Is Gravitational Time Dilation Symmetrical Like Velocity-Based Time Dilation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johann1301
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitational
johann1301
Messages
216
Reaction score
1
Ive heard that; when astronaunts look down at civilization, they see everything as if it was going in slow motion. This makes sense becouse of gravitational time-dilation. But i wonder: if we could see up at the astronauts - and let's say they had a big civilization up there which we could see just as clear as they can see ours - would we see things up there going faster or slower?

I know that when it comes to timedilation from moving fast, then both observers observe the same thing! (time goes slower in the train for the man standing on the passing field, but time goes slower on the field for the man sitting in the train)

*I wonder if this is the case for gravitational time dilation also;)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Its not. Inertial Time Dilation is symmetric (both observers see the other's time moving slower), but gravitational time dilation is not (one observer will see the other's time moving slower, that observer will see the other's time moving faster).
 
Thanks;)
 
If you can say that "Inertial Time Dilation is symmetric" Can you then say that: Gravitational Time Dilation is asymmetric?

Or is there perhaps some other word that neatly explains the difference?
 
You can do this.
In other words, you can say "gravitational time dilation is absolute", as it does not depend on the frame of the observer, while "time dilation from relative velocity is relative", as it depends on the observer.

Oh, and keep in mind that
johann1301 said:
they see everything as if it was going in slow motion
is a really small effect. You can measure it with atomic clocks, and I think one year in space gives several microseconds of gravitational time dilation. In addition, no astronaut was above the low Earth orbit for more than a few days (Apollo missions). In low Earth orbit, the velocity-related time dilation dominates.
 
mfb said:
You can do this.
In other words, you can say "gravitational time dilation is absolute", as it does not depend on the frame of the observer, while "time dilation from relative velocity is relative", as it depends on the observer.

This is a little imprecise. Gravitational time dilation is asymmetric for static observers (I assume you know this). Static observers are special, non-inertial observers, and can only be unambiguously defined in special solutions of the EFE.

For two arbitrary observers, the ability to separate gravitational and kinematic time dilation in any well defined manner depends on the existence of colocated static frames - which is possible only in very restricted solutions of EFE.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Back
Top