Gravitational time dilation compensated by acceleration
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
I would like to compare the time indicated by two clocks: clock A is located at the top of a mountain, the clock B is in an helicopter flying stationnary at the same altitude than the clock A.
Clock A and B are at rest with each other and located at the same altitude. Clock A has a 0 proper acceleration, and clock B has a non zero proper acceleration (is it correct ?).
If we neglect the Earth rotation/tidal effects, does the general relativity predicts that both clocks will be equivalent thanks to the clock hypothesis ?
Why this simple experiment has never been done, instead of sending 2 planes in opposite directions with complex trajectories ?
Thank you!
general-relativity time-dilation
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to compare the time indicated by two clocks: clock A is located at the top of a mountain, the clock B is in an helicopter flying stationnary at the same altitude than the clock A.
Clock A and B are at rest with each other and located at the same altitude. Clock A has a 0 proper acceleration, and clock B has a non zero proper acceleration (is it correct ?).
If we neglect the Earth rotation/tidal effects, does the general relativity predicts that both clocks will be equivalent thanks to the clock hypothesis ?
Why this simple experiment has never been done, instead of sending 2 planes in opposite directions with complex trajectories ?
Thank you!
general-relativity time-dilation
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I am curious why you come to your original assumption: There are two close-by objects which are not moving relative to each other. How could one be accelerated while the the other one is not? Is it that the one on the mountain is suspended by solid matter while the one in the helicopter is (at least indirectly) suspended by gaseous matter? That should not, well, matter. Is it that the helicopter must burn fuel in order to stay aloft? It is a bit unintuitive, but there is no energy transferred to or from the object; it is all wasted by heating the air.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Feb 12 at 2:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to compare the time indicated by two clocks: clock A is located at the top of a mountain, the clock B is in an helicopter flying stationnary at the same altitude than the clock A.
Clock A and B are at rest with each other and located at the same altitude. Clock A has a 0 proper acceleration, and clock B has a non zero proper acceleration (is it correct ?).
If we neglect the Earth rotation/tidal effects, does the general relativity predicts that both clocks will be equivalent thanks to the clock hypothesis ?
Why this simple experiment has never been done, instead of sending 2 planes in opposite directions with complex trajectories ?
Thank you!
general-relativity time-dilation
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
$endgroup$
I would like to compare the time indicated by two clocks: clock A is located at the top of a mountain, the clock B is in an helicopter flying stationnary at the same altitude than the clock A.
Clock A and B are at rest with each other and located at the same altitude. Clock A has a 0 proper acceleration, and clock B has a non zero proper acceleration (is it correct ?).
If we neglect the Earth rotation/tidal effects, does the general relativity predicts that both clocks will be equivalent thanks to the clock hypothesis ?
Why this simple experiment has never been done, instead of sending 2 planes in opposite directions with complex trajectories ?
Thank you!
general-relativity time-dilation
general-relativity time-dilation
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
asked Feb 11 at 15:39
François RitterFrançois Ritter
656
656
1
$begingroup$
I am curious why you come to your original assumption: There are two close-by objects which are not moving relative to each other. How could one be accelerated while the the other one is not? Is it that the one on the mountain is suspended by solid matter while the one in the helicopter is (at least indirectly) suspended by gaseous matter? That should not, well, matter. Is it that the helicopter must burn fuel in order to stay aloft? It is a bit unintuitive, but there is no energy transferred to or from the object; it is all wasted by heating the air.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Feb 12 at 2:31
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I am curious why you come to your original assumption: There are two close-by objects which are not moving relative to each other. How could one be accelerated while the the other one is not? Is it that the one on the mountain is suspended by solid matter while the one in the helicopter is (at least indirectly) suspended by gaseous matter? That should not, well, matter. Is it that the helicopter must burn fuel in order to stay aloft? It is a bit unintuitive, but there is no energy transferred to or from the object; it is all wasted by heating the air.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Feb 12 at 2:31
1
1
$begingroup$
I am curious why you come to your original assumption: There are two close-by objects which are not moving relative to each other. How could one be accelerated while the the other one is not? Is it that the one on the mountain is suspended by solid matter while the one in the helicopter is (at least indirectly) suspended by gaseous matter? That should not, well, matter. Is it that the helicopter must burn fuel in order to stay aloft? It is a bit unintuitive, but there is no energy transferred to or from the object; it is all wasted by heating the air.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Feb 12 at 2:31
$begingroup$
I am curious why you come to your original assumption: There are two close-by objects which are not moving relative to each other. How could one be accelerated while the the other one is not? Is it that the one on the mountain is suspended by solid matter while the one in the helicopter is (at least indirectly) suspended by gaseous matter? That should not, well, matter. Is it that the helicopter must burn fuel in order to stay aloft? It is a bit unintuitive, but there is no energy transferred to or from the object; it is all wasted by heating the air.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Feb 12 at 2:31
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Both clocks have the same proper acceleration. The calculation of the proper acceleration is described in What is the weight equation through general relativity? The proper acceleration for an object stationary at a distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth turns out to be:
$$ A = fracGMr^2frac1sqrt1-frac2GMc^2r $$
It makes no difference that one clock is stationary on a mountain at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth while the other is stationary in a helicopter at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth.
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wikipedia " Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero."... so gravitation causes a proper acceleration and this wikipedia page is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– François Ritter
Feb 11 at 16:42
3
$begingroup$
@FrançoisRitter that means an object falling freely under gravity has a zero proper acceleration. The objects in your question are being held stationary not falling freely.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Feb 11 at 16:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reference frames of clock $A$ and clock $B$ are equivalent. They are stationary with respect to the spacetime given by the earth mass/energy at the same radial coordinate. They measure a proper acceleration as the frames are not along a geodesic.
The time of clock $A$ and clock $B$ runs with the same rate.
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460163%2fgravitational-time-dilation-compensated-by-acceleration%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Both clocks have the same proper acceleration. The calculation of the proper acceleration is described in What is the weight equation through general relativity? The proper acceleration for an object stationary at a distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth turns out to be:
$$ A = fracGMr^2frac1sqrt1-frac2GMc^2r $$
It makes no difference that one clock is stationary on a mountain at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth while the other is stationary in a helicopter at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth.
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wikipedia " Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero."... so gravitation causes a proper acceleration and this wikipedia page is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– François Ritter
Feb 11 at 16:42
3
$begingroup$
@FrançoisRitter that means an object falling freely under gravity has a zero proper acceleration. The objects in your question are being held stationary not falling freely.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Feb 11 at 16:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both clocks have the same proper acceleration. The calculation of the proper acceleration is described in What is the weight equation through general relativity? The proper acceleration for an object stationary at a distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth turns out to be:
$$ A = fracGMr^2frac1sqrt1-frac2GMc^2r $$
It makes no difference that one clock is stationary on a mountain at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth while the other is stationary in a helicopter at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth.
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wikipedia " Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero."... so gravitation causes a proper acceleration and this wikipedia page is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– François Ritter
Feb 11 at 16:42
3
$begingroup$
@FrançoisRitter that means an object falling freely under gravity has a zero proper acceleration. The objects in your question are being held stationary not falling freely.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Feb 11 at 16:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both clocks have the same proper acceleration. The calculation of the proper acceleration is described in What is the weight equation through general relativity? The proper acceleration for an object stationary at a distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth turns out to be:
$$ A = fracGMr^2frac1sqrt1-frac2GMc^2r $$
It makes no difference that one clock is stationary on a mountain at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth while the other is stationary in a helicopter at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth.
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
$endgroup$
Both clocks have the same proper acceleration. The calculation of the proper acceleration is described in What is the weight equation through general relativity? The proper acceleration for an object stationary at a distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth turns out to be:
$$ A = fracGMr^2frac1sqrt1-frac2GMc^2r $$
It makes no difference that one clock is stationary on a mountain at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth while the other is stationary in a helicopter at the distance $r$ from the centre of the Earth.
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
answered Feb 11 at 16:40
John RennieJohn Rennie
277k44551797
277k44551797
$begingroup$
Wikipedia " Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero."... so gravitation causes a proper acceleration and this wikipedia page is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– François Ritter
Feb 11 at 16:42
3
$begingroup$
@FrançoisRitter that means an object falling freely under gravity has a zero proper acceleration. The objects in your question are being held stationary not falling freely.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Feb 11 at 16:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Wikipedia " Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero."... so gravitation causes a proper acceleration and this wikipedia page is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– François Ritter
Feb 11 at 16:42
3
$begingroup$
@FrançoisRitter that means an object falling freely under gravity has a zero proper acceleration. The objects in your question are being held stationary not falling freely.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Feb 11 at 16:44
$begingroup$
Wikipedia " Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero."... so gravitation causes a proper acceleration and this wikipedia page is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– François Ritter
Feb 11 at 16:42
$begingroup$
Wikipedia " Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero."... so gravitation causes a proper acceleration and this wikipedia page is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– François Ritter
Feb 11 at 16:42
3
3
$begingroup$
@FrançoisRitter that means an object falling freely under gravity has a zero proper acceleration. The objects in your question are being held stationary not falling freely.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Feb 11 at 16:44
$begingroup$
@FrançoisRitter that means an object falling freely under gravity has a zero proper acceleration. The objects in your question are being held stationary not falling freely.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Feb 11 at 16:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reference frames of clock $A$ and clock $B$ are equivalent. They are stationary with respect to the spacetime given by the earth mass/energy at the same radial coordinate. They measure a proper acceleration as the frames are not along a geodesic.
The time of clock $A$ and clock $B$ runs with the same rate.
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reference frames of clock $A$ and clock $B$ are equivalent. They are stationary with respect to the spacetime given by the earth mass/energy at the same radial coordinate. They measure a proper acceleration as the frames are not along a geodesic.
The time of clock $A$ and clock $B$ runs with the same rate.
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reference frames of clock $A$ and clock $B$ are equivalent. They are stationary with respect to the spacetime given by the earth mass/energy at the same radial coordinate. They measure a proper acceleration as the frames are not along a geodesic.
The time of clock $A$ and clock $B$ runs with the same rate.
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
$endgroup$
The reference frames of clock $A$ and clock $B$ are equivalent. They are stationary with respect to the spacetime given by the earth mass/energy at the same radial coordinate. They measure a proper acceleration as the frames are not along a geodesic.
The time of clock $A$ and clock $B$ runs with the same rate.
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
answered Feb 11 at 16:47
Michele GrossoMichele Grosso
1,890212
1,890212
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460163%2fgravitational-time-dilation-compensated-by-acceleration%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I am curious why you come to your original assumption: There are two close-by objects which are not moving relative to each other. How could one be accelerated while the the other one is not? Is it that the one on the mountain is suspended by solid matter while the one in the helicopter is (at least indirectly) suspended by gaseous matter? That should not, well, matter. Is it that the helicopter must burn fuel in order to stay aloft? It is a bit unintuitive, but there is no energy transferred to or from the object; it is all wasted by heating the air.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Feb 12 at 2:31