Does the Mass Density of an Object Change When Approaching the Speed of Light?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around whether the mass density of an object changes as it approaches the speed of light, and how this potential change might affect the object's gravitational field. Participants explore theoretical implications, mathematical formulations, and the complexities involved in analyzing relativistic effects, particularly in the context of rotating objects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if mass density changes with speed, drawing a parallel to charge density and its effects on the Lorentz force.
  • Another participant proposes a relationship for mass density as a function of speed, suggesting that it varies according to the equation ρ = γ²ρ₀, and asserts that this change could influence gravitational fields.
  • A participant reflects on the complexity of applying the discussed concepts to a spinning sphere compared to a linear rod, indicating a prior attempt to derive related equations.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulty of computing the mass of a relativistically rotating sphere or disk, with references to the sci.physics.faq and the need for contributions on this topic.
  • Discussion includes the application of the Komar mass and the integration of energy density and pressure terms, noting that pressure contributions could lead to a lower effective mass than naive calculations suggest.
  • Another participant emphasizes the necessity of considering the interior solution for a rotating sphere and the challenges of matching it to the Kerr metric, questioning the shape of the object in this context.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the complexity of the problem, particularly regarding metrics and tensors, indicating a lack of experience in these areas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the relationship between mass density, speed, and gravitational effects, with no consensus reached on the implications or calculations involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of the mass of relativistically rotating objects.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in mathematical skills among participants, the dependence on specific definitions and metrics, and the unresolved nature of certain calculations related to relativistic effects.

Entropy
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
I've been thinking of something for quite a while I'd would really appricate some opinions of the matter. I was wondering if the mass density of an object changes when it approaches the speed of light, just like charge density changes and causes the lorentz force. Could this change in mass density effect an objects gravitational field in anyway? I tried to formulate an equation that would equate the gravitational field emitted by an object (like a star) with the rate of its spin, but saddly I don't posess the mathematical skills necisssary to accomplish such a task. If anyone has any relavent thoughts I'd appricate your input.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Entropy said:
I've been thinking of something for quite a while I'd would really appricate some opinions of the matter. I was wondering if the mass density of an object changes when it approaches the speed of light, just like charge density changes and causes the lorentz force. Could this change in mass density effect an objects gravitational field in anyway? I tried to formulate an equation that would equate the gravitational field emitted by an object (like a star) with the rate of its spin, but saddly I don't posess the mathematical skills necisssary to accomplish such a task. If anyone has any relavent thoughts I'd appricate your input.
Yes. The mass density is a function of speed and varies as

[tex]\rho = \gamma^2 \rho_0[/tex]

And yes, the mass density can effect the gravitational field too. E.g. consider a rod lying at rest in frame S on the x-axis. Now boost to a frame S' which is moving in the +x direction with respect to frame S. In frame S' the gravitational field will have a greater value given the same distance to the axis the rod is lying on.

Pete
 
Interesting. I tried to apply that to a linear rod when I first though about this (athough I used the wrong equation to get mass density), because it's a hell of a lot simplier than a spinning sphere. Now if that equation can be applied by a spinning sphere... Damn, I know I've derived the equation that calcuates the magnetic field of a rotating charge in past, I just can't remember how I did it. This should be to terribly different.
 
Computing the mass of a relativistically rotating sphere (or disk) is going to be a lot more difficult than it appears.

The sci.physics.faq, for instance, does not compute the mass or a relativistically rotating disk, and asks anyone who has such a calculation to contribute it.

Because the space-time metric around a rotating sphere or disk should be flat, the Komar mass should apply.

This means that one has to integrate not the energy density [itex]\rho[/itex], but rahter [itex]\rho + 3P[/itex], where P is the pressure, assuming a nearly Minkowskian metric, and geometric units.

Because the rotating disk/sphere will be in tension, the contribution of the pressure terms to the mass intergal will be negative, making it weigh less than a naieve analysis would suggest.
 
pervect said:
Computing the mass of a relativistically rotating sphere (or disk) is going to be a lot more difficult than it appears.

The sci.physics.faq, for instance, does not compute the mass or a relativistically rotating disk, and asks anyone who has such a calculation to contribute it.

Because the space-time metric around a rotating sphere or disk should be flat, the Komar mass should apply.

This means that one has to integrate not the energy density [itex]\rho[/itex], but rahter [itex]\rho + 3P[/itex], where P is the pressure, assuming a nearly Minkowskian metric, and geometric units.

Because the rotating disk/sphere will be in tension, the contribution of the pressure terms to the mass intergal will be negative, making it weigh less than a naieve analysis would suggest.
Or you can just forget this and examine the spacetime outside the sphere and note that it is identical to the spacetime of a rotating black hole whose metric is well known.

Pete
 
Yes, but you still have to do the interior solution, presumably a constant density interior solution. I've seen those for the Schwarzschild metric, but not the rotating Kerr metric. It's still probably the easiest route to solving the problem for a rotating sphere.

[add]
Actually, as I think about it, I'm not quite sure what shape you are going to get, it may not be spherical. You are going to have to pick whatever shape gives you the correct match-up to the Kerr metric (for some specified angular momentum and mass) over some surface outside the event horizon of the black hole represented by the Kerr metric. I'm not sure what the shape of that surface is going to have to be - if it's not spherical, it may be difficult to compute the shape, making this approach difficult as well. In the Schwarzschild case it is obvious that the correct shape is a sphere, it's not obvious that this is true for the rotating case.
 
Last edited:
Computing the mass of a relativistically rotating sphere (or disk) is going to be a lot more difficult than it appears.

The sci.physics.faq, for instance, does not compute the mass or a relativistically rotating disk, and asks anyone who has such a calculation to contribute it.

Because the space-time metric around a rotating sphere or disk should be flat, the Komar mass should apply.

This means that one has to integrate not the energy density LaTeX graphic is being generated. Reload this page in a moment., but rahter LaTeX graphic is being generated. Reload this page in a moment., where P is the pressure, assuming a nearly Minkowskian metric, and geometric units.

Because the rotating disk/sphere will be in tension, the contribution of the pressure terms to the mass intergal will be negative, making it weigh less than a naieve analysis would suggest.

Yeah, that's way out of my league. I don't have any real experience with metrics or tensors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K