Are there any experiments which test special relativity?
813828
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
794003
Any speed really will do. Even on modern day jet airliners the Time Dilation effect is measurable with very precise atomic clocks. Of course, its a very small amount, and you must travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light to experience a significant difference from a human perspective (e.g. at half the speed of light, the time dilation faction is about 1.15 (so time travels about 15% faster for everyone else than for you)). Though, to you, everything will 'feel' normal, as every atom in your body is experiencing the same effect. It's kinda weird (and by weird I mean awesome), but that's how it is.\n\nJust for reference here's the equation:\nt= t0/SQRT(1-(v/c)^2)\n\nWhere,\nt = the time observed in the stationary frame (say Earth)\nt0= 'proper time' the time in the moving frame (i.e. a spaceship, etc.)\nv=velocity at which the moving frame is moving\nc = speed of light
399905
We've actually run experiments that EXCEEDED the speed of light - which means the observer detected a particle before it left the emitter.  Wish I still had the link to give you.\n\nWeird science.  But real.
469813
is the phenomenon where the observed time rate of an observer's reference frame is different from that of a different reference frame. In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity the effect is manifested in two ways:\n\n    * In special relativity, clocks that are moving with speed v with respect to an inertial system of observation are found to be running slow. This effect is embodied in the Lorentz transformation.\n\n    * In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field are found to be running slower. This gravitational time dilation is only briefly mentioned in this article but is described elsewhere (see also gravitational red shift).\n\nThe formula for determining time dilation in special relativity is:\n\n    &#92;Delta T = &#92;gamma &#92;Delta T_0 &#92;!\n\n        where\n\n            ΔT is the time period as measured by a stationary observer,\n            ΔT0 is the time period of the moving object as seen by the stationary observer,\n            &#92;gamma &#92;equiv &#92;frac{1}{&#92;sqrt{1 - &#92;frac{u^2}{c^2}}} is the Lorentz factor,\n            u is the relative velocity between the observer and the object, and\n            c is the speed of light.\n\n\nNote that this formula assumes that both object and observer are in the same spot, and that their +x direction is the same. The lorentz transforms can be used for more general cases.\n\n\nThis effect is extremely small at ordinary speeds, and can then be safely ignored. It is only when an object approaches speeds on the order of 30,000 km/s (1/10 of the speed of light) that it becomes important.\n\nTime dilation by the Lorentz factor was predicted by Joseph Larmor (1897), at least for electrons orbiting a nucleus. Thus "... individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio :&#92;sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}" (Larmor 1897). Time dilation of magnitude corresponding to this (Lorentz) factor has been experimentally confirmed.
838844
I'm not sure what you are refering to. Einstein's special theory of relativity predicts that a "moving" clock actually runs slower. In addition to this, there is another effect which causes us to observe the clock "apparently" running faster or slower depending on the changing distance between the observer and the object...
561186
First of all, it is fundementally impossible to go at the speed of light. Therefore, the question as stated is invalid.\n\nHowever, it may or may not surprise you that, indeed, it is THAT VERY QUESTION that Albert Einstein surmised in 1896.  Here is his quote:\n"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest.  However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations.  From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest.  For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?  One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained.  Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious.  Clearly to recognize this axiom and its arbitrary character really implies already the solution to the problem."\n\nTherefore, In 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go.  Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first.  Space and time cannot be taken as absolute.  On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.\n\nNow, I can't explain any more than that.  So there :P
1017091
Actually, the inverse argument of your proposition was used in an extra credit question on an examination I took for a mechanical engineering course in college:\n\n"Using the special theory of relativity, show that no material can have an infinite rigidity"\n\nAnswer: If a material of infinite rigidity existed, you could send signals along it at greater than the speed of light, a prohibition of the special theory of relativity..........\n\nThe most rigid stuff we know about has a wave propagation speed of only a few thousand meters/sec, a long way from 300 million m/s value of c.
157544
Well it is a bit technical, but let me try.\n\nThe equations of special relativity include a term that looks like gamma=sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] where v is the speed of the object, and c is the speed of light. The equations for relativistic mass. The equations for relative position. The equations for time in the moving frame. And so on. \n\nSometimes gamma is in the numerator. Sometimes gamma is in the denominator. Sometimes the gamma is squared. But it is in there a lot (you can look them up on wikipedia or any number of web sites).  \n\nThese equations have been verified over and over, in particle accelerators and other experiments. They also explain the Michelson-Morley experiment that provided evidence against the exisence of the ether. \n\nNow what what happens to gamma when v gets close to c?\n\nObviously, gamma gets very small. If you are dividing by gamma in the equations, you get huge numbers. So relativistic mass goes to infinity as v gets close to c, and time slows down and the object moving gets compressed front to back.\n\nWhat happens when v is exactly c? \n\nThen, time stands still, and the object's relativistic mass is infinite and it is infinitely thin. \n\nWhat happens when v is bigger than c?\n\nThen gamma becomes imaginary, and mass becomes complex and time becomes complex and so on. Obviously, a complex mass or a complex time have no meaning in our universe. \n\nThere are postulated objects called tachyons that go faster than c, but no one has ever reliably observed one. Distant galaxies can move away from us faster than c, but that is because no information is being transferred. Just like you can move a light source and make the spot of light very far away appear to move faster than c, but no information is being transferred. Relativity only restricts the speed of information transfer to be c or less. \n\nAre the equations of special relativity true? Well they fit the evidence we have. And until we have evidence that they do not fit, we use them.
1011227
Love to give you specifics, but don't know how.\n\nTheoretically, what you suggest is possible by relativistic theory. There are things called "tachyons" which are these kinds of rays which reverse time - well not "reversing" it, but definitely messing it all around.  Einstein said that nothing could accelerate to faster than speed of light without becoming infinite mass - but "...Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at that speed or greater..." (Prote in K-Pax).  \n\nSo who knows - is it around the corner for us?  Probably not.  Is it possible?  I love this universe, so I say yes.  Keep surprising me...
831271
Dear Madame,\n\nYou could try testing wave-particle duality nature of photons, and report on how the theory corresponds with Schodiger's findings in the early 20th century. \n\nAnyone can put a light bulb in a potato. Also, the above response about commercials is about as unscientific as you can get. I don't trust emus.\n\nPianoguy
974250
This page gives a very nice table listing who, when, how, how accurately the speed of light has been measured including the first time when Olaus Roemer did it in a really neat way 330 years ago!\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
1072879
2006 \n\n With a brilliant idea and equations based on Einstein’s relativity theories, Ronald Mallett from the University of Connecticut has devised an experiment to observe a time traveling neutron in a circulating light beam. While his team still needs funding for the project, Mallett calculates that the possibility of time travel using this method could be verified within a decade.
898693
google the BBC series... I know they've done a couple shows on special relativity. \n\nWatch The Cosmic Voyage.. it touches on the subject too.\n.
29352
If you measure the state of one of the entangled particles, you instantaneously set the state of the other particle (as far as we know, even if you are across the universe).  So, your answer is yes.\n\nNote that this is not a problem for relativity, because no information is being transmitted this way.  You can measure the state, but you can't control what it ends up being.
1128096
If you want an answer based on the known theories or experiments... they all will fail on the very assumption of something moving at speed greater than speed of light.\n\nBut in principle.... if something like that can be done.. it would be possible if not clearly see.. but record such events.\n\nMicrowave Background Radiation (if you have ever heard off) are the signatures of what must have happened at time of birth of universe i.e. just after big bang.
651526
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity started with two postulates: 1) that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any non-accelerated reference frame and 2) that the speed of light (c) is observed to be the same for all observers.\n\nThe first assumption isn’t too worrisome, but the second seems trickier.  It’s certaonly not intuitively obvious, but it makes sense from both a theoretical and an observational perspective.  Observational because the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) detected no change in the velocity of light when measured from a moving frame of reference; theoretical because Maxwell’s Equations yield a specific value for the velocity of light.\n\nWhen Einstein considered Maxwell’s Equations, he realized that they don’t allow for a “standing wave” solution, which is what a light wave would look like if you were travelling at the speed of light.  So he already sensed there would be a problem with travelling at very high speeds.  Indeed, when you re-work the addition of velocities, it comes out to be not simple addition, but a fraction that never gets larger than c.  \n\nThus, in the photon-photon collision you describe, each photon would “see” the other one travelling toward it with a velocity c.  (Although measuring velocities from a photon’s perspective is a little non-intuitive; you have to take the limit of the aforementioned addition formula, which causes some trepidation.)\n\nOh, and the ten-dimensional idea is just one among many…  No way yet to prove (or disprove) that one.\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
592909
It is a real effect and can be important in particle accelerators where subatomic particles are going close to the speed of light. It turns out that the radioactive particles decay slower when they are moving at these high speeds. So it doesn't just appear that time slows down, it really does.\n\nThis is a consequence of special relativity where there are two basic assumptions:\n1) All motion is relative...you can't tell whether you are moving or everyone else is.\n2) The speed of light is the same to everyone.\n\nThe first assumption was true for classical mechanics, but the second was not and is what makes all the strange results of relativity. In some sense, it turns out that someone moving with respect to you has time and space 'rotated' with respect to each other. This makes both space and time measurements different for you and them. Two events that you see as being at the same time or place won't be for them. Two events they see as being at the same time or place won't be for you. The slowing of time is an effect that only applies to events that either you or they see as being in the same place (or very close by). Otherwise more complicated computations have to be done to determine how each sees things. Look up Lorentz transformations.