Does Time Slow Down in a Deep Osmium Room?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alpha_michi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Material Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of gravitational time dilation in a hypothetical room made of osmium, located 10 km underground. Participants argue that the mass of the room would not significantly affect spacetime curvature or time dilation due to the Shell Theorem, which states that a spherically symmetric shell has no gravitational effect inside it. The consensus is that time would actually run faster in such a room compared to the surface of the Earth, contradicting the initial premise. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding gravitational potential over gravitational acceleration in relation to time dilation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational time dilation
  • Familiarity with the Shell Theorem
  • Basic knowledge of Newtonian physics
  • Concept of gravitational potential
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of gravitational time dilation in different gravitational fields
  • Study the Shell Theorem and its applications in gravitational physics
  • Explore the effects of mass distribution on gravitational potential
  • Investigate the structural challenges of building pressure vessels for extreme environments
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of gravitational physics, and anyone interested in the effects of mass on spacetime and time dilation.

  • #31
phinds said:
So the gravitational potential at 1000Km above the Earth is less than that on the surface, thus making time run faster at the 1000Km mark.
No. The gravitational potential at 1000 km is larger. That’s why stuff gains kinetic energy as it falls.

phinds said:
And then (according to you) the gravitational potential at the center of the Earth is less than at the surface, thus making time run slower than on the surface
In exact analogy, yes.

phinds said:
despite it also being at a lower gravitational potential.
Because of, not despite.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Orodruin said:
No.
See post #28
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
7K