Equivalence of Time Dilation

In summary: Beyond that, the change in kinetic energy is proportional to the square root of the energy, while the change in potential energy is proportional to the energy itself.
  • #1
Chrisc
276
0
Is the time dilation between two frames at different distances from a mass equivalent by some constant of proportionality to the time dilation between two frames in relative motion?
For example: where r0 is the Schwarzschild radius and r is a radial coordinate greater than r0, this would be analogous to the time dilation at r0 wrt r is equivalent to a relative velocity of r0 and r.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The time dilation at Schwarzschild radial coordinate r from central mass M in the Schwarzschild solution can be read off from the standard metric as sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2), which is approximately equal to the expression (1-GM/rc^2). When this is multiplied by the mass of a test body, the "1" part corresponds to the original rest mass and the "-GM/rc^2" part corresponds to the Newtonian potential energy relative to infinity, which matches the effective decrease in rest mass due to time dilation.

For a test body which has fallen from rest at infinity down to the same radius, the Special Relativity time dilation due to its velocity at that point is the same factor. In Newtonian terms, this is because the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy, so the fraction of the rest mass which was lost because of potential energy has been added on again as kinetic energy.

The time dilation due to the gravitational potential or due to the corresponding velocity for falling from infinity can be compared at any two points at radial distances r_1 and r_2, and the fractional difference will be approximately (-GM/c^2) (1/r_1-1/r_2), matching the difference in the Newtonian potential. However, the velocity is approximately related to the square root of the energy, not the energy itself, so the difference in velocity between two points is not directly related to the relative time dilation between those points.
 
  • #3
Thanks Jonathan.
Would it then be correct to say the gravitaitonal time dilation between r_1 and r_2 would be approximately equal to a SR time dilation if one considers the gravitational acceleration of r_1 and r_2 resolved to a relative velocity between r_1 and r_2
In other words the fractional difference between the gravitational time dilation at r_1 and r_2, (-GM/c^2)(1/r_1-1/r_2), is approximately equal to the fractional difference in the time dilation of a test body at the instantaneous velocity of gravitational acceleration (from rest at infinity) at r_1 and r_2 wrt M?
 
  • #4
Chrisc,

I've worked out the exact formula for time dilation between two observers with radial separation and radial relative velocities in Schwarzschild space-time here

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=244511

In the case of the Schwarzschild solution the gravity part and the velocity part can be separated. The formula shows that the velocity part is much bigger than the gravity part. They are not caused by the same thing so comparisons are not hugely meaningful.

( My notation is a bit difficult so if you need to work out a particulat case, let me know)

M
 
  • #5
That's right provided that you realize that the relative time dilation due to velocity ONLY matches the change in gravitational time dilation in the special case where the velocity is assumed to be zero at infinity. In general, if you let a test object fall between two points, the change in velocity depends on the initial velocity at the first point, but the change in kinetic energy only depends on the difference in potential between the points.

If instead you think of the SR relative time dilation as being due to kinetic energy (which for non-relativistic speeds is proportional to v^2/2) instead of velocity then the change in kinetic energy (and hence the fractional change in SR time dilation factor) due to the gravitational field between any two points is equal to the change in potential energy (and hence the gravitational time dilation factor), and that applies regardless of the initial velocity. That's a simplified relativistic way of thinking about Newtonian gravity.
 
  • #6
My previous reply was of course to Chrisc's previous one; I must remember to make that clear.

Mentz114 said:
Chrisc,

I've worked out the exact formula for time dilation between two observers with radial separation and radial relative velocities in Schwarzschild space-time here

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=244511

In the case of the Schwarzschild solution the gravity part and the velocity part can be separated. The formula shows that the velocity part is much bigger than the gravity part. They are not caused by the same thing so comparisons are not hugely meaningful.

( My notation is a bit difficult so if you need to work out a particulat case, let me know)

M

I don't think that matches Chrisc's case, where we are talking about a test object falling past two observation points at different radii. In that case, for non-relativistic velocities and weak fields, the effect is as for Newtonian physics, in that the change in kinetic energy matches the change in potential energy.
 
  • #7
Mentz114 said:
Chrisc,

I've worked out the exact formula for time dilation between two observers with radial separation and radial relative velocities in Schwarzschild space-time here

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=244511


( My notation is a bit difficult so if you need to work out a particulat case, let me know)

M
As Jonathan said, this is not exactly what I had in mind. But in that it is an exact formula for calculating the difference between the two time dilations, I may take you up on your offer shortly when I clarify my idea to be correct or not.
 
  • #8
Jonathan Scott said:
That's right provided that you realize that the relative time dilation due to velocity ONLY matches the change in gravitational time dilation in the special case where the velocity is assumed to be zero at infinity. In general, if you let a test object fall between two points, the change in velocity depends on the initial velocity at the first point, but the change in kinetic energy only depends on the difference in potential between the points.

If instead you think of the SR relative time dilation as being due to kinetic energy (which for non-relativistic speeds is proportional to v^2/2) instead of velocity then the change in kinetic energy (and hence the fractional change in SR time dilation factor) due to the gravitational field between any two points is equal to the change in potential energy (and hence the gravitational time dilation factor), and that applies regardless of the initial velocity. That's a simplified relativistic way of thinking about Newtonian gravity.
Forgive me for paraphrasing your answers, I find it a reliable method of confirming my understanding of them.

So if I understand you, instead of thinking of the infinite extent of the field in order to directly relate the relative velocity of a test body's time dilation at two different radial coordinates (points), it is simpler to think of the change in kinetic energy of a test body at two different points as directly proportional to the change in gravitational potential at the same two points and therefore the potential energy of the test body. This allows a direct correlation of (non-relativistic) SR time dilation due to change in kinetic energy (regardless initial velocity) and the change of time dilation due to gravitational potential at the same two points?
 
  • #9
Chrisc said:
Forgive me for paraphrasing your answers, I find it a reliable method of confirming my understanding of them.

So if I understand you, instead of thinking of the infinite extent of the field in order to directly relate the relative velocity of a test body's time dilation at two different radial coordinates (points), it is simpler to think of the change in kinetic energy of a test body at two different points as directly proportional to the change in gravitational potential at the same two points and therefore the potential energy of the test body. This allows a direct correlation of (non-relativistic) SR time dilation due to change in kinetic energy (regardless initial velocity) and the change of time dilation due to gravitational potential at the same two points?

If I understand you, yes!
 

What is the concept of time dilation?

Time dilation is a phenomenon in which time appears to pass slower for an object or observer that is moving at high speeds or experiencing strong gravitational forces.

How is time dilation related to the theory of relativity?

Time dilation is a key concept in the theory of relativity, which states that time and space are relative and can be affected by factors such as speed and gravity.

What is the equation for calculating time dilation?

The equation for calculating time dilation is t = t0 / √(1 - v2/c2), where t is the time experienced by an observer, t0 is the time in the rest frame, v is the velocity of the object, and c is the speed of light.

What are some real-world examples of time dilation?

Some real-world examples of time dilation include the Global Positioning System (GPS), where satellite clocks have to be adjusted for the effects of both special and general relativity, and cosmic rays, which reach Earth's surface after traveling at near-light speeds and have a longer lifespan than expected due to time dilation.

What are the implications of time dilation for space travel?

Time dilation has significant implications for space travel, as it means that time passes slower for astronauts traveling at high speeds, making them age slower than people on Earth. This could potentially lead to astronauts experiencing a different time frame than people on Earth when they return from long space missions.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
664
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
529
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
502
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
88
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
247
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
1K
Back
Top