Dear Philippos Afxentiou ,

to my understanding the constancy of SOL in arbitrary inertial frames of reference cannot be supported that has the direct consequence that there must be an offset of time in passing from one frame to another. The variables at the base of Lorentz T. must be regarded as Lorentz and Larmor considered them, auxiliaries, not physical...

The result of Special Relativity about Relativity of simultaneity is quite questionable but in order to provide a generally accepted introduction, it is the case to have a look at this paper which very simply explains where it comes from.

Preprint A common origin for the Sagnac effect and Einstein's train

Let's break down the arguments you've presented and consider them in detail.

Argument 1: Epistemological-Philosophical Nature of Principles

1. Relativity Principle and Constancy of Speed of Light:

- The principles of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light are indeed foundational to SR. The principle of relativity asserts that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, and the constancy of the speed of light postulates that light's speed in a vacuum is constant, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.

- These principles can be seen as epistemological in nature because they frame our understanding of space and time, rather than providing mechanical explanations. They set constraints on how we can measure and observe the universe, which are more about our knowledge and perception of physical phenomena than about the phenomena themselves.

Argument 2: Semantic and Epistemological Implications

2. Expanding Physical Nature to Satisfy Light Properties:

- The second argument suggests that SR modifies our understanding of the physical world to fit the properties of light, which could be seen as an epistemological shift rather than a mechanical one.

- This semantic asymmetry points to a philosophical dimension: SR fundamentally changes our conceptual framework for space and time. Rather than seeing time and space as absolute entities, SR treats them as interwoven and relative, depending on the observer's state of motion. This shift is more about the framework of understanding rather than the mechanics of physical systems.

Argument 3: Pre-Existence of Lorentz Phenomena

3. Lorentz Phenomena and Non-QM Mechanics:

- Lorentz transformations and phenomena like length contraction and time dilation were indeed discussed before the advent of SR. These transformations were initially introduced to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment within the context of the ether theory.

- However, Lorentz's approach did not fully break from the Newtonian mechanics paradigm because it did not discard the notion of an absolute space-time framework. SR, on the other hand, rejects the ether and absolute space-time, thereby representing a more profound epistemological shift.

Addressing the Core of the Question

- Mechanics vs. Epistemological Framework:

- Special relativity can indeed be seen as having a strong epistemological component because it fundamentally redefines our understanding of space, time, and simultaneity. In this sense, it shares a similarity with quantum mechanics, where different interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, etc.) offer various epistemological views on the underlying formalism.

- However, SR also has concrete mechanical implications, such as predicting and explaining time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity, which have been experimentally verified. These aspects ground SR firmly within the realm of physical science and mechanics.

Conclusion

While special relativity does involve significant epistemological and philosophical shifts, especially in its principles and implications for the nature of space and time, it also retains a robust mechanical framework. Its predictions about the behavior of objects at high velocities, time dilation, and length contraction are mechanical in nature and have been experimentally confirmed. Thus, SR straddles both epistemological-philosophical interpretation and physical mechanics.

The claim that SR is more epistemological-philosophical in nature compared to classical mechanics would be positing a shift with our conceptual framework but doesn't fully negate its role as a fundamental theory in mechanics..

We can only measure the mutual relations between observable/detectable phenomena. Thus relativity as a “principle” is about mutual variance. But the supposed mutual variance has restrictions. First of all, the amount of variance (energy) is quantized – Planck’s constant (h) – and the linear velocity of the propagation of the quantized variance is a universal constant too, the constant speed of light (c). The consequence is that quantum time (tq) is a universal constant too, because of h and c.

The theory of Special relativity is about the “relativity” of the observed mutual variance. It is easy to understand that if we accelerate matter till it nears the speed of light, every quantum of the total energy of the matter (E = m c2) is propagating in the direction of the velocity. So the normal “flow” of energy within the matter object itself – like spin – has nearly stopped. In other words, the twin paradox isn’t a paradox, it is in line with modern quantum field theory. The problem is that most physicists don’t want to abandon the limited “logic” of classic physics so they keep on using the theory of relativity. But Einstein’s theory of relativity (SR/GR) is classic physics (phenomenological physics). It is outdated.

Length contraction can be observed in high energy particle accelerators. It is not a “relativity phenomenon”. It exists because quantum fields (QFT) have a structure (metric) and it is the structure that is responsible for the propagation of the energy configuration (e.g. a particle) within the universal electric field. The term “length contraction” is a bit confusing because high velocities influence the shape of the accelerated particle. Near the speed of light the shape of the particle is more like a “pancake”.

See: https://phys.org/news/2023-11-heavy-ion-collisions-lhc-scientists-thickness.html

With kind regards, Sydney