0

I have read this question and John Rennie's answer to it:

How does "curved space" explain gravitational attraction?

I am asking about the time dilation affects of it, I am not asking about the weight. Just the time dilation at the center, please reopen it or answer my question about the time dilation at the center.

Where he says:

"The general relativity equivalent to this is called the geodesic equation:

$$ {d^2 x^\mu \over d\tau^2} = - \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} u^\alpha u^\beta \tag{1} $$

This is a lot more complicated than Newton's equation, but the similarity should be obvious. On the left we have an acceleration, and on the right we have the GR equivalent of a force. The objects $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}$ are the Christoffel symbols and these tell us how much spacetime is curved. The quantity $u$ is the four-velocity."

"and our equation for the radial acceleration becomes:

$$ {d^2 r \over d\tau^2} = - \frac{GM}{c^2r^2}\left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right) u^t u^t \tag{2} $$"

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration

where it says:

"General relativity

There is no gravitational acceleration, in that the proper acceleration and hence four-acceleration of objects in free fall are zero. Rather than undergoing an acceleration, objects in free fall travel along straight lines (geodesics) on the curved spacetime."

Now what I do not understand is, the gravitational acceleration here on earth is said to be constant G. But they mean that it is constant G on the surface right? Based on John Rennie's formulas it has to change if I move a little bit further from Earth or move closer to the center of the Earth (in a tunnel for example) ?

But if gravity is caused by spacetime-curvature, then the curvature itself has to be changing depending on the distance from the center of mass right (that's what the formula says too $$ {d^2 r \over d\tau^2} = - \frac{GM}{c^2r^2}\left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right) u^t u^t \tag{2} $$)?

Now things 'moving' on the geodesics in spacetime, so "objects in free fall travel along straight lines (geodesics) on the curved spacetime." There is a geodesic, specifically the one going through the center of mass.

Now here I came to a contradiction, since I understand that SR time dilation (and GR as well in a more curvature-depending way) says that clocks deeper inside the gravitational zone (closer to the center of mass) will seem to be ticking slower (compared to the clocks more outside the gravitational zone).

The contradiction is, that the center of mass point itself (which is on the geodesic going through it), has to have curvature zero, since there the gravitational curvature effects cancel out from all directions (Let's say mass-distribution is perfect spherical), but the formula for curvature does not give a value for r=0 ($$ \Gamma^r_{tt} = \frac{GM}{c^2r^2}\left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right) $$).

So if I would put a clock (let's say photon clock) into the point of center of mass (so i would put it onto a geodesic, and the clock would be in free fall in spacetime, so the clock would still 'move' in time with speed c, just in space dimensions it would be stationary), then it would seem to tick at the same rate as clocks in free space?

Question:

  1. Does the gravitational acceleration (G) ($$ {d^2 r \over d\tau^2} = - \frac{GM}{c^2r^2}\left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right) u^t u^t \tag{2} $$) grow as we go closer to the center of mass ?

  2. Does spacetime curvature ($\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}$) grow as we go closer to the center of mass?

  3. If I would put a clock (let's say photon clock) into the point of center of mass, then it would seem to tick at the same rate as clocks in free space (because the center of mass point itself, has to have curvature zero, since there the gravitational curvature effects cancel out from all directions, so there curvature is 0)?

  4. Is the reason for this the same as why time stops inside a black-hole (same reason, curvature but in a black-hole the curvature becomes infinity). But at the center of mass point of a black hole (r=0) clock should be running at a normal rate, because curvature effects cancel out from all directions? So curvature should be zero at the center of mass of a black hole?

  • No, I am not asking about the weight! I am asking about time dilation at the center! Dear John, can you please answer that question about time dilation at the center if that cancels too? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 14 '16 at 20:15
  • 1
    My answer to the linked question gives the equation for the time dilation as well. It is $$u^t = \frac{dt}{d\tau} = \frac{1}{\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{R}} - \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{2Mr^2}{R^3}}}$$ – John Rennie Dec 14 '16 at 20:25
  • Thank you! So there is time dilation? But no weight? So no curvature? Can you please help? How can there be time dilation without curvature? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 14 '16 at 20:27
  • Can you please answer how the two can happen together? Or do you think I should ask another question just about this? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 14 '16 at 20:33
  • 1
    Time dilation isn't a local phenomenon and isn't determined by the curvature at a point. Time dilation compares the time coordinates at two separated points, and it depends on the curvature in between those two points. So spacetime can be flat at the two points and there can still be a time dilation between them. – John Rennie Dec 15 '16 at 06:52
  • Thank you! So what you write here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/219897/what-is-the-general-relativity-explanation-for-why-objects-at-the-center-of-the

    That only means weightlessness, BUT DOES NOT mean no curvature? So there is still curvature at the center?

    – Árpád Szendrei Dec 15 '16 at 17:48
  • 1
    Correct. The Riemann tensor is not zero at the centre of the Earth. – John Rennie Dec 15 '16 at 17:57
  • Thank you! So if there is curvature at the center, then what causes weightlessness? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 15 '16 at 18:48

1 Answers1

1

A pure, completely formal answer will take more work than this, but the short resolution to this apparent contradiction is:

Gravitational acceleration depends on the gravitational force, which is encoded (within a reference frame) in the components of $\Gamma_{ab}{}^{c}$

Time dilation effects depend on the gravitational potential, which is encoded, within a reference frame, in the components of $g_{ab}$.

This isn't completely right, but at the level of this question, it's right enough. Note that this is consistent with the traditional idea, since the Christoffel symbols are derivatives of the metric components. To see this even more explicitly, I'll leave it as an excersise to go and calculate the components of the metric:

$$g_{ab}ds^{a}ds^{b} = -\left(1-\psi(r)\right)dt^{2} + \left(1 + \psi(r)\right)dr^{2} + r^{2} d\theta^{2} + r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}$$

Subject to the constraint $\psi \ll 1$, so which lets you ignore all terms of size $\psi^{2}$ and make assumptions like $\frac{\psi}{1 + \psi}\approx \psi\left(1-\psi\right)\approx \psi$.

What you'll find, when you substitute back into the geodesic equations, is that you'll recreate Newton's law: $\frac{d^{2}r}{d\tau^{2}} = - \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r} = -\nabla \psi$

Finally, note that none of this directly talks about the curvature at the point, which depends on second derivatives of the potential.

Zo the Relativist
  • 41,373
  • 2
  • 74
  • 143
  • wow thank you! What would you say about the clock in the point of center of mass, would it tick the same rate as compared to the clock in free space (so does the curvature cancel out at that point from all directions,and will it also cancel out time dilation effects)? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 14 '16 at 19:18
  • 1
    @ÁrpádSzendrei: I haven't done the proper calculation in full GR, but it would run more slowly, just from the logic of Newtonian potentials: $V = G\left(m_1/r + m_2/r\right) > 0$ – Zo the Relativist Dec 14 '16 at 19:27
  • hmm wow. so do you think there is curvature at the point of center of mass? Or does it cancel out from all directions and then it is 0? So then the clock runs slower because of what (if there is no curvature there)? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 14 '16 at 19:40
  • @ÁrpádSzendrei: The curvature is almost certainly nonzero, but that actually has nothing to do with why the clock runs slower. The difference in the speed of the clocks is a non-local property of the two seperated spacetime points, and the difference arises because the gravitational potential takes two different values at the two points (between the masses and far from the masses). – Zo the Relativist Dec 14 '16 at 21:23
  • hmm. John Rennie says "When $r = 0$ the Christoffel symbol $\Gamma_{tt}^r$ is zero and that means the radial four-acceleration is zero and that means you're weightless.". And if I understand correctly, that means that the curvature is zero. Here is the link: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/219897/what-is-the-general-relativity-explanation-for-why-objects-at-the-center-of-the

    I thought gravity's only effect is the curvature(because of the potential, which causes time dilation, just like you say).

    – Árpád Szendrei Dec 14 '16 at 21:31
  • So based on that can you please explain why the gravitational potential, (which can only cause curvature), is causing time dilation even without curvature? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 14 '16 at 21:31
  • @ÁrpádSzendrei: the Christoffel symbole may be zero, but it's derivaative doesn't have to be. and to me, your question is asking why we can call a mesa "flat" when it is very high, and only slope can cause an increase in altitude. – Zo the Relativist Dec 15 '16 at 16:39
  • wow thank you! So if something (Christoffel symbole) is zero, it's derivative might not be zero? That is new to me? Can you please help with the mesa and slope (I do not understand that metafor) in the current case? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 15 '16 at 17:51
  • 1
    @ÁrpádSzendrei Take the function $x^2 +1$ at $x=0$. Its value is 1. Its first derivative is $2x = 0$, and its second derivative is 2. So its value at $x=0$ is nonzero, its first derivative is zero, and its second derivative is nonzero. – Zo the Relativist Dec 15 '16 at 18:10
  • Thank you! Can you please tell me a little bit about the difference of the MEANING of the Christoffel symbols, and the Riemann tensor? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 15 '16 at 18:13
  • 1
    @ÁrpádSzendrei: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2447/what-is-the-physical-meaning-of-the-connection-and-the-curvature-tensor/2449#2449 – Zo the Relativist Dec 15 '16 at 18:16
  • Wow Thank you! Great answer there too. I have a question. Somebody there says: "In free fall Christoffel symbols indeed vanish and the covariant derivative becomes just the partial derivative. So you'll get rid of the part of the gravity that is just a result of acceleration (think of Eistein's thought experiments with elevators). But gravity is far more than these simple effects. – Árpád Szendrei Dec 15 '16 at 18:21
  • You'll still observe tidal forces. E.g. in Earth's field geodesics converge toward the center of the Earth and so in a free fall you'll observe that objects are getting closer to you. They will also be deformed by tidal forces. "So gravity has an effect of acceleration AND tidal forces too? Can you please tell me about what they mean here by tidal forces? I think i got confused because I only know the tidal forces of the moon on the oceans for example, but how does that come to the Earth itself, how does the Earth itself cause GR tidal forces on itself? Those are I guess other tidal forces? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 15 '16 at 18:23
  • This kind of GR tidal force is that geodesics will converge? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 15 '16 at 18:24
  • @ÁrpádSzendrei: I can't put an entire chapter of a GR book in the comments to this thread. – Zo the Relativist Dec 16 '16 at 08:23
  • Yes I know but is that correct to say that "This kind of GR tidal force is that geodesics will converge?" And can you please give me a link on GR tidal forces? – Árpád Szendrei Dec 16 '16 at 17:20
  • @ÁrpádSzendrei: I'm not sure I undersatnd what you're asking, as posed. We are way, way away from the original question at this point. And as for GR tidal forces, see any relativity book. Though, from some of your intuition, I think you would be well served by reviewing Lagrangian-based classical mechanics and some calculus before attempting to tackle general relativity. – Zo the Relativist Dec 16 '16 at 19:48