Confusion with time dialation.

MartinJH
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Reading Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw's book "Why does E=MC2". They mention that satellites speed up with time, but, then reading Wiki it says the crew of the ISS experience the slowing of time. Which one is correct? I'm slightly confused.
Both experience a weaker gravitational pull and high velocities.
I feel I have the answer but it's been some months since I read anything about this.
Could it be the overall difference in altitude and speed?
Many thankshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The velocity based time dilation combined with the gravitational time dilation can be written as:

\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} * \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}

Since the orbital velocity of a satellite is given by:

v = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}

then the first equation can be rewritten as:

\sqrt{1-\frac{GM}{rc^2}} * \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}

It can be seen for increasing radius the time dilation reduces due to increased height and due to reduced orbital velocity. Clocks on satellites with large orbits tick faster than clocks on satellites at lower orbits. Clocks on the surface of the Earth are moving much slower than the required orbital velocity at that radius and so tick faster than clocks on satellites with very low orbits. The ISS has a relatively low orbit (its radius is approximately 1.05 times the radius of the Earth), so clocks on the ISS are indeed ticking slower than clocks on the surface of the Earth. The speed up of clocks with increasing radius means that once an orbital radius is larger than 3 times the Earth surface radius (the break even point) the clocks on board a satellite are ticking faster than a clock on the Earth surface. The GPS satellites have an orbital radius of about 4.1 times the radius of the Earth so they are ticking faster.

P.S. The above equations for the time dilation of an orbiting satellite can be fairly accurately approximated in this case by:

\sqrt{1-\frac{3GM}{rc^2}} or \left(1-\frac{3GM}{2rc^2}\right)
 
Thank you, yuiop. You have hit the nail on the head.
Since I posted the question, a few hours ago, I have been pondering over it and knew their had to be a explanation. From reading your post it looks like I was touching on the reason but couldn't quite grasp it.

Thank you for your post also, Naty1.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Back
Top