Time measured by free-fall observer near object?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the time measured by an observer in free-fall near a massive object, exploring the implications of the Schwarzschild metric and the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. Participants examine the proper time intervals experienced by free-fall observers in different gravitational contexts, including both stationary and co-moving frames.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Schwarzschild metric and derives the proper time for a stationary observer, then seeks to adapt this for a free-fall observer, suggesting that their time element must be modified accordingly.
  • Another participant confirms the agreement of their calculations with the four-velocity of a LeMaitre free-faller.
  • A participant introduces the FRW metric and argues that the proper time for co-moving observers should be conformal time rather than cosmological time, based on their reasoning about local inertial frames.
  • Some participants challenge the assertion regarding proper time in the co-moving frame, suggesting that dividing the line interval leads to a different conclusion about the relationship between dt and dτ.
  • Further clarification is requested by participants who express uncertainty about the calculations and seek elaboration on the algebraic steps involved.
  • One participant provides a simplified version of the calculations, asserting that for a co-moving frame with zero spatial velocity, the relationship dt/dτ equals 1 holds true.
  • A later reply confirms the correctness of this calculation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the proper time intervals for free-fall observers, particularly in the context of the FRW metric. While some calculations are confirmed, there remains contention regarding the interpretation and implications of these results, indicating unresolved disagreements.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the metrics and conditions of free-fall observers are not fully explored, and the discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps that could affect the conclusions drawn by participants.

johne1618
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
What is the time measured by an observer who is in free-fall near an object?

The Schwarzschild metric is given by:

[itex]\large c^2 d\tau^2 = (1 - \frac{r_s}{r}) c^2 dt^2 - ( 1 - \frac{r_s}{r})^{-1} dr^2 - r^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2)[/itex]

Now for an observer at a fixed position one uses:

[itex]dr = d\theta = d\phi = 0[/itex]

To give an element of proper time as:

[itex]\large d\tau = \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r}} dt[/itex]

This is a time interval experienced by an observer who is stationary in the object's gravitational field.

But I want the time measured by a free-fall observer so I can't assume that his position is fixed.

Perhaps this is how to do the calculation.

I work out the world line for a radial light beam using:

[itex]d\tau = d\theta = d\phi = 0[/itex]

Substituting into the above Schwarzschild metric I find the worldline of a lightbeam given by

[itex]\large (1 - \frac{r_s}{r}) \ c \ dt = dr[/itex]

Now a free-fall observer experiences a flat spacetime locally. He must use a time element [itex]d\tau[/itex] such that a light beam's worldline is diagonal so that

[itex]\large c \ d\tau = dr[/itex]

Therefore his time element must be:

[itex]\large d\tau = (1 - \frac{r_s}{r}) \ dt[/itex]

Does this make sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The four velocity of the LeMaitre free-faller is
[tex] U=\left(\frac{r}{r-2\,m}, -\frac{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{m}}{\sqrt{r}} , 0 , 0\right)[/tex]
which agrees with your result.
 
Mentz114 said:
The four velocity of the LeMaitre free-faller is
[tex] U=\left(\frac{r}{r-2\,m}, -\frac{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{m}}{\sqrt{r}} , 0 , 0\right)[/tex]
which agrees with your result.

Great - thanks!

I'm also interested in calculating the correct time interval we should use with the Friedmann Walker metric

[itex]\large ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t) [ \frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2} + r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)][/itex]

As co-moving observers we are also in free-fall.

Thus using [itex]ds = d\theta = d\phi = 0[/itex]

The worldline of a radial light beam is given by

[itex]\large \frac{dt}{a(t)} = \frac{dr}{1-kr^2}[/itex]

Thus the interval of proper time [itex]d\tau[/itex] for a co-moving observer with a locally flat spacetime (assuming k is small) is given by

[itex]\large d\tau = \frac{dt}{a(t)}[/itex]

which I believe is called an interval of conformal time.

I think many people believe we should use cosmological time [itex]t[/itex] as our proper time but according to the above reasoning that is not correct because we are in free-fall (in a local inertial frame) and therefore our proper time is conformal time.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that's right. If you divide the line interval by dτ2 and set the spatial velocities to zero you get dt/dτ = 1 for this co-moving frame.
 
Mentz114 said:
I don't think that's right. If you divide the line interval by dτ2 and set the spatial velocities to zero you get dt/dτ = 1 for this co-moving frame.

Could you elaborate a little more?
 
Last edited:
I can't eleborate without doing the simple algebra and tex'ing it up which I don't have time for. Get a pencil, paper and eraser and do as I suggested. If you have a problem then you could ask about specifics. Remember that ds=dτ.
 
Last edited:
Ok - this is what I think you did.

For simplicity starting with the FRW metric with k=0 and only radial spatial component:

[itex]\large d\tau^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2 dr^2[/itex]

divide through by [itex]d\tau^2[/itex]

[itex]\large 1 = \frac{dt^2}{d\tau^2} - a(t)^2 \frac{dr^2}{d\tau^2}[/itex]

For a co-moving frame spatial velocity is zero so

[itex]\large \frac{dr}{d\tau} = 0[/itex]

Therefore

[itex]\large \frac{dt}{d\tau} = 1[/itex]

Is this right?
 
Your calculation is correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K