Understanding Gravitational Time Dilation in Classical Mechanics

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around concepts in classical mechanics, particularly focusing on the mathematical treatment of vectors and their derivatives in cylindrical coordinates, as well as the implications of gravitational time dilation in the context of special and general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the differentiation of vector components and question the dimensionality of cylindrical coordinates. There are attempts to clarify the application of the chain rule in vector calculus and discussions about the relationship between special relativity and gravitational time dilation.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on mathematical notation and differentiation techniques, while others are questioning assumptions about coordinate systems and the relationship between special and general relativity. Multiple interpretations of the concepts are being explored without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of self-study constraints and a desire to understand foundational concepts before progressing to more complex topics in relativity. Participants express uncertainty regarding the correctness of their assumptions and calculations related to time dilation.

sirius0
Messages
24
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am self studying Chow's Classical Mechanics. I have realized that I am at my best if I leave no stone unturned


Homework Equations


[tex]\hat e_t . \hat e_t = 1[/tex]
Understood

[tex]d(\hat e_t. \hat e_t)/dt =0[/tex]
Also understood

But [tex]2\hat e_t .d\hat e_t/dt=0[/tex]
Not understood (tex was first time too)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi sirius0! :smile:

(hmm … tex not bad :smile: … but you could use use \frac{}{} and \cdot :wink:)

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}(\hat e_t. \hat e_t)\ =\ 0[/tex]

Use the chain rule, then a.b = b.a:

[tex]\hat e_t \cdot\frac{d\hat e_t}{dt}\ +\ \frac{d\hat e_t}{dt} \cdot\hat e_t\ =\ 0[/tex] :smile:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi sirius0! :smile:

(hmm … tex not bad :smile: … but you could use use \frac{}{} and \cdot :wink:)

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}(\hat e_t. \hat e_t)\ =\ 0[/tex]

Use the chain rule, then a.b = b.a:

[tex]\hat e_t \cdot\frac{d\hat e_t}{dt}\ +\ \frac{d\hat e_t}{dt} \cdot\hat e_t\ =\ 0[/tex] :smile:

Oh thanks a good clue, explains where the two comes from! Pathetically I have to have a quick re-visit to the chain rule but at least I remember what it looked like and I think I can mop it up from here. Good tip on the tex too.
 
I am now up to pp 20 of Chow's book. I am puzzled as the text states for cylindrical coordinates that [tex] \hat r =p\hat e_p +z\hat e_z[/tex]. But I thought that any 3D coordinate system needed three dimensions. Should the above have been [tex] \hat r =p\hat e_p +z\hat e_z+\phi e_[/tex].
 
sirius0 said:
I am now up to pp 20 of Chow's book. I am puzzled as the text states for cylindrical coordinates that [tex] \hat r =p\hat e_p +z\hat e_z[/tex]. But I thought that any 3D coordinate system needed three dimensions. Should the above have been [tex] \hat r =p\hat e_p +z\hat e_z+\phi e_[/tex].

Hi sirius0! :smile:

I don't have the same book, but I assume that [itex]\hat{\bold{e}}_p[/itex] is two-dimensional and variable (just as [itex]\hat{\bold{r}}[/itex] is three-dimensional :wink:), and that only [itex]\hat{\bold{e}}_z[/itex] is fixed. :smile:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi sirius0! :smile:

I don't have the same book, but I assume that [itex]\hat{\bold{e}}_p[/itex] is two-dimensional and variable (just as [itex]\hat{\bold{r}}[/itex] is three-dimensional :wink:), and that only [itex]\hat{\bold{e}}_z[/itex] is fixed. :smile:
Understood progressing well for now...
Thank you.
 


The whole reason for my self study is in order to relearn SR and learn GR in an initial manner. The notation conventions and clear thinking were an issue so I turned back to classical mechanics. I have gotten distracted from this agenda on another forum and have been looking again at SR. I have a long path ahead WRT GR, tensors Riemann groups etc.
But as a result of the distraction I made an assumption regarding time dilation and gravity.
This is what I came up with using SR. Is it familiar or even right I wonder? Am I bordering on to GR via SR?

[tex]\Delta t \sqrt{\frac{GM}{rC^2}+1} = \Delta t'[/tex]
 
Just had a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation" . There is something of a resemblance but I don't appear to be right. However there must be something to be learned from this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K