Relationship between gravitational time dilation and energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between gravitational time dilation and energy, particularly in the context of clocks and atomic systems near massive objects. Participants explore theoretical implications, mathematical formulations, and the nuances of measurements in different gravitational potentials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the Schwarzschild metric to describe how a clock's rate slows down near a massive object, suggesting a relationship between time dilation and energy.
  • One participant posits that as a clock descends into a gravitational well, its energy at infinity decreases, which they argue is proportional to the gravitational time dilation experienced by the clock.
  • Another participant introduces a nonrelativistic approximation of the Schwarzschild metric, indicating that potential energy and kinetic energy influence the rate of time dilation in opposite ways.
  • There is a suggestion that the energy of an atomic system near a massive object is perceived to be less compared to a similar system far away, although local measurements would show no change in energy.
  • Some participants express uncertainty regarding the definition and measurement of the frequency of atomic systems in a gravitational field, referencing external sources that indicate controversy on the topic.
  • One participant discusses the concept of a standing wave of an electron and how gravitational effects might alter its frequency, raising questions about the implications of such changes on measurements made from different gravitational potentials.
  • Another participant cautions that combining quantum mechanics with gravity introduces complexities and emphasizes that local measurements remain consistent regardless of gravitational influence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of gravitational time dilation for energy, particularly regarding atomic systems. There is no consensus on the relationship between frequency changes and gravitational effects, and the discussion remains unresolved on several points.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that local measurements of systems in gravitational fields do not reflect the effects of gravitational time dilation, which only become apparent when viewed from different positions in the gravitational potential. The discussion highlights the complexities involved in relating quantum mechanics to general relativity.

jcap
Messages
166
Reaction score
12
The rate that a stationary clock slows down near a massive object, relative to one far away, can be read off from the Schwartzschild metric:
$$c^2d\tau^2=\left(1-\frac{r_s}{r}\right)c^2dt^2-\left(1-\frac{r_s}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2-r^2\left(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2\right)$$
by setting ##dr=d\theta=d\phi=0## to give:
$$\frac{d\tau}{dt}=\left(1-\frac{r_s}{r}\right)^{1/2}$$
where the Schwartzschild radius ##r_s=2GM/c^2##.

If the clock is running slowly compared to a distant clock is this equivalent to the clock having a lower energy compared to a distant clock?

If the clock was an atomic system then the frequency of its oscillation would be less near the massive object. As energy is proportional to frequency for atomic systems then I would have thought that this would imply that the energy of the atomic system would be less near the massive object than it was far away.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let the energy at infinity of a clock be E.

When we start lowering said clock into a gravity well, its energy at infinity starts decreasing, energy at infinity of the clock will be proportional to the gravitational time dilation of the clock.

That is not controversial.On the other hand according to Wikipedia there is some controversy about the frequency of an atomic system in a gravity well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave_clock
 
jcap said:
If the clock is running slowly compared to a distant clock is this equivalent to the clock having a lower energy compared to a distant clock?
Gravitational time dilation is directly related to the gravitational potential and thus potential energy.
 
jcap said:
If the clock is running slowly compared to a distant clock is this equivalent to the clock having a lower energy compared to a distant clock?

Here's a nonrelativistic approximation (low speeds, weak gravitational fields) to the Schwarzschild metric for a clock of mass m near a planet of mass M:

\frac{d \tau}{dt} = 1+ \frac{1}{mc^2} [- \frac{1}{2} mv^2 - \frac{GMm}{r}]

The factor of m cancels, so it's sort of pointless to put it in, except to compare with the Newtonian kinetic energy and potential energy:

K = \frac{1}{2} mv^2: Kinetic energy
U = -\frac{GMm}{r}: Potential energy

So in terms of these:

\frac{d \tau}{dt} = 1 + \frac{1}{mc^2} (U - K)

So what that means is that clocks with greater U (higher potential energy) run faster, but clocks with greater K (higher kinetic energy) run slower (because there is a minus sign in front of it. So kinetic energy and potential energy work in opposite directions, when it comes to time dilation.
 
jcap said:
I would have thought that this would imply that the energy of the atomic system would be less near the massive object than it was far away.

The energy of the system, relative to a similar system far away, is less near the massive object. Energy is relative. If you make a local measurement of the atomic system, you will find its energy unchanged. Only measurements made from far away, such as measuring the redshift of light from the atomic system near the massive object when the light is received far away, will show a difference.
 
jartsa said:
according to Wikipedia there is some controversy about the frequency of an atomic system in a gravity well

After reading this article, I'm not clear on exactly what is meant by "the frequency of an atomic system". What actual measurements are supposed to tell us this frequency?
 
PeterDonis said:
After reading this article, I'm not clear on exactly what is meant by "the frequency of an atomic system". What actual measurements are supposed to tell us this frequency?

I don't know any quantum mechanics, but somehow we know the frequency of a standing wave of an electron in a box.

Electron in a box is some kind of standing wave. Let's move the box some distance, this causes the standing wave to become a propagating wave for a while. After this operation the standing wave is supposed to be in different phase compared to the alternative where we let the box stay still. It's like we temporarily slowed down the standing wave. We bring a large mass near a box that contains an electron, this causes some energy to be sucked out of the standing wave of the electron, which causes a decrease of the frequency of the standing wave. Then we move the mass away, by doing so we increase the potential energy of the standing wave, which causes the frequency of the standing wave to increase to the original value. By this operation we affected the phase of the standing wave. We temporarily slowed down the standing wave.
 
jartsa said:
I don't know any quantum mechanics

Which means you are leaving out a lot of complications. Not only that, you are trying to combine quantum mechanics with gravity, which adds even more complications.

The short answer to your post is that, as far as GR is concerned, quantum systems are just like any other systems; gravitational time dilation does not show any local effects, it only shows up when you look at the system from a different position in the potential well. Local measurements made of an electron in a box deep in a gravity well will be the same as local measurements of an electron in a box far out in free space, away from the gravity well. If you make the electron in a box deep in a gravity well emit radiation somehow, that radiation will be redshifted if it is observed by someone far out in free space, away from the gravity well, just as any radiation would be. So as far as GR is concerned, this "phase of the standing wave" you are talking about is observer-dependent: it looks different to observers far away compared to local observers.

A longer answer would require you to spend some time studying all those complications of QM and QM + gravity that I referred to above. I would recommend doing that if you are interested in questions like this one; the complications are not trivial.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K