This article on CNN.com talks about a proposed experiment to test Special Relativity, aboard the ISS. If you read through it, though, I think there are some mistakes(??)

For example, it says:
Huh?

Also,
HUH?

Are these really pertinent analogies and examples?

CJSF


_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-04 15:59 ]</font>

I think that one goes back to Galileo, or at least Newton.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

ToSeek is right. Dropping a coin in a moving car versus dropping a coin in a stationary car is a classic example of Galliean relativity, or the principle of relativity. The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are valid in all inertial frames. Add to that the postulate, the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, mix well, and bake at 350 for about 40 minutes. When you're done you will have Einstein special theory of relativity.

I don't know what they're trying to say with the second example. Space is isotropic?

Now, my guess is the big BA in this article is that they really want to test the general theory, not the special theory. The don't give any details of the experiment so hard to know exactly what they are testing. I'll see what I can dig up.

I found the technical version of this article at the Los Alamos preprint archive.

the article

There are related articles at the site. Have fun.

Sorry, just going back to the original CNN piece: "By comparing extremely precise clocks that can operate under zero gravity,"

Classic BA, free fall or micro grav yes .. zero? uh uh!
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
N6MAA10816
Faber '62 ΔTX
Are you a Bright?

THE glaring problem I found with that article is that CNN seems to be jumping on the idea that Einstein is wrong (sensationalism).

Consider the title ("Has time run out on Einstein's theory?"), the subtitle ("Atomic clocks on the space station might reveal truth"...note: science doesn't offer Truth) and the name of the file (.../einstein.wrong/...).

But then the actual article has quotes from the scientists saying that it wouldn't be an end to SR....not to mention that the experiment hasn't even been done yet.

And then all the tangential discussions that were irrelevant (worm holes, etc.)

Overall, it's a terrible science article. Shame on you, CNN.

I did not get the feeling they were trying to sensationalistic (if that's a word), but rather clever, in a cutsie journalistic way. The experiments uses clocks thus "Time running out...", see clever (sic). Although I can certainly see your point.

I definitely agree with you there. I could forgive the extraneous highly speculative Star-Trek-ian science, if after reading the article, I actually had some idea what the experiment was about.

Yeah, I think that instead of reporting this experiment in some detail, CNN was looking for an angle to make the story more (dare I say it?) entertaining. The actual short quotes from the scientists reveal a calmer, and deeper side to on-going research. I'd like to read somewhere what this experiment is really about. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]