poincaré (1906) On the dynamics of the electron:
"How do we go about measuring?
The first response will be: we transport objects considered to be invariable solids, one on top
of the other. But that is no longer true in the current theory if we admit the Lorentzian
contraction. In this theory, two lengths are equal, by definition, if they are traversed by
light in equal times."

As we see (rsrsrs: 'not see'), it can exist anisotrophy of light speed.

The consequences of a 'real' length contraction can lead us to unsuspected conclusions.
The paradoxes could go away easily. Realize that spacetime is a feature of Einstein analisys pov, not present on others pov analisys. Questionable, yes.

A paradox is, by definition, an handicap in any theory.
A good theory has no paradoxes.

(*) does someone know where to find (netfree) a modern form of Poincaré's papers?
(the notation is not the usual one)

 

[Mentz114]

Hi Hans,

I'm not denying that these effects can be observed between IFRs, but I don't think they are real in the covariant sense.

M

 

[matheinste]

matheinste,

since Rindler's name is associated with accelerated frames, are you sure that the quote you gave isn't referring to those, rather than IFR's ?

The book only treats SR, in fact acceleration is not even in the index, and the quote is from a very early chapter dealing with relativistic length contraction. Almost immediately above the quote, on the same page after the length contraction formula are the words---

"This shows quite generally that the length of a rigid body in the direction of its motion with uniform velocity v is reduced by a factor----."

Matheinste.

 

[GRDixon]

This cries out for a relativity limerick that starts with something like "There was a young fellow named Bob".

There was a young fellow named Bob,
Who was eating a shami kebab.
His twin, on a trip, in a fast rocket ship
Saw the shami contracted, by jeepers!

 

[Ich]

Einstein's principle of covariance explicitly states that anything that can be altered by a change of coordinates ( eg LT) is not a real physical effect !

Length contraction is not a changing component of a covariant quantity like a vector (time dilatation is). It is the comparison of the length of two different vectors. These vectors really have different length, but I don't think that it's appropriate to speak of one and the same thing really contracting.
Nothing contracts, one simply compares different things, depending on the reference frame.

 

[jtbell]

There was a young fellow named Bob,
Who was eating a shami kebab.
His twin, on a trip, in a fast rocket ship
Saw the shami contracted, by jeepers!

Gotta make the rhyme come out right... hmmm... last line:

Saw the kabab had shrunk to a knob!

Not quite up to the one about the fellow named Fisk, but it will do.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Thanks Hans de Vries. I've already cited your delicious book at #28 and #45.

Hi, Helder.

Special Relativity is generally teached first using only space and time and the
postulate that the laws of physics should be the same independent of the boost
or rotation of the reference frame. Live as we know would be quite unlikely if
this wasn't the case. So, somehow nature manages to create the conditions
we need.

In my book I work the other way around. The aim is to derive the postulates, as
well as the invariance under boosts and rotation from the relativistic wave equations.

Interesting is that the symmetry isn't perfect. Physics isn't the same under parity
inversion. The world we see in the mirror can not physically exist in each and every
detail because the electroweak force is not the same in a mirrored world.

But then, we don't need this symmetry to survive. We can rotate, we can change
velocity but as long as we don't mirror our self we can't get problems because of
different laws of physics. Nature does a wonderful job in creating the necessary
symmetries but it doesn't care about the ones we don't need.


Regards, Hans

 

[Dale]

All relativistic wave equations exhibit physical Lorentz contraction. ... The proof can't hardly be any simpler.

It is a very simple proof that I like very much except for one thing. You have not defined the word "physical" so it is unclear to me that you have proved physicality. For example, the same proof would be valid for a computer simulation of the relativistic wave equation, would that imply that the computer simulation is physical? Or, you could do the exact same proof for waves in other dimensions, would those then be physical?

You have certainly derived length contraction in a particularly pleasing and elegant way, and you have therefore shown that any system which obeys the relativistic wave equation will demonstrate length contraction. But without a solid definition of the word "physical" you cannot say that you have proven that length contraction is physical.

By the way, unlike "real" I do have a definition of "physical" which I like:
Physical - of or pertaining to physics.

Length contraction pertains to physics so it is physical. (my proof is even simpler)

 

[heldervelez]

...
I do have a definition of "physical" which I like:
Physical - of or pertaining to physics.

Length contraction pertains to physics so it is physical.

circular definition. is not a definition at all (pt- tautologia, en - ??)

how could you, mr. Dalespam, have such a profound misunderstanding of 'real' versus 'frame dependent', artifact,... since the beginning of this discussion?

I use the Poincaré version of 'measuring' that I quoted above.
'rigid rods' are dead, I beleived since GR , but I found that Poincare' did it sooner.
-----------------

mr. Hans de Vries : Einstein paper has a move where a symetry appears, it was when he made psi(V)=psi(-V)=1, and ... ,a generalized lorentz contraction with some nuances, ...can appear someday

 

[Dale]

circular definition. is not a definition at all (pt- tautologia, en - ??)

My definition of physical is not circular.

how could you, mr. Dalespam, have such a profound misunderstanding of 'real' versus 'frame dependent', artifact,... Since the beginning of this discussion?

If you believe that you have a good definition of "real" then I would be glad to hear it and thereby clear up my profound misunderstanding.

 

[heldervelez]

To those that do not know the concept of circular definition, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition" , (tautology , from greek)

The concept of 'real' is a philosophical concern. Plato, Kant, Berkeley ...
It is a never ending story if you wish to adress those issues. I skip.
I am a simple minded one and can use the sketch/art work at post #2 to understand the level of reality I meant.
---------------------------------------------------

In post #59 I've said "OK, there is no way to distinguish experimentally the existence of an 'absolute referential'.
By the rules of this forum I will not try to show you differently.
But the its existence is a different issue and, in another thread, having the time, I will try to show why I consider it mandatory."

Mr. A.T. in post #61 replied : "Then it is not physics. " to the sentence "...no way to distinguish experimentally..."
and replied "In physics it is the same." to the sentence "But the its existence is a different issue".

I'will focus my attention to clarify what I meant in post #59 and to show that it is a misconception the usual perception that it is fruitless and not meaningful the pursue of 'absolute rest frame'.
I remember that it is extremelly difficult IMO, unreasonable, to maintain sentences that deny some outcome at 'the end of a path' without actually explore the 'path'.

 

[Mentz114]

Length contraction is not a changing component of a covariant quantity like a vector (time dilatation is). It is the comparison of the length of two different vectors. These vectors really have different length, but I don't think that it's appropriate to speak of one and the same thing really contracting.
Nothing contracts, one simply compares different things, depending on the reference frame.

Thanks, Ich.

 

[Dale]

The concept of 'real' is a philosophical concern. Plato, Kant, Berkeley ...
It is a never ending story if you wish to adress those issues. I skip.

I completely agree with this.

However, now I have a hard time understanding why you chose to place a thread entitled "Real Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction" in the physics sub-forum when you seem to agree that it fits better in the philosophy sub-forum. I also do not understand your previous rather dismissive comment about me having "a profound misunderstanding of 'real'" when it turns out that not only do I correctly understand the issue but you share my understanding.

Your present statement seems wholly at odds with your entire previous approach.

 

[heldervelez]

copy/paste from post #72

"REAL"
Quoting Poincaré (1906) On the dynamics of the electron:
"How do we go about measuring?
The first response will be: we transport objects considered to be invariable solids, one on top
of the other. But that is no longer true in the current theory if we admit the Lorentzian
contraction. In this theory, two lengths are equal, by definition, if they are traversed by
light in equal times."

Can I presume that no important paper can be presented against the "Real Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Poincaré' length contraction, nor experiment?

 

[Dale]

That is a definition of "length", not a definition of "real". How can you possibly have evidence either for or against "real Lorentz contraction" if you cannot even define "real"?