I know of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, but it involves light. I am curious whether a different kind of experiments showing relativistic effects like time dilation or length contraction have been performed (I'm thinking of experiments involving mechanical devices like mechanic clocks, rather than light clocks). If there are none, why should we accept that relativistic effects occur for other kinds of moving devices (like mechanical clocks), besides those using light (like light clocks). I'm not questioning SR, I just don't know the answer.
2006-11-18 05:09:23 · 7 answers · asked by quantum 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
My techer said that scientists had 2 clocks that were accurate to like, nano-second, or more, and put one on a plane and flew it aorund the world and when it landed it was different than the other which didnt move
2006-11-18 07:15:28 · answer #1 · answered by adklsjfklsdj 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Special relativity is one of the most confirmed 'theories' in existance.
A simple everyday confirmation of special relativity is the tube in your TV. The electrons emitted from the back of your TV travel at about 1/3 the speed of light, so the distance from the back of the tube to the phosphorescent screen is length contracted, and if TV manufacturers did not take this into account your picture would be out of focus.
There was also an experiment done whereby neutrinos were emitted from a source at about .99c (99% the speed of light) along a tube 1km long. A neutrino decays in a fraction of a second and should only have travelled about 290ish metres, however they were successfully detected at the end of the 1km, due to length contraction of the tube.
A
2006-11-18 05:18:30 · answer #2 · answered by Andrew H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i replaced into informed (second hand information) that cyclotron, "atom smashers" that advance debris to close to mild p.c. could base all calculations and transformations through S-R equations or the gadget could not function in any respect. E=MC^2 is derived from S-R ( i'm not constructive of the maths) I have for my area witnessed the nuclear mass to power procedure on the U. S. Nevada Atomic try website. The "eargesplitten Laudenboomer" result's shown.
2016-11-25 02:35:19 · answer #3 · answered by gode 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Wilson chamber shows that particle traveling close to the speed of light decays much slower than when at rest. That concludes that decay time is much longer in fast particles.
2006-11-18 05:16:18 · answer #4 · answered by fernando_007 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep. Look up gravity probes A and B. The results from A have been in for years; I think the results from B must be in by now, or close to. They were meant to test time dialation (A - it was sucessful) and gravity warping space (B - looks like it was sucessful).
In addition, look up 'gravitational lensing' which tests the warping of space as well.
2006-11-18 05:15:04 · answer #5 · answered by eri 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everytime we use a particle acclerator we are testing special relativity.
The measurements in decay times of particles traveling at extremely high speeds always agree with the theory of relativity.
2006-11-18 05:39:57 · answer #6 · answered by Phillip 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't change time because it has no parts, you can only play with matter and think it is alive.
2006-11-18 05:24:02 · answer #7 · answered by spir_i_tual 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋