- #1
Bob K
- 13
- 0
Einstein wrote ...
Q: What would happen inre (in regards to) time if, for any reason, a clock were to be 'independent of the state of motion of [its] body of reference'?
A: _____ (?)
Albert Einstein, Relativity, Chapter IX:
"Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference." [p. 27]
Albert Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity:
If we are given the Cartesian co-ordinates xv, and the time, t, of an event relatively to one inertial system, K, how can we calculate the co-ordinates x'v, and the time, t', of the same event relatively to an inertial system K' which moves with uniform translation [is not rotating] relatively to K? In the pre-relativity physics this problem was solved by making ... two hypotheses: —
1. Time is absolute; the time of an event. t', relatively to K' is the same as the time [t] relatively to K. If instantaneous signals could be sent to a distance, and if no one knew that the state of motion of a clock had no influence on its rate, then this assumption could be physically validated. For then clocks, similar to each other, and regulated alike, could be distributed over systems K and K' , at rest relatively to them, and their indications would be independent of the state of motion of the systems; the time of an event would then be given by the clock in its immediate neighborhood.
2. Length is absolute; if an interval at rest relatively to K, has a length s, then it has the same length s, relatively to a system K' which is in motion relatively to K. [p. 25.]
Q: What would happen inre (in regards to) time if, for any reason, a clock were to be 'independent of the state of motion of [its] body of reference'?
A: _____ (?)