What is the proof/validity of Born rigidity in Special relativity?

[PAllen]

Does it mean, that you realize, that there can never be any experimental verification of length contraction, because physical theories need to be Lorentz Invariant, and it means you are never going to find any variant property in order to prove that LC is real.

Because then there is NO point debating the nature of LC(or any name of your liking).

No, it simply means that pure LC and pure time dilation are frame dependent phenomena. Also, you can't have one without the other unless you choose to believe there is a universally preferred frame (you need a theory of the atmosphere in the muon frame unless you reject it as an inferior frame). What your can verify are observable consequences - muons reach the ground; muon half life in a ring is energy dependent in the expected way.

 

[universal_101]

No, it simply means that pure LC and pure time dilation are frame dependent phenomena.

O..K.

Also, you can't have one without the other unless you choose to believe there is a universally preferred frame (you need a theory of the atmosphere in the muon frame unless you reject it as an inferior frame). What your can verify are observable consequences - muons reach the ground; muon half life in a ring is energy dependent in the expected way.

Right, but ofcourse it would be easy to use only TD part in the preferred frame.

 

[Dale]

This thread has certainly run amok.

Length contraction is a direct consequence of the Lorentz transform. Therefore all evidence confirming the Lorentz transform is evidence supporting length contraction as well. As such, the experimental evidence is overwhelming and it is not in the least bit disputed in current professional debate.

As to its "reality" or not, that is a philosophical/semantic question which hinges critically on the definition of "real". It is a measurable but frame-variant effect, call it "real" or not as you will.