Observer A and B are at the same "depth" in a gravity well. Observer B then descends into the well.

Jamir Melendez 2022-05-10 Answered
Observer A and B are at the same "depth" in a gravity well. Observer B then descends into the well. A will observe B's time as going slower than their own. B will observe A's time as going faster than their own.
What happens if B were to ascend the well back to A's depth, would B's local time speed back up to the same rate as A's, but B would be younger (relative to A)?
What about the paradox caused by relative motion (ignoring gravity)? If A is moving relative to B, A and B will both observe the other's time as going slower. If A and B were together initially, then B moves away and returns, do their clocks agree?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (2)

Blaine Andrews
Answered 2022-05-11 Author has 20 answers
Calculations show that younger will be the observer who suffered accelerations/decelerations.
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question
Derick Richard
Answered 2022-05-12 Author has 4 answers
Answer to the first question: yes, B will be younger than A.
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Relevant Questions

asked 2022-04-06
If an observer were to rotate around a point at near light speeds, what sort of length contraction would he observe the universe undergo?
asked 2022-05-19
An electron is shot towards a target that is negatively charged. While the electron is traveling, the target makes an abrupt move towards the electron. While the information that the target moved is traveling from the target to the electron, the electron behaves like an electron that is moving towards a target that is in the original position.
How can energy be conserved when an electron that is moving towards a nearby charge behaves like it was moving towards a far away charge? Seems we end up with electron being at 2 meters distance from the target, while the electron had enough energy to travel to at most 4 meters distance from the target.
It also seems to me that "moving the target requires energy" is not a solution to this problem.
asked 2022-04-07
Accelerating particles to speeds infinitesimally close to the speed of light?
asked 2022-05-20
In history we are taught that the Catholic Church was wrong, because the Sun does not move around the Earth, instead the Earth moves around the Sun.
But then in physics we learn that movement is relative, and it depends on the reference point that we choose.
Wouldn't the Sun (and the whole universe) move around the Earth if I place my reference point on Earth?
Was movement considered absolute in physics back then?
asked 2022-05-19
Looking for specific Relativity example
The example had to do with two people walking along a sidewalk in opposite directions, and an alien race on a planet millions of light-years away planning an invasion of the Solar System. The example showed that in one walker's reference frame the invasion fleet had departed, but in the other reference frame the fleet had not.
At the time, the explanation made perfect sense, but I have forgotten the details and have never run across this example again.
Does anybody know where this was, or have the text of the explanation?
asked 2022-05-17
if u and u are a velocity referred to two inertial frames with relative velocity v confined to the x axis, then the quantities l, m, n defined by
( l , m , n ) = 1 | u | ( u x , u y , u z )
and
( l , m , n ) = 1 | u | ( u x , u y , u z )
are related by
( l , m , n ) = 1 D ( l v u , m γ 1 , n γ 1 )
and that this can be considered a relativistic aberration formula. The author gives the following definition for D, copied verbatim.
D = u u ( 1 u x v c 2 ) = [ 1 2 l v u + v 2 u 2 ( 1 l 2 ) v 2 c 2 ] 1 2
Why is that better than the second expression?
Also, in case it's not clear, γ = 1 / 1 v 2 c 2 and | u | = | ( u x , u y , u z ) | = u x 2 + u y 2 + u z 2
asked 2022-04-07
While the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant (c), the speed at which light propagates in other materials/mediums may be less than c. This is obviously suggested by the fact that different materials (especially in the case of transparent ones) have a particular refractive index.
But surely, matter or even photons can be accelerated beyond this speed in a medium?