My question is very simple, and most likely a stupid one:

One observer is at a point in space were the gravitational force form massive bodies (or a single massive body) cancel each-other out. The second observer is in another hypothetical situation where there exists no massive bodies and therefore no gravity. My question is this, is there a relativistic time difference between the two?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Think in terms of potentials rather than force fields. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 5, 2011 at 23:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is not a stupid question at all! A free falling or an orbiting observer about a point mass feels no force too, but his clock is anyway slower. It is the gravitational potential in the expression of the metric what matters, and an equilibrium point between two planets is a local maximum. Tipically, an extense object in that place suffers tidal forces. It is a very interesting question! $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 6, 2012 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I rather mean a saddle point, not a maximum. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 6, 2012 at 7:41

4 Answers 4


In the "weak field limit" where the graviational forces are small (such as anything in the solar system, and basically anything not right next to a black hole), the time dilation relative to a distant observer is:

$\Delta T/\Delta T_0 = 1 - \Phi/c^2$.

here $\Delta T_0$ is the time elapsed for an observer at infinity, $\Delta T$ is that time elapsed at some point in the system, and $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential at that point. As @leftaroundabout stated correctly the important factor is the gravitational potential not gravitational forces. Since potentials add, instead of cancelling like the forces, we get twice the time dilation with two planets than we get with one, as @Jim Graber said.

  • $\begingroup$ In this context it's probably worth adding that this formula assumes units where the speed of light $c=1$. In other systems of units, replace $\Phi$ by $\Phi/c^2$. $\endgroup$
    – Ted Bunn
    Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Ted Bunn: Thanks for pointing that out. I changed it so the factor of $c$ is there explicitly. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ And $\Phi$ is set to be 0 at the observer at infinity. $\endgroup$
    – Leos Ondra
    Commented Nov 6, 2012 at 12:22

The gravitational force may be zero at the mid-point, but the spacetime itself is still stretched out pretty strongly - twice as strongly in fact - and that's all that matters.

So, yes, time is still skewed.


Yes. Good example: First observer right in the middle between two identical massive bodies. Second observer far away. In the weak field limit, the redshift is twice as much as if there were only one massive body and otherwise the same set up.

  • $\begingroup$ I haven't taken physics since high school, is there a formal solution to this problem? $\endgroup$
    – brysgo
    Commented Jul 5, 2011 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ I was really confused by your answer, and I think it's because you say "Yes" when you should say, and your answer supports, "No". The question asks if 2 gravitational fields can cancel each other out, but we only know of gravity that is additive and your answer is 2x time the redshift, not 0x as predicted by the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 2:03

A good place to look is Wikipedia.

According to that article, if we suppose that this metric field is stationary then the gravity redshift is

$$1 + z = \biggl[\frac{g_{tt}(\text{receiver})}{g_{tt}(\text{sender})}\biggr]^{\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{f(\text{sender})}{f(\text{receiver})}$$

So there is no redshift under the conditions described because

$$\frac{g_{tt}(\text{receiver})}{g_{tt}(\text{sender})} = 1$$

Note, that the formulas are different for cosmological redshifts where space as a whole has accelerating expansion. The above problem is for the peculiar positions inside two local regions of space neglecting the cosmological expansion as a small effect.

See http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/download/tamarad/.

  • $\begingroup$ The question refers to gravitational fields (in the Newtonian sense) cancelling, but nothing in this answer has anything to do with gravitational fields. $\endgroup$
    – user4552
    Commented Aug 28, 2013 at 5:53

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.