<p>There is a magnetic field whenever there is a moving charge, and since "moving" is a relative term, there is at least the possibility of some observer seeing a magnetic field whenever you have any charged object at all. However, there are thought experiments which show time dilation without involving any charge.</p>

<p>An example in special relativity would be a beam of Z<sup>0</sup> bosons (which are, as far as we know uncharged fundamental particles). If the beam was moving fast relative to some observer, then they would appear to decay less quickly.</p>

<p>A GR example is an uncharged black hole (possible in theory, but unlikely in reality – any black hole will have a bit of charge, just by chance). A clock (our bunch of Z<sup>0</sup> bosons for example) close to the black hole will seem to run slower according to a distant observer at rest relative to the black hole.  The exact degree of dilation will be affected by the charge on the black hole, but it would have to be very highly charged for the difference to be much.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:20:13.373Z
@Muze distance from what, as observed by whom?
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:20:43.723Z
from a large body,
Muze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:24:15.860Z
magnetic fields generally fall off as 1 / r^3 rather than 1 / r^2 for gravity. but how does time dilation fall off?
Muze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:35:48.807Z
I asked this as a new question.
Muze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:35:57.943Z
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-rotating_sphere  it's \sqrt(1 - r/R) where R is the Schwarzschild radius
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T08:19:53.900Z
2019-07-02T06:14:27.347Z
2019-07-02T06:14:27.347Z
Steve Linton
<p>Does time dilation drop off like a gravity or does resemble a magnetic field model?  </p>

<p>Could a smaller body with a magnetic field have more time dilation then a larger body without and to what degree?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-28T20:09:02.630Z
To talk meaningfully about time dilation you need to define both the observer and the observed. Also I think you mean "correlation" not "coalition"
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-28T20:48:49.187Z
Relative to a clock on the ground, General Relativity says that a clock in orbit runs faster due to gravitational time dilation slowing down the ground level clock. But you also need to take into account the symmetrical time dilation due to relative  speed, as predicted by Special Relativity. I'd rather not talk about magnetic fields in case I add to your confusion. ;) But basically, magnetic fields don't change the time dilation.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T00:15:59.017Z
Most large bodies have no magnetic field to speak of, yet the time dilation due to their gravity is quite measurable. So, no, you don't need to involve magnetic fields to get time dilation.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:12:51.633Z
What do you mean when you say "The range of the time dilation doesn't taper of like gravity but it does resemble the taper off of a magnetic field"?
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:19:57.437Z
@HDE226868 I want to say time dilation taper of quickly like a magnetic field am I wrong?
Muze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:28:19.167Z
@Muze Okay, but what does "taper off quickly like a magnetic field" mean? What sort of magnetic field? How does it taper off?
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:31:18.147Z
@HDE226868 magnetic fields generally fall off as 1 / r^3 rather than 1 / r^2 for gravity. see new question.
Muze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-30T04:50:03.870Z
In the weak field limit gravitational time dilation depends on differences in the gravitational potential, so for point masses it scales by $1/r$.
dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-30T19:57:18.303Z
@dmckee is this better?
Muze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-01T03:56:24.567Z
My previous comment means that the time dilation behavior *does not* resemble the behavior of a magnetic field. There is no way to rescue that underlying notion.
dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
<astrophysics><space-time><redshift><magnetic-field>
What is the time dilation less a magnetic field?
Muze
# What is the time dilation less a magnetic field?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-28)

Does time dilation drop off like a gravity or does resemble a magnetic field model?

Could a smaller body with a magnetic field have more time dilation then a larger body without and to what degree?

**Tags:** astrophysics, space-time, redshift, magnetic-field
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: To talk meaningfully about time dilation you need to define both the observer and the observed. Also I think you mean "correlation" not "coalition"  
> **username_2**: Relative to a clock on the ground, General Relativity says that a clock in orbit runs faster due to gravitational time dilation slowing down the ground level clock. But you also need to take into account the symmetrical time dilation due to relative  speed, as predicted by Special Relativity. I'd rather not talk about magnetic fields in case I add to your confusion. ;) But basically, magnetic fields don't change the time dilation.  
> **username_3**: Most large bodies have no magnetic field to speak of, yet the time dilation due to their gravity is quite measurable. So, no, you don't need to involve magnetic fields to get time dilation.  
> **username_4**: What do you mean when you say "The range of the time dilation doesn't taper of like gravity but it does resemble the taper off of a magnetic field"?  
> **username_0**: @HDE226868 I want to say time dilation taper of quickly like a magnetic field am I wrong?  
> **username_4**: @Muze Okay, but what does "taper off quickly like a magnetic field" mean? What sort of magnetic field? How does it taper off?  
> **username_0**: @HDE226868 magnetic fields generally fall off as 1 / r^3 rather than 1 / r^2 for gravity. see new question.  
> **username_5**: In the weak field limit gravitational time dilation depends on differences in the gravitational potential, so for point masses it scales by $1/r$.  
> **username_0**: @dmckee is this better?  
> **username_5**: My previous comment means that the time dilation behavior *does not* resemble the behavior of a magnetic field. There is no way to rescue that underlying notion.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-06-29. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

There is a magnetic field whenever there is a moving charge, and since "moving" is a relative term, there is at least the possibility of some observer seeing a magnetic field whenever you have any charged object at all. However, there are thought experiments which show time dilation without involving any charge.

An example in special relativity would be a beam of Z0 bosons (which are, as far as we know uncharged fundamental particles). If the beam was moving fast relative to some observer, then they would appear to decay less quickly.

A GR example is an uncharged black hole (possible in theory, but unlikely in reality – any black hole will have a bit of charge, just by chance). A clock (our bunch of Z0 bosons for example) close to the black hole will seem to run slower according to a distant observer at rest relative to the black hole. The exact degree of dilation will be affected by the charge on the black hole, but it would have to be very highly charged for the difference to be much.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: @Muze distance from what, as observed by whom?  
> **username_0**: from a large body,  
> **username_0**: magnetic fields generally fall off as 1 / r^3 rather than 1 / r^2 for gravity. but how does time dilation fall off?  
> **username_0**: I asked this as a new question.  
> **username_1**: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-rotating_sphere  it's \sqrt(1 - r/R) where R is the Schwarzschild radius  

---

