The Hafele-Keating Experiment Supports Special Relativity

Ave The Hafele and Keating experiment’s results, as published in the 1972 journal Science, clearly confirm the predictions of special relativity. As the diagram from this paper shows, all of the clocks in the eastward direction lost time, and all of the clocks in the westward direction gained time. The consensus in physics accepts that the times measured for the individual clocks were as predicted by special relativity (within the margin of error). In order to get around this, Con conducts an elaborate conspiracy about Hafele and Keating, alleging that they forged their measurements in the 1972 publication. Instead, insists Con, we can find the real measurements in a different paper, one which shows that the experiment was inconsistent with special relativity. I will first explain why Con’s allegation of a conspiracy is plainly ridiculous. I will then explain why the measurements he cites as the real measurements are not inconsistent with special relativity. I believe that a refutation of this conspiracy theory amounts to a demolition of anything substantive Con has left to say about Hafele and Keating. Con first tries to deprecate Hafele and Keating’s work by arguing that the correlated rate-change method is some kind of conspiracy used by Hafele and Keating to make their data consistent with special relativity. I myself do not exactly understand what the correlated rate-change method is, so instead of speaking out of ignorance, I consulted Tim Maudlin, professor of philosophy at New York University. He has published books on special and general relativity and is involved in debates on the foundational issues of quantum mechanics. Professor Maudlin told me that the correlated rate-change method in the paper was used to accomplish more precise numbers than standard averaging, even though standard averaging already supported special relativity. He explained to me why the basic claim of the 1972 paper is correct, and then concluded by stating that “Anyone [Con] trying to cast doubt on the basic claims of the 1972 paper by raising question about the method of statistical analysis does not know what they are talking about.” [1] Therefore, Con’s claim that the correlated rate-change was a way for Hafele and Keating to create fraudulent data is nothing more than an insult to two great and scientifically accomplished men. In reality, the correlated rate-change method was 1) used to accomplish more precise numbers than standard averaging, 2 ) consistent with standard averaging anyway, and 3) obviously not a way to cast doubt on the 1972 paper. Con then tries to deprecate Hafele and Keating’s work by arguing that they did not precisely define correlated rate-change, but they did so quite clearly in their paper. I refer him to page 169 [2], where Hafele and Keating spend at least three paragraphs explaining what the correlated rate-change method is. On page 170 [3], Hafele and Keating explain the math behind this method as well. I should also note that Con is employing a double standard. He wants us merely trust the mathematics done by his shady and unverifiable source, yet he emphatically demands explicit mathematical proof from Hafele and Keating. As the third and final horn of his conspiracy theory, Con posts a table (Table III) from a different paper by Hafele, and then argues that this is the raw data taken by Hafele and Keating. He then concludes that this raw data is inconsistent with special relativity. However, the diagram that he posted is obviously consistent with special relativity if one takes a look at its numbers. The final column measures the relativistic time change, and as one can see, three of the four clocks in the eastward direction lost time, for an average time loss in the eastward direction, and four of the four clocks in the westward direction gained time, for an average time gain in the westward direction. One may think that these results are not consistent with special relativity because one clock gained three nanoseconds in the eastward direction, but as Con quotes Hafele as stating, one single clock cannot prove time dilation. Why is this? It’s because one clock on its own is too imprecise to prove time dilation. Using the same reasoning, however, one clock on its own is too imprecise to disprove time dilation. Therefore, the fact that one clock out of four gained time instead of losing it is not a danger to special relativity. Con also makes a big deal out of the fact that the measured time dilation in the westward direction was one standard deviation beneath the predicted time dilation in the westward direction. This is irrelevant, as Professor Maudlin informed me that Hafele and Keating’s data has been re-verified at a higher precision since their original experiment. I will offer another positive argument for trusting the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. In science, if the results of an experiment can be replicated in different settings, then it is taken as proof that the initial experiment was accurate. Thankfully for special relativity, the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment can replicated in different settings. Wikipedia cites the published papers for at least five experiments which replicate the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment [4]. Therefore, according to conventional scientific thinking, we can have confidence in the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. In short, there is no conspiracy. There are merely two papers which are totally consistent with special relativity that Con has misunderstood as proof that Hafele and Keating are actually liars. Evidence and proper interpretation show that Con has slandered two great scientific minds without any basis. Con admits that (on average) in the eastward direction, time is lost, while in the westward direction, time is gained. He states that the average time loss in the eastward direction is “within the range of experimental error” and not “statistically significant”. I believe that this throws around statistics vocabulary without understanding their meaning. If a result is not statistically significant, then it is indistinguishable from natural skewing. However, if a result is different from zero, then the result is due to more than natural skewing. Since a result that is different from zero is due to more than natural skewing, then it cannot be statistically insignificant, as statistically insignificant results are indistinguishable from natural skewing. Therefore, if the results of the experiment are different from zero, they cannot be statistically insignificant. Unfortunately for Con’s case, the results of the experiment are different from zero [5] , so they cannot be statistically insignificant. He states that there was an average time gain in the westward direction, but that it was below the predicted amount. I have already explained the problem with this logic earlier in the rond. Con has therefore failed to refute the average time gains and losses of the clocks, so I will begin the next paragraph with the average time gains and losses as a given. Premise 2 of the argument asserts that the Hafele-Keating experiment affirms the predictive power of special relativity. In other words, it is consistent with the predictions of special relativity. Special relativity would predict an average time gain in the westward direction, and an average time loss in the eastward direction. The Hafele-Keating experiment, as Con himself stated, affirmed an average time gain in the westward direction and an average time loss in the eastward direction. Therefore, the Hafele-Keating experiment affirms the predictive power of special relativity. Since Con and I agreed that the experiment supports special relativity if it affirms its predictive power, the resolution is established on this basis as well as many others. Con states that it is not enough to have time dilation, and the experiment must prove time dilation as well as special relativity’s predictions for the degree of time dilation. I accept this standard, as the consensus in the physics community is that the numbers measured by Hafele and Keating are consistent with the predictions of special relativity within the margin of error. Con states that the numbers he offered in his first round were based on A..G Kelly’s mathematics. I have already casted legitimate doubt on the accuracy of A.G. Kelly as a source, given that his academic credentials have not been verified to any extent. Con claims that this is “poisoning the well”, but this fallacy actually refers to the act of saying bad things about an opponent before they speak in order to make their arguments less convincing, not the practice of asking perfectly legitimate questions about the accuracy of a source [6]. Even if A.G. Kelly was a reliable source, he does not represent the consensus in physics, which has been in favor of special relativity for decade upon decade. For these reasons, we have no reason to trust the numbers that Con posted in R1, and plenty of reasons to trust the numbers offered by Hafele and Keating in their 1972 experiment.Thanks to Con for a testy and interesting debate. Thanks to the audience for reading this debate. I'm sure it's not easy to read through this kind of material and then vote on it. I believe that the evidence in favor of the accuracy of Hafele and Keating's experiment is abundant, and that Con's reasons for doubting it rely on misunderstandings of the data and method. Whatever one may vote, I hope that they make this vote without reference to bias or preconceived notions, but with reference to evidence and logic.ValeReferences1: Personal e-mail communication with Tim Maudlin.2: http://www.sciencemag.org...3: Ibid4: http://en.wikipedia.org...5: http://www.k1man.com...6: http://changingminds.org...