15

Assuming I have a hollow shell with total mass $M$ and radius $r$. On the surface, the gravitational time dilation would be

$$\tau=t \cdot \sqrt{1-\frac{v_{esc}^2}{c^2}}$$

where

$$v_{esc} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \cdot G \cdot M}{r}}$$

but inside the shell there would be no gravitational field (Newton's shell theorem and Birkhoff's theorem).

But still, the escape velocity required to escape to infinity would be the same as on the surface, since inside the shell you could move without any accelerating or decelerating forces acting on you until you reach the surface, from where you would get pulled backwards.

So is the time dilation inside the hollow shell relative to a field free observer at infinity

  1. zero (I assume it's not) or
  2. the same as on the surface (my best guess), or
  3. something completely different?

I found some not really duplicate but related threads on the interior of black holes which did not really focus on the math, but I am more behind the calculations in terms of $M$ and $r$.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Yukterez
  • 11,553

2 Answers2

10

For an asymptotically flat metric, the proper time measured by a "stationary" observer (defined here as one whose path through spacetime only has changing $t$, and no changing spatial coordinates) is $$ d \tau = \sqrt{ - g_{tt}} dt, $$ where $g_{tt}$ is the time-time component of the metric. For a "weak" gravitational field, this works out to be $$ g_{tt} \approx - \left( 1 + \frac{2 \Phi}{c^2} \right), $$ where $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, defined such that $\Phi \to 0$ as $r \to \infty$. Thus, $$ d \tau = \sqrt{ 1 + \frac{2 \Phi}{c^2}} dt. $$ In this form, it is pretty obvious that the time dilation factor is the same everywhere inside the shell, since $\Phi$ is a constant inside a hollow shell (compare the electrostatic equivalent if you're not convinced of this.)

Note that your formula, in terms of the escape velocity, is equivalent to this one if you define the escape velocity at any point as "the velocity for which the object's total energy is zero." (Zero total energy means, of course, that the particle can escape to infinity.) In this case, we have $$ \frac{1}{2} m v_\text{esc}^2 + m \Phi = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad v_\text{esc}^2 = - 2 \Phi $$ and your result above is recovered. In this interpretation, the "escape velocity" from inside a hollow sphere would be the same as the escape velocity from the surface: if we launch a projectile inside the shell, it will travel with constant velocity until it reaches the surface of the shell; and if we open a little porthole in the shell at that point for the projectile, it's as if we launched it from the surface with that same velocity.

  • 2
    Would the same conclusions still hold if the gravitational field was strong instead of weak? – untreated_paramediensis_karnik Jan 16 '16 at 18:29
  • Just to get it right: if I place a planet with a mass and radius corresponding to a gravitational time dilation factor of x inside a hollow shell which has (without the planet inside) a time dilation of factor y on its surface the new factor on the surface of the planet which is now inside the shell would be x*y, compared to an observer at infinity? – Yukterez Jan 16 '16 at 19:25
  • 2
    @no_choice99: it turns out that for the Schwarzschild metric the weak field expression using the Newtonian potential gives the correct answer, so Michael's conclusion is correct even for objects that are massive enough to be nearly black holes. However this isn't generally true. – John Rennie Jan 17 '16 at 11:33
  • @СимонТыран: I would rather say that if you have two Newtonian mass configurations, one of which yields time dilation factor $(1 + \delta)$ at a particular point on its own and the other of which yields a factor $(1 + \epsilon)$, then the combined time dilation factor would be $(1 + \delta + \epsilon)$. This is approximately equal to $(1 + \delta)(1 + \epsilon)$ if $\delta, \epsilon \ll 1$, so in that sense your statement is correct. I'd be more comfortable making my statement, though, since it relies on the linearity of Newtonian gravity (which is not the case in GR.) – Michael Seifert Jan 18 '16 at 16:20
  • @СимонТыран: That said, the difference is immaterial in the weak-gravity limit, so in that regime your statement is fine. Just realize that neither of our statements will work if you ever try to apply it to strong gravitational fields ($\Phi \lesssim c^2$.) – Michael Seifert Jan 18 '16 at 16:21
  • 1
    @no_choice99: In addition to what John said, the notion of "escape velocity" (in my last paragraph) is not related to $\Phi$ in such a simple way when $\Phi$ is large. – Michael Seifert Jan 18 '16 at 16:26
  • @Michael Seifert Is it really (1+δ+ε) instead of (1+δ)(1+ε)? I always thought the first option is a simplification for small δ & ε, while the latter solution seems more intuitive to me to hold also for bigger δ & ε. – Yukterez Jan 18 '16 at 23:49
  • @СимонТыран: The problem is that GR is non-linear: if you want to find the field produced by two objects, you can't just solve for the two of them and then combine the two fields. This means that if $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ are not small, then the correct answer is (probably) neither $(1 + \delta + \epsilon)$ or $(1 + \delta)(1 + \epsilon)$, but some other complicated function of $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ that agrees with both of them to first order. Only when $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ are small (the "linearized" regime) can we ignore the higher-order terms, and then our answers are equivalent. – Michael Seifert Jan 19 '16 at 15:01
  • But @John Rennie said that in Schwarzschild scenarios the solution also holds in strong fields, so if $\delta=1$ and $\epsilon=1$ is the solution rather $1+\delta+\epsilon=3$ or $(1+\delta)(1+\epsilon)=4$? – Yukterez Jan 20 '16 at 11:49
  • @СимонТыран: for the composite object you describe the geometry inside the outermost shell is not described by the Schwarzschild metric. The Schwarzschild metric gives the geometry outside a spherically symmetric distribution of mass. I would have to site down and work out what the metric looks like for your mass distribution and that would be a lot of work. – John Rennie Jan 20 '16 at 12:23
  • In that case I will mark Seifert's anwear as accepted and set up a bounty for a new question regarding the GR equations – Yukterez Jan 20 '16 at 12:37
  • I was going to ask the same question, but I don't understand this answer. From an outside frame of reference, does the interior of a massive enough/dense enough Dyson sphere experience time dilation just from the mass of the sphere? – CJ Dennis May 10 '22 at 04:09
  • @CJDennis: Yes, because the interior of the shell is at a lower gravitational potential $\Phi$ compared to points far away from the shell. – Michael Seifert May 10 '22 at 12:32
  • @MichaelSeifert I'm afraid I don't understand that either. Mercury experiences slight time dilation because it's deep in the Sun's gravity well. GPS satellites experience slight time dilation because they're travelling so fast around the Earth. How do I get from there to time dilation inside a Dyson sphere? – CJ Dennis May 16 '22 at 11:03
  • @CJDennis: it would probably be worth asking a separate question about this, but to sketch it out: use Gauss's law to calculate the gravitational acceleration field from the Dyson sphere, and then integrate it along a radial path to find $\Phi$. The process is basically the same as finding the electrical potential inside a charged shell. Then use the equation above relating $\tau$ (the proper time of an observer at rest inside the sphere) and $t$ (the time as observed at infinity). – Michael Seifert May 16 '22 at 12:49
-3

It seems to me, clock speed inside a Newton Shell should be independent of the mass of the shell, as if that mass did not exist. There is no net force, therefore there is no gravitational potential with respect to the mass. Considering escape velocity from inside the shell to someplace infinitely far away is an interesting twist, but a clock inside the shell does not sense the presence of the shell's mass, or "know" there is anything from which to escape. I suspect, in terms of gravitational time dilation inside a Newton Shell, the subject of escape velocity is a red herring and has no bearing on internal clock speed.

  • 1
    Every clock runs locally at it's natural rate. Gravitational time dilation effects the observation of clocks from other places. And while all clocks inside the shell would agree with each other the OP explicitly asks for a comparison to distance clocks. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 27 '17 at 22:33