Identical atomic clocks were used in an experiment to test the theory that,for moving bodies,time slows down. The clocks used the oscillations of caesium atoms to achieve results as accurately as possible, and found that the theory was correct. Does this mean that the caesium oscillations slowed down in the moving clock or is it more complex than that?

I think they slowed down for the viewer that was in the frame of reference of the stationary one - but stayed the same in it's own reference frame.

 

I would let someone else confirm this though as it is not my field at all.

I think they slowed down for the viewer that was in the frame of reference of the stationary one - but stayed the same in it's own reference frame.

 

 

This.

Thanks,both.

Identical atomic clocks were used in an experiment to test the theory that,for moving bodies,time slows down. The clocks used the oscillations of caesium atoms to achieve results as accurately as possible, and found that the theory was correct. Does this mean that the caesium oscillations slowed down in the moving clock or is it more complex than that?

 

 

You should be aware that the oscillations slowed because time slowed. This was not a mechanical effect.

I see! Thanks,Swansont. That explains a lot to me.

Identical atomic clocks were used in an experiment to test the theory that,for moving bodies,time slows down. The clocks used the oscillations of caesium atoms to achieve results as accurately as possible, and found that the theory was correct. Does this mean that the caesium oscillations slowed down in the moving clock or is it more complex than that?

 

 

The cesium clock experiments simply confirmed Einstein's old theory of Time Dilation. See: his "twin paradox" for more on this.

 

And yes, as the velocity (!) increases time does slow. Thus, the frequency of the cesium vibrations is also slowing. What is important to remember here is that it is a VERY slight decrease witnessed in those experiments you mentioned, on the orders of fractions of a second.

Thanks again, VB.