Gravitational time dilation from two or four bodies

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating gravitational time dilation generated by multiple point masses, exploring how the presence of two, four, or more bodies affects the time dilation experienced by a test particle. The scope includes theoretical considerations and mathematical reasoning within the framework of general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents equations for gravitational time dilation from multiple point sources, questioning whether time dilation should remain constant regardless of how mass is distributed among bodies.
  • Another participant argues that the approach of multiplying gravitational time dilations is misleading due to the non-linear nature of general relativity.
  • A participant suggests that gravitational time dilation at the center of a shell should be equivalent to that of a point mass at the same distance, seeking a mathematical justification for this view.
  • One participant proposes that instead of using the multiplication method, the contributions to time dilation should be summed within the square root, referencing compatibility with the Schwarzschild metric.
  • Another participant expresses interest in literature references supporting the summation approach and discusses the structure of the Schwarzschild metric in relation to time dilation.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of applying the Schwarzschild metric to model multiple point masses, with one participant acknowledging the speculative nature of their reasoning.
  • A participant seeks insights into the gravitational time dilation due to two black holes at rest relative to each other, noting the unresolved nature of the general two-body problem in general relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of various approaches to calculating gravitational time dilation, with no consensus reached on the correct method or interpretation of the results.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their approaches, including the non-linear characteristics of general relativity and the unresolved nature of the two-body problem, which may affect the applicability of their proposed methods.

shalayka
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
How would one go about calculating (as a first-order approximation) the gravitational time dilation generated by multiple point sources?

When generated by one point source (M = 1\cdot10^{25}, r = 1, t = 1), I've got it down to:

<br /> \tau = t \cdot \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} \approx 0.992546\;\;(eq.1)<br />

For two bodies equidistant from the test particle (each contains half the total mass), I've tried the following:

<br /> \tau = t \cdot \sqrt{1 - \frac{2G(M/2)}{rc^2}} \cdot \sqrt{1 - \frac{2G(M/2)}{rc^2}} = t \cdot \left(1 - \frac{2G(M/2)}{rc^2} \right) \approx 0.992574\;\;(eq.2)<br />

For four:

<br /> \tau = t \cdot \left(1 - \frac{2G(M/4)}{rc^2} \right)^2 \approx 0.992588\;\;(eq.3)<br />

For six:

<br /> \tau = t \cdot \left(1 - \frac{2G(M/6)}{rc^2} \right)^3 \approx 0.992592\;\;(eq.4)<br />

Is this correct, or should \tau be constant regardless if the mass is split into 1, 2, 4 or 6 equidistant bodies? Ex:

<br /> \tau = t \cdot \sqrt{1 - \frac{2G({\rm Total\;Mass})}{({\rm Average\;Distance})c^2}} \approx 0.992546\;\;(eq.5)<br />

I've always wondered about this.

The reason I wonder is because I know that in between two points of equal mass (or inside of a thin homogeneous ring or shell) it is found that \frac{d\tau}{dr} = 0 (no acceleration), and I was curious to know if \tau = \rm constant if the total mass for the points and shell and ring are equal. If that is the case, then (eq.5) is correct.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think in relation to what you do (multiplying gravitational time dilations) the term first-order approximation is a misnomer here. As general relativity is a non-linear theory this approach does not make any sense.
 
MeJennifer said:
I think in relation to what you do (multiplying gravitational time dilations) the term first-order approximation is a misnomer here. As general relativity is a non-linear theory this approach does not make any sense.

Do you know of an approach that makes sense for calculating the gravitational time dilation experienced by a test particle at the centre of a shell (of radius r)?

My common sense says that the gravitational time dilation would be identical to the situation where the shell was changed into a single point particle, and the test particle is at a distance of r. I'm just trying to find a way to show this mathematically I suppose.

Either way, thank you for confirming that the multiplication method does not work. That's what I was suspecting. It doesn't seem to make much sense that the calculation would be related to the number of individual bodies.
 
Last edited:
shalayka said:
Is this correct, or should \tau be constant regardless if the mass is split into 1, 2, 4 or 6 equidistant bodies? Ex:

<br /> \tau = t \cdot \sqrt{1 - \frac{2G({\rm Total\;Mass})}{({\rm Average\;Distance})c^2}} \approx 0.992546\;\;(eq.5)<br />

I think your eq. 5 is not far off, except that you should rather sum the specific contributions inside the square root, e.g.

<br /> d\tau = dt \sqrt{1 - \frac{2G}{c^2}\left(\frac{m_1 }{r_1}+\frac{m_2 }{r_2} + ...\right)}<br />

I've used this before, based upon its compatibility with the Schwarzschild metric, where gravitational and velocity time dilations can be summed like this inside the square root.
 
Jorrie said:
I've used this before, based upon its compatibility with the Schwarzschild metric, where gravitational and velocity time dilations can be summed like this inside the square root.
Any references to the literature?
 
Jorrie said:
I think your eq. 5 is not far off, except that you should rather sum the specific contributions inside the square root, e.g.

<br /> d\tau = dt \sqrt{1 - \frac{2G}{c^2}\left(\frac{m_1 }{r_1}+\frac{m_2 }{r_2} + ...\right)}<br />

I've used this before, based upon its compatibility with the Schwarzschild metric, where gravitational and velocity time dilations can be summed like this inside the square root.

MeJennifer said:
Any references to the literature?

No, I've taken a "leap of faith" and I would like here the criticisms based on the math. The Schwarzschild metric can be written (geometric units):


<br /> d\tau^2 = \left(1-2m/r - \frac{dr^2}{(1-2m/r)dt^2} - \frac{r^2 d\psi^2}{dt^2}\right) dt^2<br />

The first two terms represent the gravitational time dilation, while the last two terms represent radial and tangential (or transverse) velocity time dilations respectively. So, the "leap of faith" doesn't look totally unjustified...
 
Then what do you mean by: "based upon its compatibility with the Schwarzschild metric"? How do you reason you can use the Schwarzschild metric to model multiple spatially dispersed point masses?
 
MeJennifer said:
Then what do you mean by: "based upon its compatibility with the Schwarzschild metric"? How do you reason you can use the Schwarzschild metric to model multiple spatially dispersed point masses?

I did say it was a "leap of faith", which I only weakly motivated by the way the Schwarzschild metric's internal structure works.

I know that the general 2-body problem is not yet solved in GR. I was hoping that someone knows or could point to a solution for this highly restricted scenario - the gravitational time dilation (redshift factor dtau/dt as viewed from asymptotically flat space) due to two black holes (hypothetically) permanently at rest relative to each other. :-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K