Einstein proved right, again!!

[blackpearl]

"After two hours, I looked at my watch," a reviewer of Wagnerian opera is said to have written. "I found that 17 minutes had gone by."

In 1905, Albert Einstein wrote his own treatise on the relativity of time, famously theorising that time speeds up or slows down according to how fast an object is moving in relation to another object.

Thus, according to his hypothesis, a clock which is in motion ticks more slowly than an identical clock which is at rest -- a phenomenon that Einstein called time dilation.

In a study published on Sunday, the most accurate experiment yet into time dilation has proven the great German physicist to be bang on target.

An international team of researchers used a particle accelerator to whizz two beams of atoms around a doughnut-shaped course to represent Einstein's faster-moving clocks.

They then timed the beams using high-precision laser spectroscopy and found that, compared with the outside world, time for these atomic travellers did indeed slow down.

"We were able to determine the effect more precisely than ever before," said lead researcher Gerald Gwinner of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.

"We found the observed effect to be in complete agreement."

The experiments, said Gwinner, confirm the technology aboard US military satellites that provide the signals for the Global Positioning System (GPS) -- the "satnav" network that is used as a navigational aid around the world.

GPS satellites have precise atomic clocks on board in order to send out synchronised signals that are then transcribed by trigonometry to give one's position.

"GPS uses satellites to measure the position of objects on the ground, but it needs to take into account the fact that the satellites themselves are in motion at high speeds as they orbit the Earth," said Gwinner.

"Our test validates the theory used by the devices to compensate for the satellites' motion."

The experiments took place at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany, and include researchers from that organisation, the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, and Mainz University.

The findings were published online Sunday by the journal Nature Physics.

The first measurement of Einstein's time dilation took place in 1938, when US scientists used the Doppler effect -- the change in pitch when a sound and the person hearing it are moving apart or closer together -- as the measuring tool.

Einstein's theory of relativity has become the basis for innumerable science fiction tales, for it opens up the prospect of bending and distorting time.

If one of two identical twins were launched into space at very high speed, when he returned home, he would be younger than his earthbound twin.

http://physorg.com/news114010680.html

[Gigacore]

cool,

thanks for the info

[Techmastro]

Nice share man!!!

[fun2sh]

cool. EINSTEIN is great so as his theories but i think this theory has been proved long back ago both experimently n theoriticaly

[DigitalDude]

thanx for the news...

after reading so much crap today.. something of genuine value for a mechanical engineer to read

[Nav11aug]

Originally Posted by fun2sh

cool. EINSTEIN is great so as his theories but i think this theory has been proved long back ago both experimently n theoriticaly

"parts" of his theory are proved right for now, i.e. postulates are being proved one by one. This was one experiment. And dude, what did you mean by proving theoretically.

[DigitalDude]

^^^

proving theoretically is by derivations and equations
have you never proved any equations in high school maths ??

obviously that is what he meant...

but whether it is really proved theoretically is beyond my scope

[Nav11aug]

Proving thories in Physics theoretically is not possible... after all, theoretically, one theory is based on certain postulates or assumptions which lead to some conclusions which can be verified

[Faun]

Originally Posted by Nav11aug

Proving thories in Physics theoretically is not possible... after all, theoretically, one theory is based on certain postulates or assumptions which lead to some conclusions which can be verified

its possible cuz u cant travel with speed of light practically and mesaure the variables in system. Thats where maths comes to rescue as extrapolation, calculus (indespensable gift of Newton).

U know De-broglie hypothesis ??

Currently String theory is in news, some theories of Einstein are not in compliance with String theory.

[Nav11aug]

Speed of light isn't verified theoretically. It IS calculated practically Michelson's interferometer method is one way

[Faun]

Originally Posted by Nav11aug

Speed of light isn't verified theoretically. It IS calculated practically Michelson's interferometer method is one way

that was abt relativity theory and not speed of light.

Even relativity theory is challenged on account of String theory.

[blackpearl]

Einstein's theories are being proved with newer and newer techniques and methods. Each new experiment is more accurate than the last.

[Faun]

Originally Posted by blackpearl

Einstein's theories are being proved with newer and newer techniques and methods. Each new experiment is more accurate than the last.

so was true about Newton laws until Einstein jumped with something new

Dont you think whatever theory we put forward just stays for awhile and then replaced by something more precise and still approximate.

Everything is approximation and there is no absolute truth.

[blackpearl]

Originally Posted by T159

so was true about Newton laws until Einstein jumped with something new

Dont you think whatever theory we put forward just stays for awhile and then replaced by something more precise and still approximate.

Everything is approximation and there is no absolute truth.

Einstein never replaced Newtons's laws. Newtons's laws still hold and one of the most important and extensively used laws of physics.

Man went to space by Newtons's laws
Satellites are launched and remain in orbit by his laws.

[fun2sh]

yuo u r right.
NEWTONIAN PHYSICS is for marcroscopic objects while for microscopic things everything becomes indefinit n probabilty comes into pictures. hence QUANTUM PHYSICS comes to sense.

Originally Posted by Nav11aug

Proving thories in Physics theoretically is not possible... after all, theoretically, one theory is based on certain postulates or assumptions which lead to some conclusions which can be verified

who told u that. do u think wen einstein proposed his relativity theory then every1 accepted it without proof!! NO!! he gave a theoritical prove as of course givin experimental proof wasnot possible at time.

Originally Posted by 159

Even relativity theory is challenged on account of String theory.

no string theory does not challenge the relativity theory but its a new concept to unify all the 4 fundamental forces of nature. its is beilive that this concept which leads to multi-dimensional space thingy was dream of einstein. i mean he was workin on string theory too before he died. if wud had been alive for more years then it might had been possible that he wud himself had come with string theory.

STRING THEORY IS VERY FASCINATIN N U CAN SEE THE DISCOVERY SHOWCASE FOR THIS O YOUTUBE ALSO!!!

[Faun]

Originally Posted by blackpearl

Einstein never replaced Newtons's laws. Newtons's laws still hold and one of the most important and extensively used laws of physics.

Man went to space by Newtons's laws
Satellites are launched and remain in orbit by his laws.

to keep things simple, we dont apply quantum mechanics in macroscopic world.

parrticles having speed more than that of light hv been discoverd, then how are we gonna change e=mc^2 equation ??

[Nav11aug]

Originally Posted by fun2sh

who told u that. do u think wen einstein proposed his relativity theory then every1 accepted it without proof!! NO!! he gave a theoritical prove as of course givin experimental proof wasnot possible at time.

Einstein's theory was accepted NOT because he gave a proof but because it explained things which could not be explained by other theories.

That is how theories are accepted, NOT by theoretical proofs. Proofs of theories in Physics are PRACTICAL. And that too, most of the time, they do not prove the postulates.They prove the statements that come up as a result of these theories.

Infact , relativity was first bought up to explain the failure of the "ether" theory which could not explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.

[karnivore]

"to practice without theory is to set sail in an uncharted sea; theory without practice is not to set sail at all"

Really, both are important for different reasons. Look at Newton himself. His discovery of theory of gravity was entirely mathematical. Just a bunch of equations. When he tried to theorize these equations, he fumbled and actually failed to come up with an explanation of how it works. Now that was a really sticky position. He knew that gravity exists, but could not explain how.

Its then, that he made a blunder. He introduced the theory of "Aether" to explain gravity. This theory is the father of most of the crap that we see today. aka quantum consciousness, telepathy, OBE etc.

In 1905, if i can recall correctly, Einstein proved once and for all, "Aether" does not exist. And in the process gave the correct explanation for gravity.

[Faun]

And wormholes can only be explained with String theory....these scientists just know well how to manipulate theories to suit their observations.

[karnivore]

I guess u got it the other way round. Its because we have, "string theory", we hav the concept of "wormhole". The same way as, for string theory to succeed, there must be more than 4 dimensions.

And again, u r confusing "Theoritical science" with the theoritical explanations for scientific observations. "Theoritical science" is a separate story altogether.

[rajasekharan]

ok , lets say . . i move with the speed of light . . how do you prove that my body age less ???. . the metabolic rates will be the same ??will it ???. you dont age WRT time .cause time is just an imaginary thing or a reference . and i dont think its got any connection with ageing . cause cells in any organisms body dont work with relation to time . but with relation to environment thats around it . . am i right ???:-l

ok , i know our body cant cope up with speed of light . . am just assuming .

[nvidia]

Cool... Einstein is the best...

[Nav11aug]

Originally Posted by rajasekharan

ok , lets say . . i move with the speed of light . . how do you prove that my body age less ???. . the metabolic rates will be the same ??will it ???. you dont age WRT time .cause time is just an imaginary thing or a reference . and i dont think its got any connection with ageing . cause cells in any organisms body dont work with relation to time . but with relation to environment thats around it . . am i right ???:-l

Wrong, when you travel with the speed of light or even close to it, your bodu ages less. Everything in this space is time .Remember that. That is what Einstein's General Theory says and that is what has been proven too. This happens becuse of what happens inside the atoms themselves. Even subatomic particles stop aging.

Please see Halliday and Resnick, somewhere in the last chapters. He cites an experiment where a subatomic particle is moved 99.98% speed of c or so and the particle which is supposed to decay in 2 microseconds decays in 63.5 microsecs(mayb i screwed up the numbers, doesnt matter).

The explanation is:
In the time frame of the particle ,it has lived for 2 microseconds only, but in our time frame, it is some 60-odd microseconds.

Same way, when you travel at such high speeds, your body thinks it is just an hour or so, but infact ,you've been spending a lot of time.

And what do you think the Twin Paradox is all about?

[rajasekharan]

well , i may be wrong again . . but your atoms dont say "ok , its two hours passed now , lets age " do they ?.
if my body can handle speed of light . and if the space has enough o2 , and am flying (running ) through space . you mean to say , i will age less ?...
i dont know , how they calculate time . but your cells depend on amount of o2 to live and age is it ??,
please dont mistake me . . am no biology or science student :-l

[blackpearl]

Originally Posted by rajasekharan

well , i may be wrong again . . but your atoms dont say "ok , its two hours passed now , lets age " do they ?.

Yes, they do. Everything that happens at the sub atomic level depends on time. Rate of decay, rate of chemical reaction, their frequency of vibration/rotation and hence their energy. Everything is dependent on time.

Time isn't imaginary. It's the 4th dimension of the universe.

[Faun]

Originally Posted by rajasekharan

i dont know , how they calculate time . but your cells depend on amount of o2 to live and age is it ??,
please dont mistake me . . am no biology or science student :-l

those are the assumptions u have to make obviously