Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity and acceleration

  1. May 25, 2008 #1
    general relativity says that gravity and acceleration produce the same effects but when an object accelerates its possible for distant clocks to appear to move backwards. gravitational time dilation doesnt do that.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2008 #2

    An observer that is stationary with respect to a gravitational body feels constant proper acceleration over time. YOu would have to show that the effect you describe would be observed by an observer that experiences constant proper acceleration due to artificial acceleration in order to support your argument.

    Could you also make it clear if by "clocks appear to move backward" you meant clocks appear to tick backwards showing time reversal or if you meant clocks literally move or recede away from the observer.
     
  4. May 25, 2008 #3
    if you have a long line of synchronized clocks and a stationary observer that begins to accelerate at a constant rate then the clocks will become more and more out of synch. those on one side will move forward while those on the other side will move backward (at the same time all clocks are moving forward at some rate).
     
  5. May 25, 2008 #4
    Well the equivalent situation would be a stationary observer in a gravitational field on the top of a tall tower that drops a long rod with clocks attached to it so that the rod is free falling. That is what you would have to analyse.

    It is not the usual situation of a stationary observer in gravitational field observing that are stationary with respect to him but at different altitudes.

    You will also have to make it clear that whether you mean the observer would literally see one of the clocks running backwards in time or just calculates that the clock is running backwards in time if he could see it.

    You should probably draw some sort of Minkowski space/time diagram to illustrate what you mean. It can be shown that observers accelerate in a rocket will see an artificial event horizon behind them and if they "drop" an object it will fall behind the horizon and they will no longer be able to see it until they stop accelerating. It is likely that the observer you describe "sees" some clock as running backwards he will actually see some sort of event horizon where the clocks change from running forward to running backwards so he will not actually be able to see the clcoks running backwards, but only be able to calculate or imagine that they are running backwards.

    However, I can show that relativity predicts that a clock low down in a strong gravitational field will be running backwards relative to a clock high up in the gravity field and I am not talking about a massive body that is so dense that it is a black hole. Whether the high observer will actually see the low clock running backwards depends on how light travels in a zone where time is running backwards and also on how mass and gravity behave in a negative time zone. That area is not well explored.
     
  6. May 25, 2008 #5
    That's news to me. Where did you get this idea from? I never heard of it before myself. Thanks.

    Pete
     
  7. May 25, 2008 #6
    let me rephrase.

    you have a stationary observer and a long line of stationary clocks that are all synchronized. as the observer begins to accelerate at a constant rate the clocks which remain stationary will begin to get more and more out of synch from the observers point of view. the clocks in front of the observer will seem to him to tick faster but the clocks behind him will tick slower. clocks that are very far behind him will even seem to him to move backwards even after he corrects for time of flight of the light from the clock.

    just wondering what sort of gravity field would produce that effect.
     
  8. May 26, 2008 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You are not describing a physical effect; you are describing a coordinate effect. (The fact that you're using the word 'synchronized' should be a big clue)
     
  9. May 26, 2008 #8
    Earth is a good example, if you are stationary above the Earth then anything above you will appear to run faster and anything below you will appear to run slower.
     
  10. May 26, 2008 #9
    yes. but nothing runs backward. at least not from the point of view of anyone that is moving at a constant velocity.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  11. May 26, 2008 #10
    what are you saying? that the clocks dont really run backward in time? well duh!

    the effect of gravity is supposed to be indistiguishable from the effect of acceleration. i am just wanting to know how that is.
     
  12. May 26, 2008 #11
    i guess that must be the idea behind an event horizon. its the point at which time stops and beyond which time actually begins to move backward.

    i guess so anyway.
     
  13. May 26, 2008 #12
    and they will no longer be able to see it until they stop accelerating.

    why? the light from the clock is always moving faster than they are.
     
  14. May 26, 2008 #13
    I think he is simply mistaken, time does obviously not run backward in acceleration scenarios.
     
  15. May 26, 2008 #14

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm saying phrases like:
    "distant clocks to appear to move backwards"
    "synchronized clocks"
    "stationary observer"
    "clocks will become more and more out of synch"

    have no physical meaning, and there is no such thing as an "observer's point of view". There are only coordinate charts, and how things look relative to a coordinate chart.

    That means if your observer uses the same method to 'correct for time of flight of the light from the clock', he will get the same result in either circumstance.


    Incidentally, the equivalence principle is only assumed to work on small scales.
     
  16. May 26, 2008 #15
    Clocks behind him will not run backwards. They will simply run slower, which is quite different.
    Any gravitational field for which the time-time component of the metric tensor has different values at the different locations.
     
  17. May 26, 2008 #16
    well lets see if i am mistaken. you start with a long line of stationary synchronized clocks and a stationary observer. the stationary observer accelerates almost instantly to a very high speed, say gamma=10. when he is done the clocks will appear to him to be severely out of synch but the clock he is next to will still read nearly the same time that it read before. the clocks on one side of that clock will read something higher than that clock and the clocks on the other side will read something less than that clock and the further away they are the more they differ from that clock. the difference in time being proportional to the distance. so even though all the clocks are moving forward at some rate, eventually if you go far enough away you must come to a clock that is running backward from the point of view of the accelerating observer.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  18. May 26, 2008 #17

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Time running backwards" refers to the situation when, in a coordinate chart, the reading on a clock runs in the opposite direction than its time coordinate.

    One of the conventions1 in special relativity for choosing a coordinate chart2 in which a noninertial observer is stationary has this feature.


    1: I emphasize this word for the original poster's sake
    2: Actually a mild generalization of the notion of coordinate chart; the convention I'm referring to allows multiple coordinate-tuples to refer to the same event in space-time.
     
  19. May 26, 2008 #18

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm confused; physical quantities are, by definition, frame independent. Time dilation, for example, is not a physical quantity. (Of course, the proper time experienced by an observer between two specified events in space-time is a physical quantity)
     
  20. May 26, 2008 #19

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What does "stationary" mean? What does "synchronized" mean?

    What does "appear out of sync" mean?


    I'm not trying to be argumentative; I really believe that either:
    1. You do not know what those terms really mean, and have developed a malformed intuition for them that impairs your understanding
    2. You do know what those terms mean, but you are being sloppy and haven't thought it through, and have made mistakes
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  21. May 26, 2008 #20
    stationary and synchronized within the frame of reference of the observer before he begins to accelerate.

    exactly what it usually means.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Gravity and acceleration
  1. Accelerating Gravity (Replies: 12)

  2. Gravity and Acceleration (Replies: 12)

Loading...