You would think that with the Michelson-Morley experiment and particle experiments, relativists would be satisfied to the experimental basis of the theory. BUT NO, they have to make up complete propaganda, claiming that problems that are actually solved by classical physics are, in fact mysterious, until relativity came along to save the day (or even stranger, claiming to have perfectly acceptible solutions to non existent problems).

Dieks&Nienhuis¹ essentially claimed that there was no classical solution to the Sagnac effect and that relativity was required to resolve it. They "proved" this with a rather odd argument relating to Galilean invariance, but apparently forgot that source independence of light is compatible to classical physics, and the fact that Sagnac² used classical physics to predict the result in the first place apparently did not sway them in their convictions. One can only guess why none of the reviewers brought up this point. Of course, myths die hard as one will still find this experiment touted as specific relativity evidence today (for example on Roberts' FAQ).

Shadowitz³, in his text on relativity claimed that relativity was required to resolve the homopolar generator paradox. (This is where, when the disk is rotated near one pole of a magnet, a current is induced, but if the disk is stationary and the magnet is rotated, no current is induced.) The idea that relativity with its natural reciprocity would suddenly be able to resolve this might arouse some suspicion, but it is all irrelevant, since it is easily resolved classically, as Faraday⁴ explained (and could be similarly shown by any E&M student).

Burcev⁵ and independently Bierman&vonKenschitski⁶, being experts on relativity brought it to the world's attention that relativity did actually predict the non-null result of the Kantor⁷ experiment. Of course, a year later Babmod&Bergman⁸ and two other groups were unable to repeat these experimental results, and it was only then apparent that relativity predicted a null result.

My question is: With such a precise simple theory like relativity, how was it possible for published experts to come up with completely contradictory results? If the experiment had not been repeated, no doubt we would believe to this day that relativity predicted the non-null results all along.

Let this be a lesson to all you SRist want-to-be's. You can prove anything with relativity, but make sure to wait until after the experiment has been performed (and VERIFIED)!

---

1. Dieks&Nienhuis,Am.J.Phys.58,650(1990)
2. Sagnac,Compt.Rend.l'Acad.Sci.157,708&1410(1913)
3. Shadowitz,"Special Relativity"(W.B.Saunders,Philadelphia 1968)
4. Faraday,Brittanica Great Books 45,650?(check index)
5. Burcev,Phys.Lett.5,44(1963)
6. Bierman,vonKenschitski,J.Opt.Soc.Am.53,1008(1963)
7. Kantor,J.Opt.Soc.Am.52,978(1962)
8. Babmod&Bergman,J.Opt.Soc.Am.54,147(1964)