Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -3 down vote favorite

Atomic clocks were used in Hafele and Keatings experiment which supposedly helped to prove time dilation.

Time Dilation Proof - Hafele and Keating

How can we be sure other forces didn't act upon the clocks as a result of their being at different speeds and elevations? Perhaps the elapsed time may have been the same for all and only appeared different as a result of the clock's atoms behaving differently in different environments.

How might the presence of dark matter (presumably all over the place) impacted the clocks if say the dark matter is stationary relative to the earth's rotation?

What experiments have been done to test the constancy of clocks at different speeds and elevations?

share|improve this question
3  
"What experiments have been done to test the constancy of clocks at different speeds and elevations?" GPS anyone? – dmckee♦ Aug 10 '12 at 2:19
@dmckee: according to the caption under the first sidebar imagage on wikipedia's Time Dilation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), "GPS satellites work because they adjust for similar bending of spacetime in order to coordinate with systems on earth." Wouldn't this put your GPS proposition under the same assumptions? – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 2:40
2  
The theory makes predictions about how the time kept by clocks on the satellites relate to each other and to that kept by clocks on Earth. These prediction are borne out. Experiment agrees with theory. In any case both gravitation and motion based shifts in the signal frequencies are also measured and also agree with theory. – dmckee♦ Aug 10 '12 at 2:57
Your original comment seemed to attempt to point out a verification of the clocks, when in fact it is at best a repeat of the Hafele and Keatings test. Perhaps it is not possible to verify? – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 3:02
3  
It is verified. That's the point. This isn't one experiment at one set of conditions...it is many experiments under lots of conditions. The dependence of the timing difference on both altitude and speed is consistent with the theory. You are left arguing that the theory might be wrong because there might be something else generating exactly the same dependence; at which point some dud named Occam comes along and thwacks you with the giant foam cluebat. – dmckee♦ Aug 10 '12 at 3:06
show 2 more comments

4 Answers

up vote 3 down vote

There is always a possibility, in any experiment, that some unknown effect was the main cause for the obtained measurements. This can never be ruled out.

The reasonable way to approach this is to first ask what is our null hypothesis. In this case we would like to test general relativity, so our null hypothesis is that there is no relativity and that Newtonian mechanics -- the previous successful theory -- will be able to explain the experiment. The alternative hypothesis, which is the one we would like to test, is that general relativity is correct.

So now we have two predictions for the shift in the clocks. For this to be interesting the predictions should be very different, compared with the experimental sensitivity. We carry out the experiment, and if the result 'agrees' (in a statistical sense that I will not go into) with general relativity, then this is evidence in favor of general relativity. If the results 'agree' with Newton, this is evidence against general relativity. If the results 'disagree' with both, it is evidence against both theories.

Either way, the experiment does not prove that GR is correct or incorrect, for example because of a possible unknown effect. It can only increase or decrease our confidence in GR, namely it can change the probability that we humans assign to the statement 'GR is correct', and even that is only within the regime of parameters where we can carry out experiments. The best we can hope for in science is to have theories that we are very confident about.

share|improve this answer
Makes sense. Do you know of any tests that have been done to verify the constancy of the clocks in different environments? – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 2:46
There is no need to discuss specific experiments, because atomic clocks are routinely tested in laboratories. Modern clocks are so accurate that they can detect a height difference of a few meters within a reasonable time frame, so you can measure gravitational time dilation in the lab. This guy took some atomic clocks up a mountain with his kids, and found the expected shift due to gravity: leapsecond.com/great2005 . This is not cutting-edge stuff -- these effects are very well established experimentally. – Guy Gur-Ari Aug 10 '12 at 11:30
I understand. I guess I am just suspicious of the concensus that claims that time is changing at different speeds and altitudes. I suspect the frequency of the clock is changing instead. I'm looking for some way to rule that out. – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 11:44
Of course the frequency of the clock is changing, due the time dilation. I guess you are asking whether only the frequency of the clock can change, without time being dilated. This will be hard to explain, given the variety of clocks we have. But consider instead the Pound-Rebka experiment (see Wikipedia), where they measured time dilation by sending photons up and down a tower and measuring the shift in their energy (and therefore frequency). No clocks were involved. – Guy Gur-Ari Aug 10 '12 at 12:19
1  
@CaptainClaptrap A co-moving observer always see all the clock(s) they are with as having the same behavior. You can take several clocks on the trip and leave several behind and they will always check with their mates, but an observe watching the other set sees changes. There is no absolute frame of reference. When I look at a clock above me I see it running faster, while you--traveling with the higher clock--observe my clock to be running slow. We both observe our own clocks to have a constant frequency. All these observations are correct, and the only way that works is if time varies. – dmckee♦ Aug 10 '12 at 13:43
show 5 more comments
up vote 2 down vote

Newton's predictions are consistent with Einstein's under the appropriate situations. No thwacking. You don't get to adjust a theory for every particular experiment, if your theory is well-constructed. General Relativity starts with a very small number of assumptions, and then creates predictions. These predictions are bourne out by a very large number of experiments. From the time dilation of decaying particles, to the laser ranging of the moon, to gravity probe b, to hartle hawking, to the Eötvos experiment. The effects of time dilation, and general relativity in general, have been measured under too wide a variety of circumstances for concerns about atomic clocks to be a credibe reason for doubt:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

Come up with a simpler, more straightforward theory that does better. If you can, a certain nobel prize awaits you.

share|improve this answer
I appreciate your answer, but it does seem to tacitly admit to there being no verification of clock constancy. I had initially thought to challenge all the proofs one by one beginning with H and K's use of the clocks. Perhaps that is not the best approach. – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 3:33
2  
@CaptainClaptrap: the clock constancy is verified elsewhere. The fact that the clocks then also match the theoretical predictions of GR, which are ALSO verified elsewhere should be sufficient. Unless you're a straight on Humean skeptic, but then why are you doing science at all? There are no absolutes anywhere. – Jerry Schirmer Aug 10 '12 at 4:46
up vote 1 down vote

If the effect wasn't due to time dilation, then why would the measured results agree with predictions of relativity so well? On the 25th anniversary of the H-K experiment, the National Physical Laboratory reproduced the experiment. For the clock flying from London to Washington, the relativistic prediction was that the clock would gain 39.8 nanoseconds. The measured result was a gain of 39 $ \pm$ 2 nanoseconds. In 2010, the experiment was done by the NPL once again - this time, around the world. It went from London, to Los Angeles, to Aucklund, to Hong Kong, and then back to London. They measured a gain of 230 $\pm$ 20 nanoseconds, compared to relativity's prediction of 246 $\pm$ 3 nanoseconds.

So, the odds of the clocks being off by just the right amount to account perfectly for relativity are incredibly slim.

In terms of the accuracy of clocks, I don't know if they have been tested in different environments. However, NPL's clocks have been tested to be the most accurate in the world.

share|improve this answer
I'm not suggesting error in the clocks. I'm suggesting variations in the behavior of the atoms due to differing conditions. Do atoms behave differently when traveling around the world? The difference wouldn't have to be much. I think a behavior difference is a possiblity worth exploring. – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 3:47
2  
@CaptainClaptrap: Yes, atoms behave differently when traveling around the world, in exactly the manner in which Mark M describes. The time gains that Mark M reports are not errors in the operation of the clocks, but rather changes in the clocks' behavior due to the atoms behaving differently. – Colin McFaul Aug 10 '12 at 3:54
But if the atoms are behaving differently, time is not changing between the clocks. Differences observed do not indicated time dilation. You are on my side if, as you said "the atoms behave differently." – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 4:03
1  
@CaptainClaptrap: I can assure you, I am not your side. "The atoms behave differently" is not a particularly precise phrase, so I suspect you and I are using it differently. What I mean by it is that time dilation causes the atoms to experience time differently. They behave the same relative to the time that they experience. They experience time differently, so they behave differently. What do you mean by "the atoms behave differently"? – Colin McFaul Aug 10 '12 at 4:15
I mean that their frequency changes under the varying conditions. The clocks use the frequency of the atoms to count time: An atomic clock is a clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a freqhuency standard for its timekeeping element. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock) If you still disagree, your comment still doesn't make sense. The atoms would behave the same if time dilation were true. They just would have been behaving for a longer period of time than the others. – Captain Claptrap Aug 10 '12 at 4:24
show 5 more comments
up vote -1 down vote

I am completely there with you, Captain. I've been searching all over for someone to see this the way I do: They didn't prove that time itself (the DIMENSION, if you will) was actually affected by conditions such as gravity & movement. They only proved that the instruments used to observe/measure that time were affected.

I propose this: That a particle bouncing back and forth between 2 parallel mirrors at a rate of 1 complete revolution per nanosecond (for example) travelling on a plane would simply delay the time it would take for the photon to reach each mirror because instead of travelling directly up and down, it is now travelling diagonally which will take longer. This doesn't prove that time is occurring at a slower rate. It only proves that the particle's movement which we are observing in order to measure the passing of time is moving slower (or, more precisely, FURTHER at the same velocity). All they seem to have done is prove that clocks are not constant. This doesn't prove that time is not constant.

share|improve this answer
Absolutely. Well put. – Captain Claptrap Apr 1 at 21:54
If you disagree with what I'm saying, why not provide a response rather than just downvote my post anonymously? Let's have a discussion. That's what science is, afterall; a discussion. You are not contributing to scientific progression with an anonymous downvote. Contribute a thought, idea, study, etc... – Travis Apr 2 at 17:59

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.