Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Science > Physics > Chemistry

February 18th, 2010, 07:51 GMT · By

Einstein's Relativity Proven with Atomic Clock

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


Another pillar of Einstein's famous theory gets further support
Enlarge picture
When Albert Einstein proposed his now-famous Theory on General Relativity, the world of physics entered a frenzy that many say has yet to quell. The science that was proposed at the time suggested simple correlations, but in a way that carried tremendous implications for how our Universe is organized, and how it functions. Since then, physicists have been working hard at finding evidence to prove or infirm the TGR, with various degrees a success. A new study managed to discover that one of the pillars on which the theory is mounted is actually very solid.

The investigation, which was conducted at the University of California in Berkeley (UCB), looked at the slight differences that appeared in the tick of two separate quantum clocks, and found no indication that Einstein was wrong. The same conclusion had been achieved before, but now the research was conducted at a level of precision some 10,000 times more accurate than ever before. It was meant to assess the accuracy of one of the TGR's most advanced predictions, which states that clocks in stronger gravitational fields run more slowly.

This has been demonstrated over the past few decades on several occasions. Scientists flew clocks to higher and higher altitudes, until one was eventually sent into space using a rocket. No one managed to infirm the idea underlying Einstein's prediction. In the new study, the UCB team looked at the time-shifting effects of gravity with a mind-boggling degree of precision. Team leader Holger Muller says that the conclusions show time can be related to the effects of gravity up to 7 parts per billion. The work was conducted using nothing more than two tabletop, laboratory clocks, one of which was only one millimeter taller than the other.

“Precision experiments on a tabletop are not something of the past,” Muller says. “What's fascinating about their work is that they were using the entire atom as a clock,” says Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics atomic-clock expert Jun Ye. The UCB team also included Humboldt University of Berlin scientist Achim Peters, as well as physicist Steven Chu, who is currently the Secretary of Energy in the United States. The official is the former director of the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in California, Nature News reports.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

3,838 hits · 5 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Moon Mirrors and the Theory of Relativity

Particle Collisions Can Result in Black Holes

Pulsar Grid to Prove Einstein's Gravitational Wave Theory

Black Hole Mergers Could Be Surveyed in Star Clusters

Hubble Could Discover Space-Time Quantization

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: durgadas datta on 19 Feb 2010, 06:03 UTC reply to this comment

Please do not confuse again. Michelsons experiment confused everybody and I proved Einstein wrong in basics. Again from this experiment you are telling Einstein right. Here TIME dilation is due to a process centric entropy flow due its location in variable ether density or field strength. Rate of change of entropy flow give TIME DILATION and this is obvious from my THEORY OF ETHER-GRAVITY OR GRAVITOETHERTONS published in ASTRONOMY.NET in the year 2002. Read my BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY to understand ETHER . TIME is entropical rate flow as such dilateable but not dimension and EINSTEIN wrong in basics as DR.ROGER PENROSE declared after reading my GRAND ETHER-GRAVITY THEORY.

Comment #1.1 by: PhyscoPhysisist on 20 Feb 2012, 10:33 GMT

Mate, your not as smart as einstein so stop trying to prove him wrong. Einstein was and always will be CORRECT.


Comment #2 by: Splixman on 19 Feb 2010, 07:23 UTC reply to this comment

Interesting I suppose due to the precision of the experiment. Seems somewhat like beating a dead horse though as this has been proven several times in numerous experiments. One thing on the subject I have been contemplating, more trying to understand, is that dose relative time slow down for the observable universe. For instance say I am traveling at near the speed of light so my relative time slows down. Dose that mean that the speed of objects I observe from a distance change, say the orbits of planets. A bit of a conundrum for me I guess. I would think that if so it would directly relate to energy. Say a star is traveling at the speed of light, so it's relative time would slow down meaning it is create less energy per second than it would if it was at my relative speed but it's energy moving at such speed would balance the equation so regardless of motion it is always expending the same amount of energy relative to the rest of the universe. Oh my head hurts!


Comment #3 by: Miltek on 30 May 2011, 18:10 UTC reply to this comment

A comment on the interpretation of the results:

Just because the atoms or parts of these atoms are slowed or sped up by the affects of gravity just shows that atoms and parts of atoms are affected by gravity, it doesn't show that time is affected at all, just how we measure time.

Time passes at a constant rate everywhere. The conclusions from our experiments thus far do not seem to have proven any different.


Comment #4 by: Physco Physisist on 20 Feb 2012, 10:23 UTC reply to this comment

EINTEIN ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM