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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sammywu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
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 T = \frac{T_0}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}
T_0 is the time elapsed between two events occurring in the centre of the Earth, while T 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
T_0 = \frac{T}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}
time (the centre of the Earth is regarded now to move inertially)

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

And so on. The sign was missed at the beginning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original poster should probably look at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507121 and http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html . Happy reading!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fine! Thx!
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top