Does Time Slow Down Near a Black Hole?

Click For Summary
Time does slow down near a black hole due to gravitational time dilation, which is a result of spacetime curvature. An observer close to a black hole would age more slowly compared to someone far away, but they would not perceive any change in their own aging process. Signals sent from the vicinity of the black hole would appear redshifted to a distant observer, creating the illusion that the person near the black hole is aging more slowly. If a person orbits a black hole and then returns, they could find that significantly more time has passed in the outside universe than for themselves. This phenomenon illustrates the complex relationship between gravity, time, and perception in the context of general relativity.
  • #31
C'mon, this is supposed to be the best theoretical physics forum on the entire internet. "Google relativistic calculator"

Let's work out the case of the photon rocket. Suppose in some frame the rocket is initially at rest in space. The four momentum is P1 = (M1,0). Then it burns anti-matter fuel and it's four momentum becomes P2= (M2 gamma, M2 gamma v). Conservation of four momentum:

P1 = P2 + Pf

where Pf is the total four momentum of the emitted photons and is thus of the form (E, -E). This means that:

Pf = P1 - P2

Square both sides and use that

Pf^2 = 0,

P1^2 = M1^2

P2^2 = M2^2

P1 dot P2 = gamma M1*M2

So we have:

0 = M1^2 + M2^2 - 2 gamma M1 M2 ----->

gamma = 1/2 [X + X^(-1)]

where X is the ratio of the final and initial mass

Note that if we use massive particles instead of photons Pf^2 would be strictly larger than zero and you would get a smaller gamma factor for the same initial/final mass ratio. So, the photon rocket is the best we can get.

Now, if we want to return to Earth we must put X= (M1/M2)^(1/4), where M1 is the initial mass of the rocket (which includes the fuel) and M2 the final mass. This is because we must accelerate to the gamma factor, and then change the direction of the velocity, which is equivalent to changing the velocity to zero and then back to the sama gamma factor but with the velocity in the opposite direction.

Then, when we reach Earth we must reduce the velocity to zero. If we want to travel at the same gamma factor during the trip, then the mass ratio's before and after the boosts must be the same each time, so X^4 = M1/M2


Now, we can play the following game. Suppose we have an anti-matter factory that produces anti-matter at a constant rate. We want to travel to some far away place, so we need a lot of antimatter. But, unfortunately, that takes a long time. An obvious strategy is to use some of the produced anti-matter to make small excursions. When we return form an excursion more time has passed in the frame of the factory, so we have a lot of anti-matter. If we do this right, we have more anti-matter than we would have had, had we stayed home despite using some for the excursion.

Now, if I remember correctly, it turns out that you can reduce the proper time you need to wait before you have the desired amnount of anti-matter be a factor of order Log(T/t), where T is the time needed to produce the anti-matter in the rest frame of the factory and t is the time needed to produce an amount of anti-matter equal to the mass of the rocket.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Chris Hillman said:
I forgot to mention that the bottomless fuel supply is an extremely dubious aspect regarding any proposal to accelerate a spaceprobe to near the speed of light using a conventional rocket engine.

No, but planetary lasers are the next best thing.
 
  • #33
Count Iblis said:
C'mon, this is supposed to be the best theoretical physics forum on the entire internet. "Google relativistic calculator"
You think the OP would rather have a half screen of calculation that leads to a single answer than be shown a tool where he can play to his heart's content?
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
You think the OP would rather have a half screen of calculation that leads to a single answer than be shown a tool where he can play to his heart's content?


The relativistic calculators only give the formulae for the gamma factor as a function of velocity. Trivial stuff. And without knowledge of relativity you wouldn't be able to see that the gamma factor is simply 1/2 [X + X^(-1)] where X is the mass ratio before and after the burning of the anti-matter fuel. So, a 10^6 kg spacecraft carrying 10^6 kg antimatter fuel can reach a gamma factor of
(1/2)(2 + 1/2) = 1.25. And note that this formula was derived above in 13 (small) lines. The derivation was so simple that you can imagine doing it in your head without paper and pencil.

So, who needs the "relativistic calculator" :smile:
 
  • #35
I heard a theory that black holes exist on Earth, like really really tiny ones I read something about it being someone's theory when I read something about people contemplating making really really tiny black holes in a collider
um does anyone know about the theory about really small black holes already existing on Earth?
 
  • #36
bioquest said:
I heard a theory that black holes exist on Earth, like really really tiny ones I read something about it being someone's theory when I read something about people contemplating making really really tiny black holes in a collider
um does anyone know about the theory about really small black holes already existing on Earth?

That "theory" isn't supported by evidence. No black holes have been created at RHIC, and none have been created by highly energetic cosmic rays that are hundreds of TeV in energy, which are at least an order of magnitude higher than anything the LHC can ever get to.

Zz.
 
  • #37
Doesn't that theory involve quantum mechanics where anti-particles and particles are randomly created by quantum probability "jitters" that then almost immediately annihilate each other, momentarily making really tiny black holes? Or and I confusing theories with each other?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K