Unreliability of Hafele & Keating Experiment: A Critical Analysis

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Yehuda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Twins paradox
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the reliability of the Hafele & Keating experiment, which is claimed to have verified time dilation effects due to speed and gravity as predicted by General Relativity. Participants are analyzing a paper that questions the validity of the original experiment and discussing various perspectives on its implications and the accuracy of subsequent experiments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the paper alleging academic fraud regarding the Hafele & Keating experiment, questioning its validity without substantial evidence.
  • Others point out that more accurate experiments, such as those related to GPS technology, have since been conducted, suggesting that Hafele & Keating's findings are less relevant today.
  • A participant mentions a paper by Louis Essen that critiques the accuracy of the Hafele & Keating experiment, indicating that it was not sufficiently precise.
  • There is a discussion about the Sagnac effect and its implications for GPS calculations in jet airplanes, with some participants suggesting that this effect may explain apparent discrepancies in relativistic calculations.
  • Another participant references a paper on relativistic time effects observed in a clock on an airplane, contributing to the discussion of experimental validation of relativity.
  • Concerns are raised about the philosophical debates surrounding relativity in rotating frames, with some suggesting that the controversy may not significantly affect the results of calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reliability of the Hafele & Keating experiment. Multiple competing views are presented, with some supporting the original findings and others questioning their validity and relevance in light of newer experiments.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include references to specific papers and critiques, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the accuracy of the Hafele & Keating experiment and the implications of newer technologies like GPS.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying the foundations of relativity, experimental physics, and the ongoing debates surrounding the interpretation of relativistic effects in various contexts.

Yehuda
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Does someone have any opinion regarding the following paper attending to prove that Hafele & Keating experiment (that actually verified the time distorsion caused by speed & gravitation in General relativity) to be highly unreliable?

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?
A. G. Kelly PhD*
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The paper is an allegation of academic fraud - such things do not belong in a scientific paper, and I'm loathe to accept the allegation without any real evidence.

Regardless, better experiments have been performed since then, so if you're looking for a way to disprove Relativity, you haven't found it.
 
I aggree with you that this article looks quite suspicious but this is more a feeling than actual data. I would like to ask some expert.
I will move this dicussion to the "special Relativity Forum".
Thanks
 
I forget the other papers, but there are other sources that discredit the HK.
Here's one By Louis Essen (the inventor of the atomic clock) that said the experiment was not nearly accurate enough...
L Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.

HK isn't really a concern anymore with the advent of GPS. GPS is far more accurate. If you're just looking into finding controversy, begin examining the GPS calculation adjustments made in jet airplanes. Accuracy there requires c+/-v calculations but I believe the mainstream explanation for this is simply the one-way sagnac effect.

Basically, the dissenter opinion is that to be accurate, jet airplanes must calculate the distance toward a sattellite they have traversed from the time the signal was transmitted to when it was received. They then subtract this distance. (this is actually true) By doing this, the end calculation of c is c+v.

On the other hand, this same apparent c+v happens in a sagnac device and the GPS satellites have proven to act in the same way as a sagnac ring such that the travel time of C in one direction around the Earth is faster than the other (simply a shorter distance) So the apparent problem with GPS on airplanes is just another example of the Sagnac effect already described by GR.

Either way, it makes for fun discussion. (and regardless of my beliefs, devil's advocate can be loads of fun)

Could someone correct me on the two opinions if I'm wrong...
 
Last edited:
Here's a paper about observations of relativistic time effects on a clock in an airplane flying around in circles:

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a giant tempest in a teapot going on about relativity in rotating frames - both on the net and in the professional physics community.

One can, for instance, spend about $200 to get the following book devoted exclusively to this topic an this topic alone.



But there isn't really any serious difference in the results of the calculations, it appears to be mainly a giant philosophical muddle. When push comes to shove, one can (for instance) simply adopt a non-rotating frame of reference (such as the Earth-centered inertial frame used for GPS) and do one's calculations in this non-rotating reference frame. General covariance insures that the choice of the frame of reference is irrelevant. Everyone agrees that this gives the right results, but there appears to be an unnecessary amount of controversy over how to go about formulating the problem in an inertial frame.

My personal favorite paper on the topic is by Tartaglia, I'll cut and paste a link to the paper I like when I get back to my other computer.

[add]
Tartaglia et al
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K