The flow of time is affected by gravity.
Credit: Wikimedia
PARIS: Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that gravity affects the flow of time, just got 10,000 times more accurate.
How quickly time passes depends on where you are, a lesson learnt the hard way by that first-time reviewer of Wagner who observed: "After two hours, I looked at my watch and found that 20 minutes had gone by."
For physicists rather than opera-lovers, relativity was famously expressed in 1915 by Albert Einstein who suggested, among other things, that the flow of time was affected by the force of gravity.
Flow of time gets tested
Clocks will run faster the farther they are from a large gravitational source and run slower they closer they are to it, goes the theory.
Various experiments have been carried out to explore Einstein's insight.
They include a 1976 exploit in which an atomic clock was taken on a 115-minute rocket ride to a point some 10,000 km above Earth, and was found to measure more time compared to a counterpart on Earth.
Now 10,000 times more accurate
Now physicists in the United States have gone a step further.
They have proved Einstein's theory with an accuracy 10,000 times greater than before, according to a paper published in the British journal Nature.
A team that included Nobel winner Steven Chu - now U.S. energy secretary - used a trap that involved three lasers that zapped waves of caesium atoms, making them move up and down like a fountain.
The waves were used as super-fast clocks, oscillating at nearly a million billion billion times per second.
The team's technique invoked a strange-but-true phenomenon of quantum mechanics: that an atom can be excited into two states at the same time.
In one of the states, the atom was "pushed" by laser pulse one tenth of a millimeter (0.004 of an inch), giving it a minute boost away from Earth's gravitational field. In the other, it remained unmoved.

Hmmm
"the accuracy of the measurement would be 60 picoseconds, the time it talks for light to travel about half an inch (0.4 of a centimetre)"
Correct me if I'm wrong but half an inch is 2.54cm. Therefor half an inch is 1.27cm...not even close to the .4cm stated.
Hmmm...
I would correct you if you were wrong. But you aren't wrong. An inch is 2.54cm, therefore half an inch is 1.27cm. The article must have a typo.
And its a quote! One would
And its a quote! One would think if your quoting someone you must get it right...or else its not really a quote. Unless when he originally said it he said it wrong and they just transcribed it as it was said.
Meh, probably thinking too deeply into a type me thinks.
wat r u guys saying?
his math is correct... u guys r jus .. idk hi or something..
What are you spelling?
I won't read your comment because you cannot spell.
Just because everyone is not
Just because everyone is not as anal about spelling as you are does not mean you should disregard them. Says a lot about you to be honest... Get of your high horse!
No, you are high my friend.
No, you are high my friend. Half an inch IS NOT .4cm
Maybe
1cm is .4 inches maybe this is what they meant, who knows!
A thought in Time.
Time is not relative to physical perception, it is positioned on the state of conscious of the individual. Einstein's theories need to be improved and evolved, they are getting kind of obsolete.
Yawn
Firstly, you have made an assertion without providing any information, links or evidence. Therefore the assertion is worthless.
Secondly, Einstein's theories have been constantly improved upon ever since their first publication. In the same way that Newton's work has been improved upon. That being said, the underlying correctness is maintained, even with this fine-tuning.
Toby