How Accurate Is the Math in the Hafele and Keating Experiment Analysis?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sammywu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the mathematical analysis of the Hafele and Keating experiment, particularly focusing on the accuracy of the equations used to describe time dilation effects due to special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR) in the context of GPS clock adjustments. Participants examine specific equations and their derivations, questioning their validity and implications.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster critiques the derivation of time shift equations, arguing that a negative sign appears without justification, suggesting a fundamental mathematical error.
  • Another participant acknowledges the original poster's concerns but argues that the equations can be interpreted differently, emphasizing the need for clarity regarding the reference frames involved.
  • A third participant suggests additional resources for further reading, indicating that the topic may require deeper exploration beyond the current discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the mathematical derivations presented. There is no consensus on whether the equations are accurate or if the original poster's critique is valid.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential ambiguities in the definitions of time and reference frames, which may affect the interpretation of the equations. The discussion does not resolve these ambiguities.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying relativity, mathematical physics, or the application of theoretical concepts to experimental data, particularly in the context of time dilation and GPS technology.

Sammywu
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
While researching how SR effect could be applied to GPS clock after GR effect, I encountered the experiment made on 1971.

In the section "Kinematic Time Shift Calculation", I saw an totally no sense algorithm, violating simple math.

First,
Ts = T0 * (1+R^2w^2/(2*c^2)), where Ts is the Earth surface time, R is the Earth's radius and w is the Earth's angular velocity of Earth's rotation.

Second,
Ta = T0 * (1+(R^2*w^2+v^2)/(2*c^2)), where Ta is the airplane's time and v is airplane's velocity.

Then,
Ta-Ts = T0 *( 2Rwv+V^2)/(2c^2).

Up to here , it's totally reasonable.

Next thing, it brought in is completely math. incorrect.

Ta-Ts = - Ts * (2Rwv+v^2)/2c^2.

Note the minus sign coming from nowhere. If Ta is larger than Ts from the first two equations, Ta-Ts will never be negative.

If this math. can live in the Physics, there is definitely something wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you mean http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c5"

Yes, this derivation is loose a litle bit.
In the first equation, i.e. in [tex]T = \frac{T_0}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}[/tex]
[tex]T_0[/tex] is the time elapsed between two events occurring in the centre of the Earth, while [tex]T[/tex] stands for the time elapsed between this two events in an inertial reference frame moving with velocity v with respect the centre of the Earth.

Really, here is nothing to do with this. We need just the opposite. If the proper time elapsed on the airplane is T (this isn't an inertial frame!), then during this, in the centre of the Earth elapses
[tex]T_0 = \frac{T}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}[/tex]
time (the centre of the Earth is regarded now to move inertially)

So, our second equation reads correctly
[tex]T \approx T_0 \left[ 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}\right][/tex].

And so on. The sign was missed at the beginning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Fine! Thx!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K