Is cheating going on in Relativity?

[Janus]

I have heard of experiments using atomic clocks but I wonder if the same experiments can be done with non atomic clocks? I have reason to suspect the atomic clock may not be the most appropriate mechanism for this. Has anyone considered this?

Since Atomic clocks are the most accurate clocks known and the least susceptible to outside influences, why wouldn't they be the most approiate mechanisim?

 

[Sam Woole]

Inventor of atomic clocks Dr. Louis Essen did not believe Einstein's theory to be a sound science. http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Inventor of atomic clocks Dr. Louis Essen did not believe Einstein's theory to be a sound science. http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

The inventor of the transistor does (or did till he died). I can also rattle off a bunch of of prominent scientists who do. So what have we accomplished here?

Besides, if he doesn't "believe" it, does that mean the object he "invented" also will follow suit and can't be used correctly? Millikan didn't buy one bit Einstein's photon theory and set out to experimentally disprove it. He couldn't, and his experiments became the definitive evidence of the validity of Einstein's photoelectric effect description.

The atomic clock has done the same for SR and even GR. If you think it isn't sound science, I suggest you stop risking your life and don't fly commercial airlines anymore, or rely on anything with a GPS.

Zz.

 

[Charvell]

Conservation of energy would cause the clock to act differently in orbit because of the energy transfer between the ground and the orbital motion of the clock. It may not be a totally relativistic effect. When you put these clocks in orbit don't you have to set them individually one to another? From what I've heard this wasn't the case but rather a simple Newtonian approach was adopted. I'm not trying to start a war. I'm just looking for answers like most others here.

 

[pervect]

Conservation of energy would cause the clock to act differently in orbit because of the energy transfer between the ground and the orbital motion of the clock. It may not be a totally relativistic effect. When you put these clocks in orbit don't you have to set them individually one to another? From what I've heard this wasn't the case but rather a simple Newtonian approach was adopted. I'm not trying to start a war. I'm just looking for answers like most others here.

A clock in a circular orbit would have a constant energy, according to Newtonian theory (and also accordig to GR with the usual assumptions, i.e. asymptotic flatness).

So it's unclear what sort of "energy transfer" you are talking about, because the energy of the clock in a circular orbit is a constant.

Presumably you have some sort of question, but I can't figure out what it is. It would help if you could talk about the results of some measurement, even a hypothetical measurement.

 

[Charvell]

When you accelerate an atom (electron) it gains momentum energy but looses spin energy and the clock ticks slower. Conservation. This is not a relativistic effect but a nuclear effect. Am I missing something here?

 

[pervect]

When you accelerate an atom (electron) it gains momentum energy but looses spin energy and the clock ticks slower. Conservation. This is not a relativistic effect but a nuclear effect. Am I missing something here?

When you accelerate an atom or electron, it gains momentum, and it gains energy. ("Momentum energy" is a bit redundant -- I have a vague recollection of at least one textbook using this somewhat awkward expression, contracted to "Mom-energy", but it would probably be best to just say "energy" not "momentum energy".)

There isn't anything like like "spin energy" for electrons - while they do have a property called spin, it is fixed at +1/2 or -1/2. Classical bodies could have energy in their rotation (spin) which could be called spin energy, I suppose, but electrons wouldn't have anything like this.

When an electron, atom, or anything else moves faster, it's clock ticks slower. This includes classical clocks, regardless of whether or not they are "spinning" or vibrating, or however they are keeping time. This effect is not related to "spin" or "spin energy" in any way whatsoever, and it most definitely is a relativistic effect.