Relativistic length agony continued

Abstract

We made an attempt to remedy recent confusing treatments of some basic relativistic concepts and results. Following the argument presented in an earlier paper (Redžić 2008b), we discussed the misconceptions that are recurrent points in the literature devoted to teaching relativity such as: there is no change in the object in Special Relativity, illusory character of relativistic length contraction, stresses and strains induced by Lorentz contraction, and related issues. We gave several examples of the traps of everyday language that lurk in Special Relativity. To remove a possible conceptual and terminological muddle, we made a distinction between the relativistic length reduction and relativistic FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction, corresponding to a passive and an active aspect of length contraction, respectively; we pointed out that both aspects have fundamental dynamical contents. As an illustration of our considerations, we discussed briefly the Dewan-Beran-Bell spaceship paradox and the 'pole in a barn' paradox.