What about the Big Ben Paradox?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Big Ben Paradox, which involves relativistic observations of time dilation and the implications for Earth's orbital velocity in relation to the sun. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of general relativity versus Newtonian mechanics, particularly in the context of a distant observer measuring the motion of Big Ben and the Earth.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario where a distant observer traveling at relativistic speeds measures Big Ben's time dilation and concludes that the Earth's orbital velocity is insufficient for a stable orbit.
  • Another participant argues that the claims made by the observer are mutually inconsistent, emphasizing that the Earth's geodesic path through curved spacetime is invariant and does not depend on the observer's frame of reference.
  • Some participants assert that the Newtonian approximation can be applied at non-relativistic velocities, suggesting that the results from Newtonian calculations are close enough to those from general relativity for practical purposes.
  • Others challenge the assertion that a lower observed orbital velocity implies the Earth cannot maintain a stable orbit, arguing that this interpretation arises from misapplying Newtonian principles in a relativistic context.
  • One participant insists that if Big Ben runs slow due to relativistic effects, then the Earth must also exhibit a corresponding reduction in its orbital velocity, framing this as a necessary condition of special relativity.
  • Another participant points out that the frame-dependent nature of velocities does not negate the Earth's ability to maintain a stable orbit, suggesting that the argument conflates different aspects of motion and reference frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the implications of relativistic effects on the Earth's orbit. There is no consensus on whether the claims made by the distant observer are valid or whether the application of Newtonian mechanics is appropriate in this scenario.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex interactions between relativistic effects and classical mechanics, with some assumptions remaining unexamined. The implications of spacetime curvature and the validity of different frames of reference are central to the debate.

  • #31
Orodruin said:
Indeed, but I would be surprised if anything but an actual derivation of the correct orbital rate will satisfy the OP
Well, he can do that for himself. In the full GR calculation the orbital period is likely to be a function of time anyway since (looking at it in Schwarzschild coordinates) the gravitational time dilation between the Earth and the infaller is changing. Unless it's possible to construct a coordinate system that cancels that out somehow.
Orodruin said:
The Lorentz transformations are generally fine. As they define a global coordinate transformation there is absolutely nothing stopping you from using them. The worst that can happen is that you might get into cases where a coordinate gets lightlike or similar.
Fair enough - what I'm doing is a valid global coordinate change that has local properties I want, but there are no guarantees that the global properties are friendly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ibix said:
Unless it's possible to construct a coordinate system that cancels that out somehow.
This sounds unlikely.

Remember, in GR, the Earth's orbit isn't even an ellipse. It's a rosette. What a "period" is is at least partially determined by convention. Hard to see how a coordinate change will hit on the right convention.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
  • #33
If I may ask a B level question here: What is the correlation with gamma equals 2 and the 730.5 Big Bens little hand revolutions for every revolution the earth makes around the sun?
 
  • #34
morrobay said:
If I may ask a B level question here: What is the correlation with gamma equals 2 and the 730.5 Big Bens little hand revolutions for every revolution the earth makes around the sun?
The little hand of a clock goes round twice per day, which is 730.5 times per year.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: morrobay
  • #35
PeroK said:
The little hand of a clock goes round twice per day, which is 730.5 times per year.
Then there seems a disconnect: With gamma of 2 and Big Ben running slow ,1/2 of the proper time of the traveling observer. Then how is the clock stated to be still running normally during the revolution around the sun ?
 
  • #36
morrobay said:
Then there seems a disconnect: With gamma of 2 and Big Ben running slow ,1/2 of the proper time of the traveling observer. Then how is the clock stated to be still running normally during the revolution around the sun ?
Big Ben is a clock. The orbit of the earth around the sun is a clock. All clocks are time dilated equally.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and morrobay
  • #37
morrobay said:
Then there seems a disconnect: With gamma of 2 and Big Ben running slow ,1/2 of the proper time of the traveling observer. Then how is the clock stated to be still running normally during the revolution around the sun ?
That's the definition of a year in the local reference frame of the solar system.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #38
This thread is closed.
As with all such thread closures, if there is something else to add you can PM any mentor to ask that it reopened for a new contribution.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd
  • #39
I wanted to add the actual GR math. The outcome of this is exactly as everyone who has any experience in GR said. Indeed, from first principles it could be no other way. But I had time yesterday to play around with this. All equations are using geometrized units where ##c=G=1##.

We start with the weak field metric in cylindrical coordinates: $$ds^2 = (1 - 2 U) dr^2 + (-1 - 2 U) dt^2 + (1 - 2 U) dz^2 + (r^2 - 2 r^2 U) d\phi^2 $$ with the standard gravitational potential in cylindrical coordinates $$ U=-\frac{M}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}} $$

Now, an object in orbit is in free-fall, so the worldline of the planet is a geodesic. To calculate the orbit of the earth we therefore calculate the geodesic using the equations described here. When we do so, we get the following equations: $$0 = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\frac{2 r^2 \left(z^2-2 M^2\right)
\ddot r+r \left(-z^2 \left(z^2-4
M^2\right) \ \dot \phi ^2-M \dot r^2 \left(2 M+3
\sqrt{r^2+z^2}\right)+M \dot z^2
\left(\sqrt{r^2+z^2}-2 M\right)+M
\left(\sqrt{r^2+z^2}-2
M\right)\right)+z \left(z
\left(z^2-4 M^2\right) \ddot r-4 M
\sqrt{r^2+z^2} \dot r
\dot z\right)+r^3 \ \dot phi^2 \left(M
\left(2 M+\sqrt{r^2+z^2}\right)-2
z^2\right)+r^4 \ddot r+r^5
\left(-\dot \phi
^2\right)}{\left(r^2+z^2\right)
\left(-4 M^2+r^2+z^2\right)} \\
\frac{2 \dot r \dot \phi \left(-4 M^2+r^2
\left(1-\frac{2
M}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}}\right)+z^2\right)
+r \left(\left(r^2-4 M^2\right) \ddot \phi
-\frac{4 M z \dot z \dot \phi
}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}}+z^2 \ddot \phi
\right)}{r \left(-4
M^2+r^2+z^2\right)} \\
\frac{r \left(r \left(r^2-4 M^2\right)
\ddot z-4 M \sqrt{r^2+z^2} \dot r
\dot z\right)+2 z^2 \left(r^2-2
M^2\right) \ddot z+M z \left(\dot r^2
\left(\sqrt{r^2+z^2}-2 M\right)-\dot z^2
\left(2 M+3
\sqrt{r^2+z^2}\right)+\left(\sqrt{r^
2+z^2}-2 M\right) \left(r^2 \dot \phi
^2+1\right)\right)+z^4
\dot z}{\left(r^2+z^2\right) \left(-4
M^2+r^2+z^2\right)} \\
\end{array}
\right) $$

To specifically find a circular orbit we can set ##z=0## and ##r=R## and ##\phi = d\phi \ t##. That simplifies the geodesic equation to: $$ 0=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\frac{-\text{d$\phi $}^2 M R^2-\text{d$\phi
$}^2 R^3+M}{2 M R+R^2} \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right) $$ so $$ {d\phi}=\frac{\sqrt{M}}{\sqrt{M
R^2+R^3}} $$

Solving for ##\phi = 2\pi## we get $$ t_{2\pi}=\frac{2 \pi \sqrt{R^2 (M+R)}}{\sqrt{M}} $$

Evaluating proper time along the worldline of the earth we get $$ \frac{{d\tau}}{{dt}}=\frac{\sqrt{-4
M^2-2 M R+R^2}}{\sqrt{M R+R^2}} $$ which we can integrate to get Big Ben's time over one year to get $$\tau_{2\pi} =\int_0^{t_{2\pi}} \frac{d\tau}{dt} dt = 2 \pi R \sqrt{-\frac{4 M}{R}+\frac{R}{M}-2} $$ Plugging in the mass of the sun ##M=1480## in geometrized units (meters) and the orbital radius of the Earth ##R=1.496 \ 10^{11}## we get the proper time ##\tau_{2\pi} = 9.45 \ 10^{15}## which is one year in geometrized units.

I will post the analysis in a moving frame in a separate post.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tomas Vencl, hutchphd, Klystron and 2 others
  • #40
OK, now adding the math for the other frame that the OP was going on about. We will boost along the cylindrical axis with the Lorentz transform in that direction so $$t=\frac{T-v Z}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$$ $$z=\frac{Z-v T}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$$ Note that the ##r## and ##\phi## coordinates are unchanged. Transforming the line element we get $$ds^2= {d}\phi ^2 \left(r^2-2 r^2
U\right)+{{d}r}^2 (1-2
U)+{{d}T}^2 \left(\frac{2 U
\left(v^2+1\right)}{v^2-1}-1\right)-\frac{8
{dT} {dZ} U
v}{v^2-1}+{dZ}^2
\left(\frac{2 U
\left(v^2+1\right)}{v^2-1}+1\right) $$ And transforming the potential we get $$U=-\frac{M}{\sqrt{r^2 + \left( \frac{Z-vT}{\sqrt{1-v^2}} \right)^2}}$$

With the line element determined in the boosted frame we simply apply the same math as before to obtain the geodesic equations in this frame. We get the following monstrosity (thank you Mathematica) $$0=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\frac{\left(v^2-1\right)^2 r \dot \phi^2
\left(-\frac{4 M^2
\left(v^2-1\right)}{(Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2}-1\right)+\frac{M \left(1-v^2\right)^3
r \dot r^2 \left(2 M \left(v^2-1\right)+4 v
\dot Z \sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}}-\left(v^2+3\right)
\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}}\right)}{\left((Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2\right)^2}-\frac{M \dot r (Z-T v)
\left(-\frac{2 M v \left(\left(v^2+1\right)
\dot Z^2-4 v
\dot Z+v^2+1\right)}{\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-
T v)^2}{v^2-1}}}+\dot Z \left(v
\left(v^2-3\right) \dot Z+4\right)+v
\left(v^2-3\right)\right)}{\left(r^2-\frac
{(Z-T v)^2}{v^2-1}\right)^{3/2}}+\frac{M
\left(v^2-1\right)^3 r^2\dot \phi^2
\left(\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}}-2 M\right) \left(v \dot r
(Z-T v)+\left(v^2-1\right)
r\right)}{\left((Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2\right)^2}-\frac{M v
\left(v^2-1\right)^3 \dot r^3 (T v-Z)
\left(\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}}-2 M\right)}{\left((Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2\right)^2}+\frac{M \left(1-v^2\right)^3
r \left(\left(v^2+1\right) \dot Z^2-4 v
\dot Z+v^2+1\right)
\left(\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}}-2 M\right)}{\left((Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2\right)^2}}{\left(v^2-1\right)^2
\left(\frac{4 M^2 \left(v^2-1\right)}{(Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2}+1\right)}+\ddot r \\
\frac{\dot \phi \left(\frac{4 M
\left(v^2-1\right)^2 r \dot r \left(v
\dot Z-1\right)}{\left((Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2\right)^{3/2}}+\frac{M (Z-T v)
\left(\frac{2 M v \left(-\left(v^2-1\right)
\dot r^2+\left(v^2+1\right) \dot Z^2-4 v
\dot Z+v^2+1\right)}{\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-
T v)^2}{v^2-1}}}+v \left(\left(v^2-1\right)
\dot r^2-v^2+3\right)-v \left(v^2-3\right)
\dot Z^2-4 \dot Z\right)}{\sqrt{1-v^2}
\left(r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}\right)^{3/2}}\right)-\left(1-v^2
\right)^{3/2} \ddot \phi \left(-\frac{4 M^2
\left(v^2-1\right)}{(Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2}-1\right)}{\left(1-v^2\right)^{3/2}
\left(\frac{4 M^2 \left(v^2-1\right)}{(Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2}+1\right)}+\frac{M v r^2 (T v-Z)
\dot \phi^3}{\left((Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right) r^2\right) \left(2
M+\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}}\right)}+\frac{2 \dot r \dot \phi
}{r} \\
\frac{\left(v \dot Z-1\right) \left(\frac{M
(Z-T v) \left(\frac{2 M
\left(\left(v^2-1\right)
\dot r^2+\left(v^2-1\right) r^2 \dot \phi
^2-\left(v^2+1\right) \dot Z^2+4 v
\dot Z-v^2-1\right)}{\sqrt{r^2-\frac{(Z-
T v)^2}{v^2-1}}}-\left(v^2-1\right)
\dot r^2-\left(v^2-1\right) r^2 \dot \phi
^2+v^2 \dot Z^2+4 v \dot Z-3 \dot Z^2-3
v^2+1\right)}{\sqrt{1-v^2}
\left(r^2-\frac{(Z-T
v)^2}{v^2-1}\right)^{3/2}}+\frac{4 M
\left(v^2-1\right)^2 r \dot r
\left(v-\dot Z\right)}{\left((Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2\right)^{3/2}}\right)}{\left(1-v^2\right)^{3/2} \left(-\frac{4 M^2
\left(v^2-1\right)}{(Z-T
v)^2-\left(v^2-1\right)
r^2}-1\right)}+\ddot Z \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$

Now, as before we will simplify this substantially by considering only circular orbits which will wind up as helical orbits in this frame. We will use ##r=R## and ##\phi = d\phi \ T## as before, but this time we will have ##Z=v T##. With these, the geodesic equation simplifies to $$ 0=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
-\frac{M \left(\text{d$\phi $}^2
R^2+v^2-1\right)+\text{d$\phi $}^2 R^3}{R (2
M+R)} \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right) $$

Solving for ##d\phi## we get $$ \text{d$\phi $}=\frac{\sqrt{M-M v^2}}{\sqrt{M
R^2+R^3}}$$ Note that this is slower than ##d\phi## in the other frame by a factor of ##1/\gamma=\sqrt{1-v^2}##. So in this frame the angular speed required to maintain a stable orbit (geodesic) is "dilated". This is the key fact that everyone with any experience in GR already knew.

We continue with the rest of the calculations. In this frame the time required to get to ##\phi=2\pi## is $$T_{2\pi}=\frac{2 \pi \sqrt{R^2 (M+R)}}{\sqrt{-M
\left(v^2-1\right)}}$$ which we see is also "dilated". Meaning that the year is longer relative to coordinate time ##T## in the boosted frame. And finally, we plug this back into the line element to find the proper time $$\frac{\text{d$\tau $}}{\text{dT}}=\sqrt{\frac{4
M^2 v^2}{R (M+R)}-\frac{4 M^2}{R
(M+R)}+\frac{2 M v^2}{M+R}-\frac{R
v^2}{M+R}-\frac{2 M}{M+R}+\frac{R}{M+R}}$$ and integrate it over the year to obtain $$\tau_{2\pi}= \int_0^{T_{2\pi}}\frac{d\tau}{dT} dT =2 \pi \sqrt{R \left(\frac{R^2}{M}-4 M-2
R\right)}$$ Which is the exact same expression for proper time as before, and substituting numbers gets the same numbers as before. So Big Ben measures the same amount of time in a year. Both the year and Big Ben are "dilated" the same, and the angular velocity required to maintain a stable orbit matches the actual angular velocity.

Edit: so what did we actually learn from this exercise? The conclusion was exactly as everyone but the OP said. Big Ben and the year both time dilate the same and the boosted velocity is the correct orbital velocity. Indeed, from first principles it could not be any other way. Any invariants must be the same in all frames. So the conclusion was guaranteed. What was actually tested by the above math was whether or not I can program Mathematica for GR calculations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: Tomas Vencl, Klystron, ersmith and 3 others
  • #41
Based on discussions with the OP elsewhere, it seems that even after the math above the OP still has the misunderstanding expressed here:

If the earth does not spiral into the sun then the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun has decreased by the factor 1/γ. From this it follows that spacetime curvature is not invariant, general relativity is wrong and starlight can't bend.

As shown above, the earth does not spiral into the sun in the boosted frame, and the orbit is time-dilated the same as Big Ben. However, the claim that this implies that spacetime curvature has decreased is false. This can be refuted by calculating a complete set of spacetime curvature invariants, such as the Carminati–McLenaghan invariants.

Here I evaluated all of the CM curvature invariants at ##R=1.496 \ 10^{11}## and ##M=1480## corresponding to the orbital radius of the earth and the mass of the sun respectively in geometrized units, as above. The boosted frame was boosted to ##v=0.6## and the curvature was evaluated at ##z=Z=T=0##. The curvature is not a function of either ##t## or ##\phi##.

$$\begin{array}{ c c c }
\text{Invariant} & \text{Sun's frame} & \text{Ship's frame} \\
\hline
R & 4.37 \ 10^{-38} & 4.37 \ 10^{-38} \\
R_1 & 6.26 \ 10^{-76} & 6.26 \ 10^{-76} \\
R_2 & -7.06 \ 10^{-114} & -7.06 \ 10^{-114} \\
R_3 & 2.05 \ 10^{-151} & 2.05 \ 10^{-151} \\
M_3 & 3.49 \ 10^{-136} & 3.49 \ 10^{-136} \\
M_4 & 1.38 \ 10^{-174} & 1.38 \ 10^{-174} \\
W_1 & 1.17 \ 10^{-60} + 1.17 \ 10^{-60} \ i & 1.17 \ 10^{-60} + 1.17 \ 10^{-60} \ i \\
W_2 & -5.18 \ 10^{-91} -5.18 \ 10^{-91} \ i & -5.18 \ 10^{-91} -5.18 \ 10^{-91} \ i \\
M_1 & -2.37 \ 10^{-106} - 2.37 \ 10^{-106} \ i & -2.37 \ 10^{-106} - 2.37 \ 10^{-106} \ i \\
M_2 & 3.49 \ 10^{-136} + 0 \ i & 3.49 \ 10^{-136} + 0 \ i\\
M_5 & -2.47 \ 10^{-166} + 0 \ i & -2.47 \ 10^{-166} + 0 \ i \\
\hline
\end{array}$$

This shows that the curvature is indeed invariant. Despite the changes to the components of the various tensors (including the curvature tensors), none of the invariants are changed (including the curvature invariants). This is a complete set of curvature invariants, so it completely characterizes the curvature tensor at the specified event.

That it must come out this way is a foregone conclusion from first principles, but it is good to see it demonstrated.

There are two additional facts that are worth noting with respect to this specific problem. First, the fact that all of these curvature invariants are very small supports the validity of the weak field approximation in the sun's frame. Second, the fact that they are the same in the ship's boosted frame shows that the boost is not an additional approximation. So, the weak field metric is a valid approximation in this problem, and the boost is not an additional approximation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeterDonis

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
9K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K