I have been investigating the subject of special relativity and I have
not seen a discussion about the actual behavior of atomic clocks in
different inertial frames and how this relates to the principle of
relativity. It looks to me like the behavior of atomic clocks in motion
violate the basic principle of relativity in a trivial manner. I don't
think this could have escaped the attention of scientists, so I was
hoping to find out what is wrong with the following logic.

From Einstein's paper:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ative/ch05.htm

" For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of
revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at
rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year.
However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument
in favour of the principle of relativity. "

I take this as meaning that there have been no experiments which
produce different results depending on the inertial frame that the
experiment is contained in. So if I fire a bullet, it will
experimentally react exactly the same, not matter what the original
inertial frame was, so we cannot tell any difference between any
inertial frames and there are no "special" frames with unique
properties. Is this correct? Any experiment which does result in a
difference would immediately falsify the principle of relativity. Is
that correct?

Now, there was a famous experiment by Hafele and Keating which flew
atomic clocks on jet airliners in a west and east direction. This
experiment was best known for confirming the accuracy of the special
and general relativity formulas for time dialation. The experiment
revealed that the westward clock ticked the slowest, the earth bound
clock (not travelling) ticked faster than the westward clock and the
eastward clock ticked the fastest. All of this was predicted by the
formulas of special and general relativity to a remarkable accuracy.

But wait! Didn't Einstein say that the principle of relativity required
that the results of ANY experiment should be the same regardless of the
direction of the inertial frame? The Hafele and Keating had 3 atomic
clocks in 3 different inertial frames that produced 3 different
results. Therefore, I conclude that the principle of relativity has
been trivially falsified by the behavior of atomic clocks in differing
inertial frames. If the principle of relativity would have been true,
then it would have predicted that all 3 clocks would have experienced
the same relative slowdown (which of course is impossible and was not
the actual result of the emperical experiment).

So, some special relativity genius please tell me why this isn't true.

To be clear, I am not saying that the formulas describing SR effects
are wrong, I am saying that Einstein's first postulate of the principle
of relativity is wrong by Einstein's own description in the above
quoted paragraph. It is quite possible for the formulas to be correct
and the postulates to be totally wrong.

Also, I know that the atomic clocks in this experiment were not in
truly inertial frames. In this experiment, the center of the Earth was
taken as the point of reference for the inertial frame. All 3 clocks
would be in cirular motion about this point of reference. The time
dialation calculations were based on this arrangement. You might say
that SR/GR need not apply because the clocks are rotating about the
Earth, but then why did the time dialation formulas work so well? No
matter the frame in use, they did appear to act normally according to
SR/GR formulas, so I would think it would be fully applicable. Once
again, SR/GR formulas predict correct experimental result, while
postulate predicts nonsense. fhurelativity

-Please explain

wrote:
I have been investigating the subject of special relativity and I have
not seen a discussion about the actual behavior of atomic clocks in
different inertial frames and how this relates to the principle of
relativity. It looks to me like the behavior of atomic clocks in motion
violate the basic principle of relativity in a trivial manner. I don't
think this could have escaped the attention of scientists, so I was
hoping to find out what is wrong with the following logic.

From Einstein's paper:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ative/ch05.htm

" For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of
revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at
rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year.
However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument
in favour of the principle of relativity. "

I take this as meaning that there have been no experiments which
produce different results depending on the inertial frame that the
experiment is contained in. So if I fire a bullet, it will
experimentally react exactly the same, not matter what the original
inertial frame was, so we cannot tell any difference between any
inertial frames and there are no "special" frames with unique
properties. Is this correct? Any experiment which does result in a
difference would immediately falsify the principle of relativity. Is
that correct?

Now, there was a famous experiment by Hafele and Keating which flew
atomic clocks on jet airliners in a west and east direction. This
experiment was best known for confirming the accuracy of the special
and general relativity formulas for time dialation. The experiment
revealed that the westward clock ticked the slowest, the earth bound
clock (not travelling) ticked faster than the westward clock and the
eastward clock ticked the fastest. All of this was predicted by the
formulas of special and general relativity to a remarkable accuracy.

But wait! Didn't Einstein say that the principle of relativity required
that the results of ANY experiment should be the same regardless of the
direction of the inertial frame? The Hafele and Keating had 3 atomic
clocks in 3 different inertial frames that produced 3 different
results. Therefore, I conclude that the principle of relativity has
been trivially falsified by the behavior of atomic clocks in differing
inertial frames. If the principle of relativity would have been true,
then it would have predicted that all 3 clocks would have experienced
the same relative slowdown (which of course is impossible and was not
the actual result of the emperical experiment).

So, some special relativity genius please tell me why this isn't true.

To be clear, I am not saying that the formulas describing SR effects
are wrong, I am saying that Einstein's first postulate of the principle
of relativity is wrong by Einstein's own description in the above
quoted paragraph. It is quite possible for the formulas to be correct
and the postulates to be totally wrong.

Also, I know that the atomic clocks in this experiment were not in
truly inertial frames. In this experiment, the center of the Earth was
taken as the point of reference for the inertial frame. All 3 clocks
would be in cirular motion about this point of reference. The time
dialation calculations were based on this arrangement. You might say
that SR/GR need not apply because the clocks are rotating about the
Earth, but then why did the time dialation formulas work so well? No
matter the frame in use, they did appear to act normally according to
SR/GR formulas, so I would think it would be fully applicable. Once
again, SR/GR formulas predict correct experimental result, while
postulate predicts nonsense. fhurelativity

-Please explain

The H&K experiment demonstrates (or disproves) the notion
of *time dilation*.

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

Shortcomings in principle of relativity are better
demonstrated by considering experiments where the
Coulomb force is acting between moving frames of
reference.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

Sue...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have been investigating the subject of special relativity and I have
not seen a discussion about the actual behavior of atomic clocks in
different inertial frames and how this relates to the principle of
relativity. It looks to me like the behavior of atomic clocks in motion
violate the basic principle of relativity in a trivial manner. I don't
think this could have escaped the attention of scientists, so I was
hoping to find out what is wrong with the following logic.

From Einstein's paper:


http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ative/ch05.htm

" For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of
revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at
rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year.
However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument
in favour of the principle of relativity. "

I take this as meaning that there have been no experiments which
produce different results depending on the inertial frame that the
experiment is contained in. So if I fire a bullet, it will
experimentally react exactly the same, not matter what the original
inertial frame was, so we cannot tell any difference between any
inertial frames and there are no "special" frames with unique
properties. Is this correct? Any experiment which does result in a
difference would immediately falsify the principle of relativity. Is
that correct?

Indeed: as far as I know, there has been no experiment reproduced that
falsifies it.

Now, there was a famous experiment by Hafele and Keating which flew
atomic clocks on jet airliners in a west and east direction. This
experiment was best known for confirming the accuracy of the special
and general relativity formulas for time dialation. The experiment
revealed that the westward clock ticked the slowest, the earth bound
clock (not travelling) ticked faster than the westward clock and the
eastward clock ticked the fastest. All of this was predicted by the
formulas of special and general relativity to a remarkable accuracy.
But wait! Didn't Einstein say that the principle of relativity required
that the results of ANY experiment should be the same regardless of the
direction of the inertial frame? The Hafele and Keating had 3 atomic
clocks in 3 different inertial frames that produced 3 different
results.

Not so: they went around - just like remarked above. If they were all the
time in constant and straight line motion, they couldn't have been brought
back for comparison!

Therefore, I conclude that the principle of relativity has
been trivially falsified by the behavior of atomic clocks in differing
inertial frames. If the principle of relativity would have been true,
then it would have predicted that all 3 clocks would have experienced
the same relative slowdown (which of course is impossible and was not
the actual result of the emperical experiment).

So, some special relativity genius please tell me why this isn't true.

To be clear, I am not saying that the formulas describing SR effects
are wrong, I am saying that Einstein's first postulate of the principle
of relativity is wrong by Einstein's own description in the above
quoted paragraph. It is quite possible for the formulas to be correct
and the postulates to be totally wrong.

Also, I know that the atomic clocks in this experiment were not in
truly inertial frames. In this experiment, the center of the Earth was
taken as the point of reference for the inertial frame. All 3 clocks
would be in cirular motion about this point of reference. The time
dialation calculations were based on this arrangement. You might say
that SR/GR need not apply because the clocks are rotating about the
Earth, but then why did the time dialation formulas work so well? No
matter the frame in use, they did appear to act normally according to
SR/GR formulas, so I would think it would be fully applicable. Once
again, SR/GR formulas predict correct experimental result, while
postulate predicts nonsense. fhurelativity

-Please explain

SRT's principle of relativity applies to inertial reference systems.

Harald

Sue: Thanks for your cite to that article on HK experiment, and its
criticism thereof. Has this article itself been critiqued. If that
article is solid science, its ramifications are extensive. The doctrine
of "Proper Time" as contained in SR, has always troubled me.

wrote in message oups.com...
I have been investigating the subject of special relativity and I have
not seen a discussion about the actual behavior of atomic clocks in
different inertial frames and how this relates to the principle of
relativity. It looks to me like the behavior of atomic clocks in motion
violate the basic principle of relativity in a trivial manner. I don't
think this could have escaped the attention of scientists, so I was
hoping to find out what is wrong with the following logic.

From Einstein's paper:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ative/ch05.htm

" For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of
revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at
rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year.
However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument
in favour of the principle of relativity. "

I take this as meaning that there have been no experiments which
produce different results depending on the inertial frame that the
experiment is contained in. So if I fire a bullet, it will
experimentally react exactly the same, not matter what the original
inertial frame was, so we cannot tell any difference between any
inertial frames and there are no "special" frames with unique
properties. Is this correct? Any experiment which does result in a
difference would immediately falsify the principle of relativity. Is
that correct?

Now, there was a famous experiment by Hafele and Keating which flew
atomic clocks on jet airliners in a west and east direction. This
experiment was best known for confirming the accuracy of the special
and general relativity formulas for time dialation. The experiment
revealed that the westward clock ticked the slowest, the earth bound
clock (not travelling) ticked faster than the westward clock and the
eastward clock ticked the fastest. All of this was predicted by the
formulas of special and general relativity to a remarkable accuracy.

But wait! Didn't Einstein say that the principle of relativity required
that the results of ANY experiment should be the same regardless of the
direction of the inertial frame? The Hafele and Keating had 3 atomic
clocks in 3 different inertial frames that produced 3 different
results. Therefore, I conclude that the principle of relativity has
been trivially falsified by the behavior of atomic clocks in differing
inertial frames. If the principle of relativity would have been true,
then it would have predicted that all 3 clocks would have experienced
the same relative slowdown (which of course is impossible and was not
the actual result of the emperical experiment).

So, some special relativity genius please tell me why this isn't true.

To be clear, I am not saying that the formulas describing SR effects
are wrong, I am saying that Einstein's first postulate of the principle
of relativity is wrong by Einstein's own description in the above
quoted paragraph. It is quite possible for the formulas to be correct
and the postulates to be totally wrong.

Also, I know that the atomic clocks in this experiment were not in
truly inertial frames. In this experiment, the center of the Earth was
taken as the point of reference for the inertial frame. All 3 clocks
would be in cirular motion about this point of reference. The time
dialation calculations were based on this arrangement. You might say
that SR/GR need not apply because the clocks are rotating about the
Earth, but then why did the time dialation formulas work so well? No
matter the frame in use, they did appear to act normally according to
SR/GR formulas, so I would think it would be fully applicable. Once
again, SR/GR formulas predict correct experimental result, while
postulate predicts nonsense. fhurelativity

-Please explain

You quoted a part of an article about special relativity
while H&K is treated in general relativity.
However, the general relativity part can be to an very good
degree approximated by a special relativity part (kinematic)
where the height of the clocks is ignored, plus a pseudo-general
relativity part where the movement of the clocks is ignored.

You'll find some good reading he
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
The project is about GPS with a time rate between ground
and satellite, but you can apply it twice (first ground/west,
and then ground/east) and then you sort of have the
Hafele-Keating result.

I checked the calculations a while ago in another context.
Perhaps this helps:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a81f80d2c9ccad
and a little typo correction
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...81429d0b66eb72
You will find the calculation of the kinematic parts in there.
The article we were referring to isn't available as of this writing:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html

Dirk Vdm

wrote in message oups.com...
I have been investigating the subject of special relativity and I have
not seen a discussion about the actual behavior of atomic clocks in
different inertial frames and how this relates to the principle of
relativity. It looks to me like the behavior of atomic clocks in motion
violate the basic principle of relativity in a trivial manner. I don't
think this could have escaped the attention of scientists, so I was
hoping to find out what is wrong with the following logic.

From Einstein's paper:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ative/ch05.htm

" For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of
revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at
rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year.
However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument
in favour of the principle of relativity. "

I take this as meaning that there have been no experiments which
produce different results depending on the inertial frame that the
experiment is contained in. So if I fire a bullet, it will
experimentally react exactly the same, not matter what the original
inertial frame was, so we cannot tell any difference between any
inertial frames and there are no "special" frames with unique
properties. Is this correct? Any experiment which does result in a
difference would immediately falsify the principle of relativity. Is
that correct?

Yes but note that this applies to inertial frames only. The Earth's
surface is not an inertial frame because the Earth rotates.

Experiments of Einstein's day, such as that of Michelson and
Morley (the MMX) were sufficiently sensitive to detect the Earth's
motion, due to its orbit round the sun, through the supposed fixed
aether. However, they were not sensitive enough to detect the
Earth's rotation



Now, there was a famous experiment by Hafele and Keating which flew
atomic clocks on jet airliners in a west and east direction. This
experiment was best known for confirming the accuracy of the special
and general relativity formulas for time dialation. The experiment
revealed that the westward clock ticked the slowest, the earth bound
clock (not travelling) ticked faster than the westward clock and the
eastward clock ticked the fastest. All of this was predicted by the
formulas of special and general relativity to a remarkable accuracy.

The results agreed well with the predictions of relativity but this was
far from the most sensitive test.


But wait! Didn't Einstein say that the principle of relativity required
that the results of ANY experiment should be the same regardless of the
direction of the inertial frame?

Yes, inertial.

The Hafele and Keating had 3 atomic
clocks in 3 different inertial frames that produced 3 different
results. Therefore, I conclude that the principle of relativity has
been trivially falsified by the behavior of atomic clocks in differing
inertial frames. If the principle of relativity would have been true,
then it would have predicted that all 3 clocks would have experienced
the same relative slowdown (which of course is impossible and was not
the actual result of the emperical experiment).

The calculations have to take account of the fact that none of
the clocks was in an inertial frame. When this is done the theory
agrees with experiment.

So, some special relativity genius please tell me why this isn't true.

To be clear, I am not saying that the formulas describing SR effects
are wrong, I am saying that Einstein's first postulate of the principle
of relativity is wrong by Einstein's own description in the above
quoted paragraph. It is quite possible for the formulas to be correct
and the postulates to be totally wrong.

Also, I know that the atomic clocks in this experiment were not in
truly inertial frames. In this experiment, the center of the Earth was
taken as the point of reference for the inertial frame.

So you knew the answer all along.

All 3 clocks
would be in cirular motion about this point of reference. The time
dialation calculations were based on this arrangement. You might say
that SR/GR need not apply because the clocks are rotating about the
Earth, but then why did the time dialation formulas work so well? No
matter the frame in use, they did appear to act normally according to
SR/GR formulas, so I would think it would be fully applicable. Once
again, SR/GR formulas predict correct experimental result, while
postulate predicts nonsense.

The calculations took account of the Earth's rotation. Dirk give some
references which you might like to look at.

Martin Hogbin

Sue... wrote:
Shortcomings in principle of relativity are better
demonstrated by considering experiments where the
Coulomb force is acting between moving frames of
reference.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

The abstract of that paper does not relate to what you said at all.

BTW you do know that J.D.Jackson wrote _Classical_Electrodynamics_,
which has been the textbook of choice for graduate courses in E&M for
30 years, don't you? In some very real sense, that textbook defines
the modern theory of classical electrodynamics, and includes SR.


Tom Roberts

Daniel Weston wrote:
Sue: Thanks for your cite to that article on HK experiment, and its
criticism thereof. Has this article itself been critiqued. If that
article is solid science, its ramifications are extensive. The doctrine
of "Proper Time" as contained in SR, has always troubled me.

Yes, several years ago there was a discussion of Kelly's paper in this
newsgroup.

In short: Kelly's arguments and criticisms are fallacious. It is not
"solid" at all.


Tom Roberts

wrote:
I have been investigating the subject of special relativity and I have
not seen a discussion about the actual behavior of atomic clocks in
different inertial frames and how this relates to the principle of
relativity.

The measurement errors involved in that would greatly exceed the effects
predicted by SR, for any realistic choices of inertial frames.

Haefle and Keating used airplanes, which are by no means inertial, and
their measurements test GR, not SR.


From Einstein's paper:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ative/ch05.htm

" For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of
revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at
rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year.
However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument
in favour of the principle of relativity. "

I take this as meaning that there have been no experiments which
produce different results depending on the inertial frame that the
experiment is contained in.

Yes. Chief among them is the original Kennedy and Thorndike experiment
(similar to the MMX, but rigidly attached to the earth and rotating with
it), and repetitions -- see the FAQ for references.


So if I fire a bullet, it will
experimentally react exactly the same, not matter what the original
inertial frame was, so we cannot tell any difference between any
inertial frames and there are no "special" frames with unique
properties. Is this correct?

Relative to the inertial frame, yes.


Any experiment which does result in a
difference would immediately falsify the principle of relativity. Is
that correct?

Probably, depending on the details.


Now, there was a famous experiment by Hafele and Keating which flew
atomic clocks on jet airliners in a west and east direction. This
experiment was best known for confirming the accuracy of the special
and general relativity formulas for time dialation. The experiment
revealed that the westward clock ticked the slowest, the earth bound
clock (not travelling) ticked faster than the westward clock and the
eastward clock ticked the fastest. All of this was predicted by the
formulas of special and general relativity to a remarkable accuracy.

But wait! Didn't Einstein say that the principle of relativity required
that the results of ANY experiment should be the same regardless of the
direction of the inertial frame? The Hafele and Keating had 3 atomic
clocks in 3 different inertial frames that produced 3 different
results.

None of their clocks were at rest in an inertial frame. They compared
their measurements to the predictions of GR, not SR.


Also, I know that the atomic clocks in this experiment were not in
truly inertial frames.

There you go -- so why do you think this has any possibility of refuting
the PoR of SR?


In this experiment, the center of the Earth was
taken as the point of reference for the inertial frame. All 3 clocks
would be in cirular motion about this point of reference.

Not really -- their airplanes did not travel uniformly (they made stops
at airports, and did not travel exactly east/west).


The time
dialation calculations were based on this arrangement. You might say
that SR/GR need not apply because the clocks are rotating about the
Earth, but then why did the time dialation formulas work so well?

Because they took into account not only the (very roughly) "circular
motion", but also the details of the airplane's altitude and actual
path, and applied GR (not SR).


No
matter the frame in use, they did appear to act normally according to
SR/GR formulas, so I would think it would be fully applicable. Once
again, SR/GR formulas predict correct experimental result, while
postulate predicts nonsense.

The postulate does not apply. It specifies inertial frames, and those
clocks aren't at rest in such frames.


The way to test a scientific theory (like SR or GR) is to compute what
the theory predicts the expeirmental measurements should be, based on
the physical situations of the measurements. That's what they did. It's
rather rare to be able to set up a physical situation that directly
tests a postulate.


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Shortcomings in principle of relativity are better
demonstrated by considering experiments where the
Coulomb force is acting between moving frames of
reference.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

The abstract of that paper does not relate to what you said at all.

BTW you do know that J.D.Jackson wrote _Classical_Electrodynamics_,
which has been the textbook of choice for graduate courses in E&M for
30 years, don't you? In some very real sense, that textbook defines
the modern theory of classical electrodynamics, and includes SR.


Tom Roberts

The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this
paper; these do not confirm the theory.
The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by
H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock
(447) had a fairry steady performance over the whole test period;
taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the
Westward tests.

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

Either the notes presented:

[14] Proc. 3rd Dept. Def. PTTI Meeting 261-288 (1971)(USNO)

are genuine or they are fraudulent.
That is the only *science* involved. Do you know of some
assertion that they are fraudulent?


Sue...