Understanding Gravitational Time Dilation in Classical Mechanics

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 3K views
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: