Does a clock in free-fall slow due to gravitational time dilation?

In summary: The falling clock experiences a combined effect of the twin paradox and gravitational time dilatation, both of which slow it down compared to the stationary clock.
  • #1
johne1618
371
0
I imagine I have two clocks that are synchronised and are sitting a long way from a large massive body. I hold on to clock A and let clock B fall towards the mass. Let's assume that the falling clock B gets close to the massive body but somehow misses it, swings around and travels back to me.

Would I expect clocks A and B to show the same time?

One could argue that Clock B has been very close to the massive body so it should have experienced some gravitational time dilation. But on the other hand one could say that it has been in free fall at all times and therefore it has been in an inertial frame and not experienced any gravitational field. Thus it should show the same time as Clock A.

Which argument is right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
johne1618 said:
I imagine I have two clocks that are synchronised and are sitting a long way from a large massive body. I hold on to clock A and let clock B fall towards the mass. Let's assume that the falling clock B gets close to the massive body but somehow misses it, swings around and travels back to me.

Would I expect clocks A and B to show the same time?
No, not in general.

johne1618 said:
One could argue that Clock B has been very close to the massive body so it should have experienced some gravitational time dilation.
Yes.

johne1618 said:
But on the other hand one could say that it has been in free fall at all times and therefore it has been in an inertial frame and not experienced any gravitational field.
No. There are no global inertial frames in GR. They exist only approximately locally. Free falling objects are affected by gravitational time dilation, just like other objects.
 
  • Like
Likes wieblinger
  • #3
There is a free-fall trajectory (or frame, if you must, but the "frame" is only a frame sufficiently close to the trajectory) that maximizes "clock time", also known as proper time. However, that trajectory that maximizes "clock time" is not the one that falls towards the massive body, it's the one that goes _away_ from the massive body.

Note that for short time intervals (say 1 second), there is not any free fall trajectory towards the massive body that winds up back at the start. The only trajectories that exist with this property for short time intervals are the ones that head away from the massive body.
 
  • #4
pervect said:
There is a free-fall trajectory (or frame, if you must, but the "frame" is only a frame sufficiently close to the trajectory) that maximizes "clock time", also known as proper time. However, that trajectory that maximizes "clock time" is not the one that falls towards the massive body, it's the one that goes _away_ from the massive body.

Note that for short time intervals (say 1 second), there is not any free fall trajectory towards the massive body that winds up back at the start. The only trajectories that exist with this property for short time intervals are the ones that head away from the massive body.

To expand on this, there may also be a free-fall trajectory that drops down towards the massive body, swings around it, and then rises back up to the original radius--an elongated elliptical orbit with the original radius as its semi-major axis. If things were arranged right, object B could follow such a trajectory and object A could "hover" at the original radius until B returned to it. (I've assumed here that the original radius is large enough that the elliptical orbit does not precess measurably.) In this case, I would expect object B to experience *less* proper time than object A, even though B is in free fall and A is not. But that is because B's trajectory is not "close enough" to A's to fit within the "local" patch of spacetime in which the rule "free fall trajectories maximize proper time" applies. The only free-fall trajectories that *do* fit within that local patch are the ones, as pervect says, that rise away from the massive body and then fall back, such as A throwing up a ball and then catching it when it comes back down. The ball will experience more proper time than A does.
 
  • #5
johne1618 said:
I imagine I have two clocks that are synchronised and are sitting a long way from a large massive body. I hold on to clock A and let clock B fall towards the mass. Let's assume that the falling clock B gets close to the massive body but somehow misses it, swings around and travels back to me.
Simply arguing, I would say that clock B suffers a combined effect of SR (twin paradox) and GR (gravitational time dilatation), both of which slow clock B down compared to clock A.

Too simpel?
 
  • #6
timmdeeg said:
Simply arguing, I would say that clock B suffers a combined effect of SR (twin paradox) and GR (gravitational time dilatation), both of which slow clock B down compared to clock A.

Yes, this is basically why I said I would expect clock B to show less proper time than clock A when they meet again. But I'm not sure I would describe the "SR" effect as just like the twin paradox, because B is in free fall the whole time so the usual arguments about the "twin paradox" do not apply (B does not have to feel any acceleration in order to get back to meet up with A again; in fact, it's A who feels the acceleration in this scenario, not B, which may have been what prompted the OP's question).
 
  • #7
This hypothetical is like an observer being lowered and spending time near the horizon of a black hole and then returning to some distant observation point; also like a GPS satellite experiencing more accrued time than satellite Earth stations.
 
  • #8
Naty1 said:
This hypothetical is like an observer being lowered and spending time near the horizon of a black hole and then returning to some distant observation point

Somewhat, yes, but in that case both observers feel acceleration (at least, that's what I take to be implied by your description of "an observer being lowered"). In the OP's case B is in free fall, and yet experiences less proper time, which is the opposite of the "naive" expectation from SR.

Naty1 said:
also like a GPS satellite experiencing more accrued time than satellite Earth stations.

In this case the GPS satellite, which experiences more proper time, is in free fall, and the Earth station, which experiences less, is accelerated; this is the "naive" expectation so it doesn't seem like a paradox. I agree that's somewhat oversimplified, since the GPS satellite is also moving relative to the Earth station, which creates an opposing "SR" effect; also, the GPS satellite and the Earth station, technically, don't come back together to compare clock readings (but there are other ways of checking that time does "run faster" for the satellite).
 
  • #9
PeterDonis said:
But I'm not sure I would describe the "SR" effect as just like the twin paradox, because B is in free fall the whole time so the usual arguments about the "twin paradox" do not apply (B does not have to feel any acceleration in order to get back to meet up with A again;
Yes, understood.
From B's free fall view, A accelerates away, deaccelerates then and meets B again. Would it be correct to show this in a Minkowski diagram with B's worldline remaining on the ct axis, while A is acceletating away and coming back. With the know acceleration of A's "trip" it should be possible to calculate the SR effect. Would you agree with that?

I am aware, that one has to be careful in introducing gravity into a Minkowski space-time diagram. But in this special case one could possibly argue that gravity is equivalent to acceleration. And presumably acceleration can be shown in this diagramm.
 
Last edited:

1. What is gravitational time dilation?

Gravitational time dilation is a phenomenon predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity, where time passes slower in regions with stronger gravitational fields.

2. How does gravitational time dilation affect a clock in free-fall?

According to general relativity, a clock in free-fall will experience time passing slower compared to a clock in a weaker gravitational field. This means the clock in free-fall will appear to run slower to an observer outside the gravitational field.

3. Does a clock in free-fall actually slow down?

Yes, the clock in free-fall does slow down from the perspective of an outside observer due to gravitational time dilation. However, the clock itself will not perceive any change in its own time passing.

4. Is the effect of gravitational time dilation significant for everyday objects?

The effect of gravitational time dilation is significant for objects with extreme gravitational fields, such as black holes. For everyday objects on Earth, the effect is very small and not noticeable.

5. How is gravitational time dilation related to the theory of relativity?

Gravitational time dilation is a key concept in Einstein's theory of general relativity, which explains the relationship between gravity, space, and time. It is also related to the theory of special relativity, which describes the effects of relative motion on time and space.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
597
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
635
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
115
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
841
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
433
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top