Physicists used atomic clocks to test the theory of general relativity

Re:Physicists used atomic clocks to test the theory of gener... by dghf on Sunday June 10, 2018 @04:21PM (#17279970)

Quibble: the article refers several times to the theory of general relativity. I always thought it was the general theory of relativity: i.e., it was the theory itself that was general, handling everything the special theory (limited to inertial reference frames) couldn't.

Am I making a distinction without a difference? Are there two forms of the name in free variation?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists used atomic clocks to test the theory of gener... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday June 10, 2018 @04:42PM (#17280044)

> Quibble: the article refers several times to the theory of general relativity

“General relativity...[is] also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR“ [1]. Einstein himself wrote of der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists used atomic clocks to test the theory of gener... by kvakkefly on Sunday June 10, 2018 @04:26PM (#17279988)

They are just somewhat different names of the same thing. General relativity includes the special relativity one where special means without accelerated reference frames, i.e. nothing accelerates or is exposed for gravity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists used atomic clocks to test the theory of gener... by moefh on Sunday June 10, 2018 @05:32PM (#17280259)

> special means without accelerated reference frames

That's something a lot of people say, but it's not strictly true. Special Relativity is fully capable of describing acceleration in a flat (Minkowski) spacetime[1].

General Relativity is only really needed when there's curvature in the spacetime (gravity).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativi...

[ Parent | on HN ]