Maximum rate of Time ?

[Spyman]

What is the maximum theoretical rate, (speed), of time relative ours here on Earth ?

 

If motion through space and gravity changes the rate of Time and both velocity and gravity has limits,

thus should also Time rate have an upper limit.

[5614]

As you accelerate time goes slower (look up 'time dilation').

 

I can't really think of a time when time speeds up, so presumably one second per second is the fastest you can go.... maybe!

[Spyman]

If Time slows down for one observer it can be viewed as speed up for the other.

 

If You leave the gravity field of Earth doesn't Time speed up relative Time on Earth ?

 

In the Twin paradox isn't it the speed which causes the Time to slow down ?

 

Let's say we leave a spaceship here, at this position from the center of Milky way with a syncronized clock.

(at the same distance from the center but without revolving around it).

 

Will the clock's still be syncronized when Earth returns after one lap around Milky way ?

[swansont]

What is the maximum theoretical rate' date=' (speed), of time relative ours here on Earth ?

 

If motion through space and gravity changes the rate of Time and both velocity and gravity has limits,

thus should also Time rate have an upper limit.[/quote']

 

Clocks on earth run slow relative to a clock in deep space due to their gravitational potential, by -GM/rc²

 

This is about 60 microsecond/day from the earth's field (your clock would speed up that much if you were far from the earth but with the same orbital radius) and about 850 from the sun (speed up if you moved out of the solar system)

[5614]

If Time slows down for one observer it can be viewed as speed up for the other.

Obviously, but that doesn't mean time has sped up. Merely that it has slowed down for the other person. If you're clock goes at 1sec per sec and mine goes at .5sec per sec you can hardly say that yours has sped up (relative to the normal 1sec per sec).

 

If You leave the gravity field of Earth doesn't Time speed up relative Time on Earth ?

 

In the Twin paradox isn't it the speed which causes the Time to slow down ?

 

Let's say we leave a spaceship here, at this position from the center of Milky way with a syncronized clock.

(at the same distance from the center but without revolving around it).

 

Will the clock's still be syncronized when Earth returns after one lap around Milky way ?

Time dilation says that as you go faster time for you slows down.

 

The formula for time dilation is:

 

As you can see the bigger v (velocity) is the smaller the bottom number will be. The smaller the bottom is the bigger the right side of the equation is.

 

Time dilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

 

You can probably already work out the solution to the twin paradox using the basic '+speed = slower time' but here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

[Spyman]

So first I use swansont's formula for removing the Time dilation of gravity.

 

Remove the Earth -> 60.2 microseconds/day

Remove the Moon -> 12.2 nanoseconds/day

Remove the Sun -> 853 microseconds/day

Remove the rest -> 1.71 nanoseconds/day (rest of solarsystem)

Remove the Milky way -> 487 milliseconds/day

 

This is interesting: the time-warp from Milky way is much bigger than the local of Earth.

(Which means if removing the local group of galaxies will likely increase the value much.)

 

Anyway the sum of Time increase for a spaceship leaving Milky way is something like 488 millisecons/day.

 

Then I take 5614's formula for removing the Time dilation of speed.

 

The Earth is travelling about 360 km/s towards "Leo" relative CMB.

(The Cosmic Microwave Background is the largest observerable rest frame.)

 

Which gives a total increase of Time rate together without gravity of 1.00000636 times.

(Times faster on the spaceship when it is at rest with CMB relative Earth including gravity.)

 

For 1 second on Earth goes 1.00000636 seconds in the spaceship.

 

Not much of a speed record !

 

The value is for me somewhat of a disappointment, I was guessing in numbers like 10 times faster.

(Since Time can go many times slower.)

 

Thanks for the formulas !

[swansont]

So first I use swansont's formula for removing the Time dilation of gravity.

 

Remove the Earth -> 60.2 microseconds/day

Remove the Moon -> 12.2 nanoseconds/day

Remove the Sun -> 853 microseconds/day

Remove the rest -> 1.71 nanoseconds/day (rest of solarsystem)

Remove the Milky way -> 487 milliseconds/day

 

This is interesting: the time-warp from Milky way is much bigger than the local of Earth.

 

Interesting perhaps, but shouldn't be surprising. We are in orbit about the sun, which is in orbit around the galactic core, so you'd have to expect the contributions are correspondingly larger.

 

Also, simply applying the equation won't yield the correct overall answer, since mass outside of our orbit tends to reduce the magnitude of the gravitational potential (and if it is spherically symmetric, it makes no contribution at all, from Gauss's law)

[ydoaPs]

what about time being a dimension? i would say that the fastest it could go is c, because all objects pass through spacetime at c. if you were at absolute rest(which isn't possible) time would pass at c(maybe even at rest in all spatial dimensions relative to an observer). not really proficient with relativity, but hope it helps.

[Spyman]

Interesting perhaps' date=' but shouldn't be surprising. We are in orbit about the sun, which is in orbit around the galactic core, so you'd have to expect the contributions are correspondingly larger.

 

Also, simply applying the equation won't yield the correct overall answer, since mass outside of our orbit tends to reduce the magnitude of the gravitational potential (and if it is spherically symmetric, it makes no contribution at all, from Gauss's law)[/quote']The surprise arised already when I saw Your formula.

Force of gravity weakens with the square of distance and time dilation only with the distance.

 

Yes, matter outside our radius of the center reduces the force and Milky way is not symmetric.

(I simplified it to get a rough value.)

 

You are implying that there is a time dilation inside a torus relative the outside ?

(Dilation inside vanishes together with the force of gravity.)

I thought the potential had the same value in all positions in all directions inside the torus, thus no force, but would still have the same value as the outside, not zero.

 

Edit: To clearify, does time pass 60 microseconds faster per day in the center of Earth relative the surface ?

Has this been verified with a atomic clock deep down in some mining facility ?

[Spyman]

what about time being a dimension? i would say that the fastest it could go is c, because all objects pass through spacetime at c. if you were at absolute rest(which isn't possible) time would pass at c(maybe even at rest in all spatial dimensions relative to an observer). not really proficient with relativity, but hope it helps.

Time can be viewed as one dimension but how would You make it inrease it's rate to c ?

It can be viewed as all objects pass through spacetime at c, but do they really ?

We can only change our speed in the other 3 dimensions, and as I showed above if breaking to a stop with a spaceship as close to zero velocity in those 3D we can, it wont change the rate of Time very much.

Even if removing a lot of gravity it's still not more than a tiny bit faster.

[swansont]

Edit: To clearify' date=' does time pass 60 microseconds faster per day in the center of Earth relative the surface ?

Has this been verified with a atomic clock deep down in some mining facility ?[/quote']

 

It should. Gravity goes to zero at the center. In GM/r, M is the enclosed mass in a spherical symmetry. M decreases as r³ (assuming constant density)

 

I know there was on relativity experiment that took place in an elevator shaft, but I don't think it was below ground (Pound and Rebka; Mossbauer effect measurement). Anyway, the fractional change in mass is very small for any depth to which we have reasonable access, so I don't think you could see that effect on top of the part in 10¹⁶ per meter change in clock rates seen at the surface - it would be another part in 100 or 1000 on top of that, depending on the depth.

[Spyman]

First some rough math to determine if the mining measurement is doable:

 

The deepest mines in the world is approaching depths of 4 kilometres. So a reasonable depth for an atomic clock that can be loaded in an airplane I guess would be 1000 m. Then if we assume Earth to be spherical with constant density. The Time dilation 1000 m below would then have the same difference relative the surface as in an airplane at approximately 2000 m hight above.

How long and high was the airplane in the air during the test and how long can a atomic clock stay below ?

I know the suface of the Earth varies with much more than 1000 m and even more important the core has a much higher density than the crust but I still belive the test is doable if the measuring time is increased to say one Year. (Instead of a few hours.)

 

But there is another way to measure this:

 

Between Earth and Sun is a Lagrange point, L1, where the gravity force equals zero between Earth and Sun.

What is the Time dilation there ? (Realtive us on Earth only including gravity from Earth and Sun.)

 

We should have or had at least one spacecraft there for several reasons, what is/was the redshift/blueshift of the communication with it ? (The corrected rate of it's clock.)

 

 

To clearify, does time pass 60 microseconds faster per day in the center of Earth relative the surface ?

It should. Gravity goes to zero at the center.

You say: time pass 60 microseconds faster per day because gravity goes to zero at the center.

I say: why a difference, there is no direction for the gravity force, because all directions have the same gravitational potential. But the potential could still have the same value as on the surface.

 

If You are correct will a clock in the spacecraft dilate with +792 microseconds per day relative us on Earth ?

If the option I propose are correct will the clock dilate with +57.2 microseconds per day relative us on Earth ?

(Spacecraft at Lagrange point L1.)

[swansont]

First some rough math to determine if the mining measurement is doable:

 

The deepest mines in the world is approaching depths of 4 kilometres. So a reasonable depth for an atomic clock that can be loaded in an airplane I guess would be 1000 m. Then if we assume Earth to be spherical with constant density. The Time dilation 1000 m below would then have the same difference relative the surface as in an airplane at approximately 2000 m hight above.

How long and high was the airplane in the air during the test and how long can a atomic clock stay below ?

I know the suface of the Earth varies with much more than 1000 m and even more important the core has a much higher density than the crust but I still belive the test is doable if the measuring time is increased to say one Year. (Instead of a few hours.)

 

If all you want to do is test GR with gravitational potential changes then we do this already, continually, with GPS clocks. All you have to do to test the mass effect is convince someone to put an atomic clock under the ground, in a controlled environment. I imagine some people do this already but they aren't the types to come out and admit that they have the equipment buried (or more importantly, where it is buried).

[Spyman]

If all you want to do is test GR with gravitational potential changes then we do this already, continually, with GPS clocks. All you have to do to test the mass effect is convince someone to put an atomic clock under the ground, in a controlled environment. I imagine some people do this already but they aren't the types to come out and admit that they have the equipment buried (or more importantly, where it is buried).

swansont, are You missing the point or avoiding it ?

 

What I want is to acquire knowledge that is already known, not "convince someone" to do tests.

(Otherwise I would not be posting questions in a Science Forum.)

 

I guess You prefer the test with the spacecraft instead of "digging" down an atomic clock...

(And the test with a spacecraft has probably not been done or is there GPS clocks at any Lagrange point ?)

 

Was at least my calculations of the dilations in the two different variants correct ? (roughly)

 

Edit: Well, it's been 3 days now and still no reply so "avoiding" certainly seems correct.

[geistkiesel]

If all you want to do is test GR with gravitational potential changes then we do this already, continually, with GPS clocks. All you have to do to test the mass effect is convince someone to put an atomic clock under the ground, in a controlled environment. I imagine some people do this already but they aren't the types to come out and admit that they have the equipment buried (or more importantly, where it is buried).

Swansont,

Can you give a reference for the gravitational potential changes regarding GPS clocks.

 

Geistkiesel

[swansont]

Swansont' date='

Can you give a reference for the gravitational potential changes regarding GPS clocks.

 

Geistkiesel[/indent']

 

I gave a link in another thread.

[Janus]

 

Edit: To clearify' date=' does time pass 60 microseconds faster per day in the center of Earth relative the surface ?

[/quote']

No, time runs slower at the center of the Earth. Gravitational time dilation is related to the difference in gravitational potential, or how "deep" you are in the gravity well. The center of the Earth is deeper in Earth's gravity well than the surface. If you were to drill a hole to the center of the Earth and were at the bottom, you would have to do work to climb back out to the surface. Just like you would have to do work to lift yourself a given distance above the center of the Earth. It is this amount of work that determines the time dilation between positions in the gravity field, not the relative local strength of the field at those positions.

[swansont]

swansont' date=' are You missing the point or avoiding it ?

 

What I want is to acquire knowledge that is already known, not "convince someone" to do tests.

(Otherwise I would not be posting questions in a Science Forum.)

 

I guess You prefer the test with the spacecraft instead of "digging" down an atomic clock...

(And the test with a spacecraft has probably not been done or is there GPS clocks at any Lagrange point ?)

 

Was at least my calculations of the dilations in the two different variants correct ? (roughly)

 

Edit: Well, it's been 3 days now and still no reply so "avoiding" certainly seems correct.[/quote']

 

Sorry, I missed this the last time around. But I thought I had been clear - I know of no one who has done the mine experiment.

 

As Janus points out I was mistaken in my application of the gravitational potential in this instance. The formula is applied from r=infinity, not r=0, which is what I was inexplicably forgetting.

[geistkiesel]

Interesting perhaps' date=' but shouldn't be surprising. We are in orbit about the sun, which is in orbit around the galactic core, so you'd have to expect the contributions are correspondingly larger.

 

Also, simply applying the equation won't yield the correct overall answer, since mass outside of our orbit tends to reduce the magnitude of the gravitational potential (and if it is spherically symmetric, it makes no contribution at all, from Gauss's law)[/quote']

Looking at that data measuring the sun's trajectory at some 208 km/sec along the North_South earth polar axis and orthogonal, almost, to the rotational and sun orbit motion, the net motion vector for the planet is pointing in the general direction 2 or 3 three degrees off the sun trajectory and rotating around the sun trajectory at a rate of 360 degtrees/year. The earth sun orbit is an extended helix with the radius of the heli x1.5 x 10^8 km and the year wave length, 208 x 24x 3500x 365,26 = 6.56 x 10^9 km or wrt the helix radius the helix wavelength is 44 time longer than the radius of the earth orbit around the sun for one years solar travel. The motion vector for ther three contributions of motions, are pointing at an angle approximately tan^-1 (1/44) = 1.3 degrees rotating around the sun trajectory from the earth platform at rate of approxinately 10^-6 degrees/sec. This isn't a lot of motion is it that would calculate prominently in any SRT algorithim? Now when all the velocity vectors of the the earth are resolved, one cannot simply add the velocities as scalar speeds and apply the result as an absolute value.

 

Assuming the mass is not distributed in a spherical geometry, or even if it were so distrbuted, how is the statement regarding the diluting effect of extra-solar system mass on the gravitationaly potential verified? Intuitively one will be hard pressed

to measure any gravitational force

, or effect originating external to the solar system affecting the solar system motion attributes. The clostest star is what, 7 light years away? What does tyhis dop top the graviotaional potential measured as an inverse distance? The statement regarding the effect of mass diluting the gravitational potential must have been verified in some manner otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Has this potential ever been measured to such a resolution that the diluted gravitational potential due to external masses [external to the solar system] been verified?

 

It appears that the use of some assumed absolute velocity has been imposed here regarding all the time perturbing functions of the stellar objects mentioned. Assuming all the objects are in some motion wrt each other how can one rationally assume that the earth, or solar system, is not at rest wrt all the other entities, or nearly ay rest , or immeasurable, or that the relative motion of the earth, the space ship, whatever, is drasstically skewed to a high number, or a low number regarding the net relative velocity of any one entitiy wrt the others? The numbers that Spyman generated assumes a worst case scenario for all the contributions to the relative motion of the object under scrutiny does it not? This was my observation, at least. By claiming that the numbers "aren't surprising" means to me that someone has made an assessment of the relative velocity conditions applicable and determined some worst case scenario, or maximjum case scenario, is this the intention of your post above?

 

Geistkiesel

[swansont]

The numbers that Spyman generated assumes a worst case scenario for all the contributions to the relative motion of the object under scrutiny does it not? This was my observation' date=' at least. By claiming that the numbers "aren't surprising" means to me that someone has made an assessment of the relative velocity conditions applicable and determined some worst case scenario, or maximjum case scenario, is this the intention of your post above?

[/quote']

 

The numbers that spyman generated had absolutely nothing to do with relative motion. They are gravitational potential terms.

[CanadaAotS]

Well I've always wondered... matter bends space-time in creating gravity wells... does anti-matter bend space-time out? This is a little off topic but I've always wondered...

 

And also, since time dialation is caused by potential energy , if you could go to the center of an anti-gravity well, time would speed up, right?

[5614]

Antimatter and antiparticles have the same mass and also the same gravitational field and field strength etc as their matter and particle counterparts... so no, antiparticles do not have antigravity.

 

Antigravity wells, as far as we know do not exist, although there's the theory that everything has an opposite, so black holes and white holes, gravity and anti-gravity... it is generally accepted that with the small human knowledge of gravity that anti-grav is not possible.

[Spyman]

Sorry, I missed this the last time around.

Thats understandable since You do a lot of posting.

 

But I thought I had been clear - I know of no one who has done the mine experiment.

You have been clear on this point all the time.

 

As Janus points out I was mistaken in my application of the gravitational potential in this instance. The formula is applied from r=infinity, not r=0, which is what I was inexplicably forgetting.

This was my "point".

 

No, time runs slower at the center of the Earth. Gravitational time dilation is related to the difference in gravitational potential, or how "deep" you are in the gravity well. The center of the Earth is deeper in Earth's gravity well than the surface. If you were to drill a hole to the center of the Earth and were at the bottom, you would have to do work to climb back out to the surface. Just like you would have to do work to lift yourself a given distance above the center of the Earth. It is this amount of work that determines the time dilation between positions in the gravity field, not the relative local strength of the field at those positions.

Thats what I thought, Thank You !

[geistkiesel]

Antimatter and antiparticles have the same mass and also the same gravitational field and field strength etc as their matter and particle counterparts... so no' date=' antiparticles do not have antigravity.

 

Antigravity wells, as far as we know do not exist, although there's the theory that everything has an opposite, so black holes and white holes, gravity and anti-gravity... it is generally accepted that with the small human knowledge of gravity that anti-grav is not possible.[/quote']

 

I thought the very opposite was thecase. I mean that anti-grav was widely accepted. I mean this in the context of the Big Bang theory (widely accepted) which required a temporary ( for a brief 10

^-34

seconds) inverse gravity effect (gravity "pushing" instead of gravity "sucking"), during the inflationary period of expansion (see Alan Guth, "The Inflationary Universe").