0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity." Wikipedia
The inescapable conclusion is that experiments such as these that are dependent on the changes seen in clocks are neither valid nor dependable.
The force of the earth's gravity on atoms, although it might not affect the frequency with which atomic transitions take place will definitely affect the movement of the atoms themselves.
One of the interesting instances often quoted in support of the General Theory of relativity is the fact that the time displayed by atomic clocks apparently varies to a discernible degree with the elevation of the clock above the surface of the earth. The Hafele–Keating experiment to prove relativity is often quoted in this regard. Quote"The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity." Wikipedia In fact many physicists , including if I remember correctly, some in this forum believe that even a few metres difference in height will reflect in changes in the time displayed by atomic clocks placed at these heights and that this is an inviolable proof of general relativity. There are many reasons to account for the changes in time that have been detected in atomic clocks. The force of the earth's gravity on atoms, although it might not affect the frequency with which atomic transitions take place will definitely affect the movement of the atoms themselves. The force F=GMm/r2 between the Earth (M) and the atom (m) can affect the motion of the atoms in the clock.
Even a variation of height by just 10 cms has a substantial effect on an atomic clock. A significant contributory factor is the extreme sensitivity of atomic clocks; any slight change in the motion, temperature, magnetic field, gravitational field and so on can result in big changes in the reading of atomic clocks. Added to this are the affect of cosmic radiation, which would be more intense in one direction than the other and would also vary with altitude. The inescapable conclusion is that experiments such as these that are dependent on the changes seen in clocks are neither valid nor dependable.
Yes, on a certain way. Seem that mainstream have left us struggling with Relativity as it was attached with E=MC2. When it comes down to our world and atomic clocks and different elevations generating different measurements. yes it is still part of relativity, but this comes relevant only when someone "owns" a planet, E=mc2 is for distance... About the different readings, on our scale and environment people should be more focused on QM, and how it is resulting in relativity... Now it's time to the science of the small take place, QM( or another Einstein) is the key for filling the gaps on relativity... In resume one is to assume that the elevation and the results serve as proof for relativity, and even set up a whole explanation about it, but once again, to prove relativity, (that is a result of QM), one needs to explain that the different measurements are caused by QM and why... The very explanation will then "inevitable" merge itself with the incomplete relativity... There is no need for proof for relativity, it's just a fancy word to describe actions and reactions on a more logical sense, a term to comprehend patterns trough out space. QM is all that matters now, one could look at the scenario like this: Relativity: The study of QM on a perfect Vacuum.
Imagine a flat spacetime by definition. In a few words if a wave has a poynting vector that travels on a helix path the frontwave speed is reduced although the poynting vector propagates at c. This I understand corresponds to 1/2 spin particle. If it is on a straight line, it travels at c thus, integer spin. If we consider the 1/2 spin a particle we can see that it can have a rest mass because we can travel along with it (since it is slower than c) and define a frame where both the particle and the observer are at rest. The observer will literally think that the particle has a rest mass when in fact mass is a newtonian concept that doesn't quite have a purpose in this thought experiment because it is equivalent to energy.
Evan_au: Have a look at the Pound-Rebka experiment; this measured relativistic effects without the atoms falling under the influence of gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment