特殊参照系的假设与狭义相对论一致吗？
Is the assumption of a special system of reference consistent with Special Relativity?
摘要：
在以前的工作中，我们已经表明真空中迈克耳孙-莫雷实验的零结果与时间概念有着深刻的联系。同样的道理也适用于真空中的双向光速在所有坐标系中不依赖于发射体的运动状态的恒定性假设。前面给出的论证是非常普遍的，不仅在狭义相对论及其对所有惯性系的“等价性”中必须成立，而且在洛仑兹-庞加莱的一个优选参考系中也必须成立。本文是三部曲中的第二篇，旨在重温狭义相对论的基础，并讨论了单向光速的恒定性以及两种情况之间的差异和相似之处。虽然它们在哲学上明显不同，但人们争论为什么以及如何“实验上无法达到的特殊参考系”的假设确实与爱因斯坦的狭义相对论相容，正如约翰·贝尔所描述和讨论的那样。这个相当琐碎的陈述直到今天仍然令大多数科学家感到惊讶。这项工作的目的是把这样的断言纳入透视，扩大了经常在教科书中提出的狭义相对论的有些狭隘的观点。
英文摘要：
In a previous work we have shown that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in vacuum is deeply connected with the notion of time. The same is true for the the postulate of constancy of the two-way speed of light in vacuum in all frames independently of the state of motion of the emitting body. The argumentation formerly given is very general and has to be true not only within Special Relativity and its `equivalence' of all inertial frames, but as well as in Lorentz-Poincaré scenario of a preferred reference frame. This paper is the second of a trilogy intending to revisit the foundations of Special Relativity, and addresses the question of the constancy of the one-way speed of light and of the differences and similarities between both scenarios. Although they manifestly differ in philosophy, it is debated why and how the assumption of a "special system of reference experimentally inaccessible" is indeed compatible with Einstein's Special Relativity, as beautifully outlined and discussed by John Bell [1]. This rather trivial statement is still astonishing nowadays to a big majority of scientists. The purpose of this work is to bring such assertion into perspective, widening the somewhat narrow view of Special Relativity often presented in textbooks.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
