Need help understanding this math

  • Thread starter Didymus
  • Start date
In summary: The Wikipedia page does mention the effect of altitude, but it's not the main point of the article. The main point is that special relativity is still valid even if the experiment is not perfect.I haven't read the Wikipedia page, but I've read a lot of other sources that agree with it.
  • #1
Didymus
4
0
I'll try rephrasing my question, as I do not wish to question the theory itself. Verily, verily, it would be unconscionable for me... in a place like this... to go about questioning theories. So, I'll clarify the below questions as an attempt to understand the math behind that theory. Verily, verily, special relativity is uniformly accepted... however... with my wicked, finite mind, I am not strong enough to understand the very experiment that provide's it's proof. Surely the end is is without question... but I need... help. I need help understanding the supporting math.

Happy?

1- Preface: The math I've seen states that the altitude of the plane was negligible in the equation... but... normal cruising altitude for jets capable of intercontinental flight is about 30,000 feet... this would add about .1% to the radius and therefore a quite measurable velocity change relative to the imaginary Earth core. This much was negligable, yet, the measurements they took yielded a change over a 3 day flight of 50 nanoseconds... 50 billionths of a second over 72 hours of flight seems like the results could easily be skewed by discounting a .1% change in the formula.

Question: Does anyone know if they actually did take into account the average altitude of the aircraft? If not, can someone give a logical explanation as to why we accept results that are orders of magnitude smaller than what the math says is a negligible amount?

2- the numbers I was able to find:

Predicted: Time difference in ns
Eastward Westward
Gravitational 144 +/- 14 179 +/- 18
Kinematic -184 +/- 18 96 +/- 10
Net effect -40 +/- 23 275 +/- 21
Observed: -59 +/- 10 273 +/- 21
The problem encountered with measuring the difference between a surface clock and one on an aircraft is that neither location is really an inertial frame. If we take the center of the Earth as an approximation to an inertial frame, then we can compute the difference between a surface clock and the aircraft clock. Taking a "proper time" at the Earth's center as if the master clock were there, the time measured by a clock on the surface would be larger

preface: In what way is this not circular reasoning? The clocks on the aircraft and the earth, taken directly, obviously didn't work out to their calculations. Therefore they went out to prove math that suggests that the two clocks would be different by a very small amount... and adjusted BOTH the test clocks and their control clocks by that math. Of course the experiment functioned as predicted because the control was adjusted by their predicted math!

Question: Is the above source just grossly inaccurate? Is there a more reliable source somewhere that takes numbers directly from some space? If not... how does anyone accept this as evidence for anything?... of course the theory itself is water tight. Special Relativity is the one true theory, regardless of any failures of imperfect men testing it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Does anyone know if they actually did take into account the average altitude of the aircraft?
Of course they took it into account! These are top-notch scientists, not amateurs. In fact the effect due to the difference in altitude was one of their two main results.
In what way is this not circular reasoning? The clocks on the aircraft and the earth, taken directly, obviously didn't work out to their calculations.
No, the point is that SR and GR affect both clocks, so they calculated the difference, and their measurements agreed with the calculation.
 
  • #3
k... was hoping for a bit more than "they took it into account." Is there any record of what formula they used... beyond what's found here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c3

... because according to that math, they assumed the jets flew at sea level...
 
  • #5
k... where in there do you see the altitude of the plane accounted for?
 

1. What is the purpose of "Need help understanding this math"?

The purpose of "Need help understanding this math" is to seek assistance in comprehending a mathematical concept or problem.

2. How can I improve my understanding of math?

To improve your understanding of math, you can practice regularly, seek help from a tutor or teacher, and actively engage in problem-solving and critical thinking activities.

3. What should I do if I am struggling to understand a specific math concept?

If you are struggling to understand a specific math concept, you can try breaking it down into smaller parts, seeking help from a classmate or teacher, or utilizing online resources such as videos or practice problems.

4. Is it important to understand math?

Yes, understanding math is important because it is used in various fields and applications, and it helps develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills.

5. How can I overcome my fear of math?

To overcome your fear of math, you can start by acknowledging and addressing the root cause of your fear, seeking support from a teacher or tutor, and practicing regularly to build confidence and improve your skills.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
95
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
804
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
128
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
598
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Back
Top