Geometry of Time Dilation

Click For Summary
The discussion explores a new derivation of time dilation formulas related to gravity and velocity, starting with gravitational time dilation and modifying it using the Schwarzschild radius. The author simplifies the gravitational formula to show a relationship between distance from a mass and time dilation. A parallel derivation for velocity time dilation is presented, leading to the conclusion that the two forms of time dilation can be equated under certain conditions, resulting in the relationship x = y². However, participants highlight that gravitational and velocity time dilation cannot be directly combined without using a specific formula for a moving clock in Schwarzschild spacetime. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of these concepts and the need for careful mathematical treatment.
mcjosep
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I was recently exploring time dilation from Gravity and from velocity and I came up with an interesting derivation that I have not seen before. I was wondering if there is a paper published showing these relationships like this before and where I could find it?

First you start with the gravitational time dilation formula where:

$$
T_1=Tsqrt(1-((2GM)/rc^2))
$$

and rather than entering r for the radius we replace r with the Schwarzschild radius formula ##((2GM)/C^2)x##
with an ##x## at the end representing how many Schwarzschild radii you are away from the center. This brings the formula to look like:

$$
T_1=Tsqrt(1-(2GM)/((((2GM)/c^2)x)c^2))
$$

Which when simplified breaks down to:

$$
T_1=Tsqrt(1-1/x)
$$

and if you make ##T=1## then you just get

$$
=sqrt(1-1/x)
$$

This is very similar to the one in many physics books ##=sqrt(1-r_0/r)## where ##r_0## is equal to the Schwarzschild radius and then r equals the radius from the center. The formula above it just makes it slightly simpler due to making ##r_0## equal to 1 and x equal to how many radii a point you are observing is from the center of the mass.

That is the gravitational time dilation side portion of this relationship. Now for the Velocity time dilation side we use a similar methodology and start with:

$$
T_0=Tsqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
$$

Now we make ##T## equal to 1, ##v## equal to 1, and ##c## to ##y## because now we are going to make ##c## a variable.

$$
T_0=sqrt(1-1/y^2)
$$

What you see now "##1/y^2##" is showing the velocity as a constant 1 and ##y## represents how much faster light is going than the velocity constant of 1. If the above were to show the fraction as ##1/5^2## then this would be the same as saying an object is going at a velocity 1/5th the velocity of light.
So now if we solve the velocity and gravitational time dilation formulas so that we can see how they dilate time to come up with the same result:

$$
sqrt(1-1/x)=sqrt(1-1/y^2)
$$

We can simplify this to

$$
x=y^2
$$

So let's say your radius from the center of the mass ##x## is equal to 4 Schwarzschild radii then the speed an object must move to get the same dilation due to velocity must be equal to half the speed of light since ##y## equals 2 and represents the speed of light going two times faster than the moving object.

I was pretty happy to see a seemingly simple yet complex set of formulas breakdown into one of the simplest algebraic formulas.

This can also be constructed geometrically as seen below:

[1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nSC7Y.jpg

The edge of the black circle represents the Schwarzschild radius and each point on the x-axis is another radii away from the center. The Y axis has points that are the square root of x.

Let me know what you think. Please check my math.

You can use the same methodology to break down other formulas as well.
Circular Orbit Velocity
$$
v=sqrt((GM)/r)
$$
Then add in the Schwarzschild radius formula for ##r## and get
$$
v=sqrt((GM)/(((2GM)/c^2)x)
$$
Which then simplifies to
$$
c/(sqrt(2)*sqrt(x))
$$
and again you can replace ##c## with 1 and now the formula will split out what percent the speed of light you are going.

This also works with orbital energy:
$$
E=c^2/4x
$$

Critical or escape velocity:

$$
v=c/sqrt(x)
$$

and that formula comes out with the same answer as ##y## in ##x=y^2## from the formulas above.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mcjosep said:
Please check my math.
There are a few mistakes.
mcjosep said:
we are going to make c a variable
c is a constant, not a variable.
mcjosep said:
So now if we solve the velocity and gravitational time dilation formulas so that we can see how they dilate time to come up with the same result:
You cannot set those two equations equal to each other since they cannot both be valid equations at the same time.
mcjosep said:
you can replace c with 1
You cannot do that since you already set v to 1 and v<c.
 
well you can make C a "variable" when the changing number still represents c. Its just a different way of looking at the formula.

and per your "cannot since you already set v to 1 and v<c" comment. I actually took v out of the question and replaced it with % of c.

You cannot have gravitational time dilation and time dilation from velocity at the same time?
 
mcjosep said:
You cannot have gravitational time dilation and time dilation from velocity at the same time?
Sure you can, but not using those formulas. The first formula applies to a clock which is stationary in the standard coordinates in Schwarzschild spacetime. The second formula applies to a clock which is moving in the standard coordinates in Minkowski spacetime.

If you want to consider both together then you need a formula which applies to a clock which is moving in Schwarzschild spacetime. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_due_to_gravitation_and_motion_together
 
Thats interesting that they do not work together yet the critical escape velocity formula works using the same logic from that derivative of x=y^2
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Train Fall Paradox A train is running on a long bridge over a river. A series of bombs planted on the bridge by terrorists explode simultaneously, and the bridge collapses into dust in an instant. The train falls while keeping its cars in a horizontal line and hits the river. All the cars receive equal damage. However, in the inertial frame of reference in which the train had been at rest, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the bombs at the front explode earlier. The first car falls...