# Why should we believe in clock hypothesis? [closed]

It is often assumed in special relativity that the rate of a clock in a non inertial frame does not depend on the proper acceleration of the observer. The point is, Rindler's observer shows us that the "action" of an accelerated observer on space-time is non trivial (there exists a black hole behind a uniformly accelerated observer). This means that there exists a way to discriminate accelerated observers from inertial ones. Moreover, Unruh's radiation explicitly depends on the proper acceleration $a$ of such observer (as a simple application of strong equivalence principle and hawking's radiation). This also shows that accelerating has a non trivial action on the whole physics observed. Proper acceleration being Lorentz invariant, it is also an absolute, so it is totally plausible that it changes whole physics and particularly clock.

Why should we believe in the clock hypothesis ? What would that implies with respect to strong equivalence principle and general relativity ?

## closed as off-topic by Alfred Centauri, Danu, Martin, JamalS, Rob JeffriesDec 22 '14 at 11:27

• This question does not appear to be about physics within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• It is not an exact duplicate - but note that the answer to that question essentially tells you that the clock postulate is independent from the rest of the axioms, hence it needs to be added as an axiom a priori. Asking why we should believe axioms has almost never a better answer than "Because they work, duh." – ACuriousMind Dec 16 '14 at 13:55
• Then why don't you believe in epicycle model or aether theory ? It works too, so please, don't be so liberal about physics. Physics is about trying to make sense of things, that is to understand the world, not just describing it. – sure Dec 16 '14 at 13:58
• @sure: Axioms are something the mathematicians use. Physicists use data. You are talking to the wrong people. Try the math exchange. – CuriousOne Dec 16 '14 at 15:22
• "please don't be so ignorant" Heh, made me chuckle :) – Danu Dec 16 '14 at 15:29
• This question appears to be off-topic because the OP evidently is interested in a debate, not an answer to a specific conceptional question. – Alfred Centauri Dec 16 '14 at 17:10