13
$\begingroup$

Einstein successfully melded together space and time into one entity called spacetime in his General relativity theory and gave us further insight into how matter affects spacetime.

John Wheeler said “Spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve” but does this simple description of Einstein’s theory tell us what spacetime is doing to the internal mechanisms of matter. How it is affecting the internal clock that exists within matter. Are the oscillating atoms actually slowed down by the effect of time dilation resulting from a greater gravitational object; are they oscillating to the tune of gravity or is there no correlation.

When we describe time dilation as a result of gravity are we saying that the movement of all the tiny particles including sub atomic particles are actually slowing down ?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Didn’t want to be picky, but for the sake of proper acknowledgment, if space and time have being melded together into a single space-time entity, that was not due to Einstein. That was done (mostly) by his former professor Hermann Minkowski. In fact, Einstein seemed to dislike that formulation of relativity at the beginning ;) $\endgroup$
    – J. Manuel
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 9:16
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Einstein led a charmed existence. He was nearly mugged twice by mathematicians, first by Minkowski, and later by Hilbert. If you seek help from a mathematician, stay alert ;) To address your main point, nothing ever happens to your time in either special or general relativity. Discrepancies are only detected by an observer who is either moving wrt you, or at a different gravitation potential, or both. $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ You might see this as nit-picking and I see it as vital that Einstein successfully melded space and time, giving us insight into how matter, space and time affect each other. Where did Einstein go wrong, in your view? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ If my comment above seems random, that is because the bit about Minkowski has been deleted from the OP! $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 12:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @m4r35n357 Well Minkowski and Hilbert were best friends. I heard that they used to hang out in dark saddle points waiting for lost physicists to wander by so that they could “formalize yer theories for youse”, because “we wouldn’t want anything illogical to happen…” $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 20:44

9 Answers 9

30
$\begingroup$

There is a common misconception that time dilation is some kind of active process i.e. something acts on the dilated observer to slow their time down. This is not the case. Instead time dilation exists because two observers measure time in different ways.

Assuming you are located on the surface of the Earth an observer on Pluto would observe your time to be dilated i.e. their clocks would run faster than yours. But does your time feel dilated to you? Your clocks still run at one second per second. Your radioactive nuclei still decay at the same rate. As far as you are concerned your time runs perfectly normally.

We measure time and space by using some set of coordinates. Typically we measure position in space by setting up $x$, $y$ and $z$ axes, and to measure time we use a fourth $t$ axis. This makes for a four dimensional graph, which is a bit hard to visualise but mathematically this is straightforward. Then we can track the flow of time by how fast objects move along the time axis. For more on this see: What is time, does it flow, and if so what defines its direction?

The observer on Pluto also uses coordinates to measure time, but due to the curvature of spacetime their time axis is not the same as your time axis, and this means they measure time differently. This is why the observer on Pluto observes your time to be dilated.

So the answer to your question is that time dilation does not affect matter in the sense of some active mechanism acting upon the matter. All it means is that different observers measure time differently because their definitions for the time axis are different.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ We would likewise observe Pluto's time to be dilated. Indeed, we don't even have to look as far as Pluto: we can easily detect the difference between Earth time and GPS satellite time. There's both a velocity and a gravitational effect that work in opposite directions, giving about 38 microseconds/day difference: physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm And with a bit more difficulty, the difference can be detected over a distance of a few millimeters at Earth's surface: arxiv.org/abs/2109.12238 $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ @jamesqf I was under the impression that only SR time dilation due to a constant relative velocity was symmetric. I thought that time dilation due to gravity was not symmetric as it was due to an acceleration in one frame but not the other, and therefore we on earth would observe time running on Pluto due to GR to be accelerated rather than slowed. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Shufflepants: Isn't the difference symmetrical? The Pluto observer would see their clocks running faster than Earth clocks, while the Earth observer would see their clocks running slower than Pluto clocks. But both clocks are perfectly valid. (I suppose you could posit a "true" clock at an infinite distance from all gravity sources.) $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 2:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @jamesqf No, that is not symmetrical. Both observers agree that the Earth clock is running slower than the Pluto clock. This shows that the Earth clock is deeper in the Sun’s gravity well than the Pluto clock. And this is an actual effect, unlike the apparent (and symmetric) time dilation effect of special relativity. $\endgroup$
    – gandalf61
    Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 3:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Harvey Hello John, I have read several of your answers and respect the depth of knowledge and understanding you have on such subjects. However I am trying to get an intuitive understanding / answer to my question. In the Hafele - Keating experiment, atomic clocks were flown around the world. On return I understand that there time display differed by the margins predicted by Einstein’s relativity theories. Now this is the key for me. The observer never moves, he remains at point A and the clocks return to him. The clocks show differing times. Surely they have either slowed or sped up ? $\endgroup$
    – Harvey
    Commented Oct 30, 2021 at 5:22
11
$\begingroup$

Are the oscillating atoms actually slowed down by the effect of time dilation

Yes. The Hafele-Keating experiment shows that atomic clocks are affected by gravitational time dilation. And the Pound-Rebka experiment shows that the frequency of gamma rays emitted by excited atoms is affected by gravitational time dilation.

Gravitational time dilation is an actual objective effect, unlike the apparent subjective time dilation of special relativity. Observers who are stationary with respect to each other (in space) but at different “heights” in a gravitational field will agree that time runs at different rates in each of their localities, and the observer for whom time runs at a slower rate is deeper in the gravitational field. Observers who are in the same locality but have different acceleration histories will have different measurements of elapsed time and will agree who has had the greater acceleration.

No observer can detect gravitational time dilation by purely local observations in space. Everyone’s local clocks run at one second per second - this is a tautology. But comparison of non-local clocks that are stationary (in space) with respect to one another establishes that gravitational time dilation is a real effect.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No they are not! The only thing affected is our observations of those clocks! $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @m4r35n357 In the Hafele-Keating experiment two atomic clocks were flown around the world in opposite directions, and then compared against a third clock which had remained on the ground. According to Wikipedia “When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity“. This is an actual effect, not just an apparent effect. $\endgroup$
    – gandalf61
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ I get your point, and I still think that each clock counts as an external "observer" of the other, but I take back my downvote. (OK if you do a dummy edit I can!) $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ Done. In my defence I tend to home in on aspects like this as I can remember the things that confused me when I first started learning this stuff. $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean with “… unlike the apparent subjective time dilation of special relativity“? In both SR and GR time is measured as the path length between two points. Of course, Minkowski space is flat, so there is no (apparent) gravitation. $\endgroup$
    – WimC
    Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 4:43
3
$\begingroup$

It should. In fact this is the core of the principle of relativity and GR is not necessary at this point. To see this, let’s express the principle of relativity in a slightly, but in my opinion, more profound way: “An observer at constant speed should never be able to notice his past acceleration unless he witnesses it by himself”. The idea here is that if someone that was initially at rest relatively to another observer and then goes asleep, only to wake up after one of them was accelerated, it should be impossible for him to say that he was the one that was accelerated. In his frame, both states of constant speed, before and after, should look exactly the same.

Now imagine the classical twin thought experiment. Both twins are initially at rest relatively to each other in outer space. They move into separated spaceships, set a timer to randomly accelerate one of them, and they go into deep sleep. When they wake up, sometime after the acceleration phase, one of them will notice that her’s aging and wrist clock do seem to agree. She was a young girl at the beginning of the experiment, but her grey hairs and wrinkles do agree with the 50 years passed in her clock. Now, if acceleration don’t affect all clocks in the world (including biological ones) the exactly same way, her sister in the other spaceship will be able to say that she was the accelerated one, since her aging don’t match the 1 year pass of her wrist watch, even if at this phase in the experiment she is in a uniform movement. In other words, the girls have invented a way to check their own state of constant motion, which should be always impossible to do, no matter what.

Replace the acceleration phase with a gravitational slingshot and if constant motion should be impossible to check by oneself, you have no choice than to admit that gravity affects all clocks the same way.

___Edit

The key point here is that all kind of imaginable clocks (atomic, mechanical, you name it...) in the same frame measure the same time but those at different frames measure a different value, and this difference can only be tell when clocks that were initially synchronized, are accelerated and then put back together. It is impossible to check this difference from within an individual frame of reference without looking outside. Due to this fact, it is impossible for someone in any individual frame to feel a sort of time dilation. So time dilation is not a physical force that is making the clocks in the accelerated frame to slow down. What one can say, is that the energy put into the system (the one causing the acceleration) fundamentally changes the way those frames relate space and time rates with each other by changing the correction factor (represented by the metric tensor) that they use to interchange spacetime measurements.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ But in the (so called) twin paradox the accelerated twin knows they have been accelerated because they are younger than the non-accelerated twin and the clocks on their spaceship have measured less elapsed time. Whether they were asleep or awake during the journey is irrelevant. $\endgroup$
    – gandalf61
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This looks like a mirror image of you answer below ;) I agree 100% that when observers are brought back together it becomes possible to define a "slower" clock, but again, nether of those observers experiences any time slowing or speeding at any point. $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ @m4r35n357 I belive I didn't make my self clear in my first attempt. I didn't wanted to say that time dilation was felted by any individual frame of reference. Please refer to my last edit. $\endgroup$
    – J. Manuel
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ @gandalf61 one should not confuse time measured by clocks in the same frame with those at different ones. My answers is based on the half way trip. In other words none of the twins should be able to say who was accelerated before they come back together, if they were not aware of the acceleration in the beginning. This is the reason why I used people sleeping, because in the half way trip the aging and personal clocks would still agree in both of them. But let's be honest that there would be no fun, as the accelerated one would already know she has aged less, wouldn't it? $\endgroup$
    – J. Manuel
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 21:31
3
$\begingroup$

I feel like I need to add this answer because currently there are two excellent answers by @JohnRennie, and @gandalf61, but if you look at them at first glance, it might seem as they are contradictory. In reality they are not, but I believe it needs a little explanation.

See gandalf61's excellent answer tells you right upfront, yes, oscillating atoms are actually slowed down inside a gravitational field. Then John Rennie's excellent answer says that time dilation is not an active process, it exists rather, because two observers measure time in different ways.

the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

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

Now as impossible it might seem, both are right. It is very important to understand that speed is relative but acceleration is absolute. According to the equivalence principle, the effects of a gravitational field can be indistinguishable from acceleration.

As John Rennie explains it, the two atomic clocks are in two different strength gravitational field, thus they move along different time axes (the effects of the gravitational field bend the axes in different ways if you will), they measure time differently.

In reality, gandalf61 says the same thing in a comment, explaining, that in an experiment, two atomic clocks were flown around and when meeting again (together and with a third clock), their differences (meaning that they ticked different amounts), were in line with GR.

They are saying the same thing, that the clocks were moving along different time axes (partly because they were moving/existing at different depths down a gravitational potential), and one time axis was bent more by the effects of gravity then another, causing the clocks to tick at different rates.

It is very important to understand that this effect on the clock rates is only realizable when comparing it with other clocks, that were existing at different depths down a gravitational potential (were moving along different time axes). If you have a single clock, you cannot tell that the clock starts to tick slower as you move into a stronger gravitational field (potential), because there is nothing to compare it to. You must always compare your clock to another clock that is in another strength gravitational field (is at different depths down a gravitational potential) to realize the clock rate difference.

So as you say, is this effect absolute on the clocks? You could say yes, but that would be misleading, because if there is nothing to compare it to, you cannot realize it. You always have to compare your clock to another to realize the effect of GR time dilation.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ You phrased your answer using the following expression: "[...] existing in different strength fields." I favor the expression: "existing at different depths down a gravitational potential". There is the throught experiment of the gravitational field of a uniform density sphere. Create a pole-to-pole tunnel. As you go towards the center you keep going to ever lower potential (with corresponding smaller amount of proper time that elapses), but the field strength is highest at the surface; the field strength decreases as you go down. $\endgroup$
    – Cleonis
    Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Cleonis thank you so much, I edited. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ OK so in practical terms, if I have a calculation that will take 100 years, (think of cpu cycles as clock 'ticks') then can I get the job done faster by sending the computer somewhere else and having it come back? I mean if the clocks on airplanes ticked a different 'total amount of ticks' when brough together, it would see you could 'speed up' (or only slow down?) computation by sending a computer on a trip. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 28, 2021 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ @AwokeKnowing maybe this link of real use of clocks and special and general relativity will help? Coming back would take time, no? $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Oct 28, 2021 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ @ÁrpádSzendrei As far as I can tell your arguments are OK. I can with difficulty reconcile the GPS link above with the "the observer for whom time runs at a slower rate is deeper in the gravitational field." with the GPS " General Relativity is that clocks closer to a ma, ssive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away " . Maybe it is the syntax of the GPS blurb. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Oct 28, 2021 at 17:42
2
$\begingroup$

I believe that only @JohnRennie's answer properly addresses the point of the question. Time dilation is an effect that is apparent only to observers moving relative to the frame that appears to be time-dilated- in that frame itself, nothing changes.

It is often said that moving clocks run slow, which is a misleading statement, since it conveys the impression that the clock itself has slowed, which is not correct.

If you increase your speed then your local time (ie time where you are in your rest frame) passes at the same rate as time at any other point in any other reference frame. It is only when an elapsed time at a place in one frame is compared with the time at two separate places in a moving frame, that a discrepancy appears.

In SR, the phenomenon of time dilation arises because the axis of time in your rest frame is tilted relative to the axis of time in a reference frame moving relative to you. This means that as you move through space in another reference frame, you move from regions of earlier time in that frame to regions of later time.

The analogy is not exact, but if you imagine travelling east around the Earth leaving London at noon, you will pass through successive time zones in which the local time is progressively later. If you land in Tokyo at midnight on your watch, the local time will be 7am, so you will appear to have lost 7 hours. It is not because your watch has run slow, but because you have moved to a location where time is ahead by seven hours.

The phenomenon of time dilation in SR arises in a similar way. As you move through a frame of reference, the baseline for your movement is not a horizontal plane of simultaneity in that frame, but a sloping one. In your rest frame at any given moment it is the same time everywhere. If it is exactly noon where you are, it is also exactly noon a mile ahead of you. However, at the point in spacetime that corresponds to noon a mile ahead of you in your frame it is already past noon in the moving frame. Just as when you take-off at noon in London it is already 7pm in Tokyo.

If you still need to convince yourself that moving clocks do not actually slow down, consider the following thought experiement. If you glance at the second hand on your watch you will see it moving at a certain rate. Relative to a frame passing you at 1000mph, your watch will appear to be continually losing a small amount of time when compared to successive clocks in that frame. Relative to a frame passing you at 100,000 mph your watch will appear to be running even more slowly. Compared with clocks in a frame passing you at a fast enough speed, your second hand will appear to be ticking once a year. Your watch seems to be running at different rates depending upon the relative speed of the frame against which it is compared. Clearly your watch cannot actually slow down by all those different amounts at once- the reality is that it always ticks at the same rate in your frame, but in other frames, in which the clocks are systematically out of synch with yours, it seems to be running slow.

In GR, time dilation has a similar cause, but rather than involving planes of simultaneity that are tilted relative to each other, it involves curved surfaces of time.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The following is rather only a comment on the present OP question (which exceeds 600 characters, however):

Harvey: "[...] Are the oscillating atoms actually slowed down by the effect of time dilation resulting from a greater gravitational object [?]"

Should this question, and the OP question as a whole, be construed in the following concrete sense, for example:

"Is the groundstate hyperfine transition frequency of a caesium-133 atom which is suitably supported against falling (towards some nearby, significantly massive object such as the Earth) smaller than the unperturbed groundstate hyperfine transition frequency of a (suitably free) caesium-133 atom ?"

??

(If so, I'm hardly qualified nor particularly interested to answer this question, or similar questions, about atomic physics.)

If not, then, in my understanding, the OP question statement requires clarification, revision, improvement. (This may obviously be approached in various ways. One suggestion which I'd consider worthwhile might be asking concretely:
"What exactly do we mean by saying that one oscillator had been `oscillating slower´ than some other oscillator ?" ...)

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Well, yes. The Pound-Rebka experiment Pound-Rebka gravity doppler shift definitely indicates that physical material systems with characteristic frequencies DO have different behavior depending on their relative positions in a gravity field. Their internal clocks disagree, just as General Relativity requires.

The effect is small, but some very accurate gamma ray frequency determination verifies the time variation.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Again, their behaviour is not different, see above. $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:04
0
$\begingroup$

Atomic clocks keep track of the regular oscillation of atoms. This is how they are able to keep incredibly accurate time. The closer an atomic clock is to the source of gravitation, the slower time it records, while the farther away it is, the faster the time it records (as measured by distant observers).

The fact that gravitational fields affect atomic clocks in this way, we can safely assume that the oscillations of atoms is actually slowed down by gravitational fields (as measured by a distant observer) .

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See my comment to @gandalf61 above. OK so you have put the real answer as a bracketed afterthought . . . ;) Perhaps lead with this in future? $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ I think you meant that comment for someone else. $\endgroup$
    – joseph h
    Commented Oct 26, 2021 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ joseph h: "[...] the oscillations of atoms [...] (as measured by a distant observer)." -- By drawing distinctions on who measures the rate, or frequency, of the oscillations of atoms, namely between (the result obtained) "by a distant observer" vs., say, by someone accompanying those atoms, you may confuse the osc. rate of the atoms with the corresponding reception rates of specific others. Usually, results of "measurement" of one specific quantity are understood to be commensurate; cmp. the listed results of measurements of average life (durations). $\endgroup$
    – user12262
    Commented Oct 28, 2021 at 0:22
0
$\begingroup$

Quoting the part of your question I'm responding to:

When we describe time dilation as a result of gravity are we saying that the movement of all the tiny particles including sub atomic particles are actually slowing down ?

We have to be careful here with the expression 'slowing down'.

Let me make a comparison:
As we know: heat is motion of the atoms that a substance consists of. The atoms/molecules of a gas have a distribution of velocities. That distribution has an average. The higher the temperature the higher the average velocity. Cooling a substance means you are decreasing the thermal velocity.

Time dilation effect is not comparable to that kind of slowing down.

I strongly recommend against thinking in terms of slower/faster, it will lead you astray.


A more cautious approach is to think of time dilation in terms of an operational description of it.

Physics.SE contributor Gandalf61 already mentioned the Hafele-Keating experiment.

The point in the experiment that the rubber meets the road is when the two clocks are rejoined. When the two clocks are right next to each other again the comparison is without ambiguity.

It is seen that for one clock a smaller amount of proper time has elapsed than for the other clock.

I repeat: I recommend thinking in terms of amount of proper time, and not thinking in terms of slower/faster.

The idea here is to be a minimalist. Express the minimum that suffices to describe the observation, and stay away from interpretation of the observation


For the way that gravity operates no underlying mechanism is known. In order to formulate GR at all the principle of equivalence must be granted.

The justification for granting that assumption is the success of GR as a theory of physics.


In some way shape or form gravity sets up a bias, such that deeper in a gravitational well a smaller amount of proper time elapses as compared to the amount of proper time that elapses at higher altitude.

This bias, whatever its nature is, is a true physical effect. This bias is not an apparent effect.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Cleonis: "the Hafele-Keating experiment [...] When the two clocks [met] again the comparison is without ambiguity." -- Without ambiguity is certainly the comparison how many ticks were counted by either set of clocks while being significantly separated from the other set of clocks. "It is seen that for one clock a smaller amount of proper time has elapsed than for the other clock." -- Seen ?? Hardly! Ratios of "proper time" ("durations", "arc lengths of timelike paths") are not "seen", but (ideally) measured. (And only on this basis a comparison of average tick rates could be drawn.) $\endgroup$
    – user12262
    Commented Oct 27, 2021 at 23:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.