Where does the energy go ?


by ChrisPhy
Tags: energy
ChrisPhy
ChrisPhy is offline
#1
Nov7-12, 01:48 PM
P: 16
Basic question I'm sure but...please help...

If there is an object of some mass accelerating toward some other massive object, I can see that total energy of system is same regardless of time as potential energy from gravity well is being lost as kinetic energy of object increases. It would appear that total energy in system is unchanged.

1) Am I correct in this understanding ?

2) If the object in question was say moving at the speed of light to start with, as the object gets closer to other massive object, isn't the gravity potential still being reduced over time ?

3) But object cannot gain any more kinetic energy (already at top speed) so I am thinking the total energy of this system is reducing as object gets closer to massive object ? But this cannot be the case...

I know I am missing a piece of the equation here, what is happening in this situation ?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#2
Nov7-12, 01:59 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,517
Quote Quote by ChrisPhy View Post
If there is an object of some mass accelerating toward some other massive object, I can see that total energy of system is same regardless of time as potential energy from gravity well is being lost as kinetic energy of object increases. It would appear that total energy in system is unchanged.

1) Am I correct in this understanding ?
In this particular case, yes, you can view things this way. In the general case, it is not always possible to define a "total energy" for the system that remains constant. For example, there is no good way to define a "total energy" for the universe as a whole that works this way.

Quote Quote by ChrisPhy View Post
2) If the object in question was say moving at the speed of light to start with, as the object gets closer to other massive object, isn't the gravity potential still being reduced over time ?
A terminology note: the word "object" is normally not used to refer to light, or anything that moves with the speed of light. Particularly since you used the phrase "object of some mass", and objects with mass cannot move at the speed of light. So I'll interpret your question as asking what happens when light "falls" in the gravitational field of a massive object.

Quote Quote by ChrisPhy View Post
3) But object cannot gain any more kinetic energy (already at top speed) so I am thinking the total energy of this system is reducing as object gets closer to massive object ?
No, it still stays constant, because light can still change its kinetic energy even though it can't change its speed, and it does so when "falling" in a gravitational field. This is called "gravitational redshift" or "gravitational blueshift" depending on whether the light is rising (redshift) or falling (blueshift), and it has been observed experimentally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E...bka_experiment

So you can view the light as gaining or losing kinetic energy to balance the change in its potential energy, the same as an object with mass does.
ChrisPhy
ChrisPhy is offline
#3
Nov7-12, 02:06 PM
P: 16
Quote Quote by PeterDonis View Post
In this particular case, yes, you can view things this way. In the general case, it is not always possible to define a "total energy" for the system that remains constant. For example, there is no good way to define a "total energy" for the universe as a whole that works this way.



A terminology note: the word "object" is normally not used to refer to light, or anything that moves with the speed of light. Particularly since you used the phrase "object of some mass", and objects with mass cannot move at the speed of light. So I'll interpret your question as asking what happens when light "falls" in the gravitational field of a massive object.



No, it still stays constant, because light can still change its kinetic energy even though it can't change its speed, and it does so when "falling" in a gravitational field. This is called "gravitational redshift" or "gravitational blueshift" depending on whether the light is rising (redshift) or falling (blueshift), and it has been observed experimentally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E...bka_experiment

So you can view the light as gaining or losing kinetic energy to balance the change in its potential energy, the same as an object with mass does.

Thank you for reply. I think I understand. I didn't know that about objects with mass can not go to full C speed. Thanks...

georgir
georgir is offline
#4
Nov12-12, 07:53 AM
P: 128

Where does the energy go ?


Well, it probably is not appropriate to call electromagnetic energy "kinetic", but yes, it does change along with gravitational potential.
Also, I'd think potential energy for the whole system can be defined the same way as in classical physics, a sum of the potential energies between each pair of objects, as long as there are a finite number of objects... and from that total energy is also easy to define. Not sure why Peter thinks otherwise.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Kinetic Energy, Conservation of Energy, Potential Energy, etc Introductory Physics Homework 6
Work-Energy Theorum: Spring potential energy vs Kinetic Energy Introductory Physics Homework 4
cosmological constant or dark energy or vaccum denisty/energy/energy density Astrophysics 9
Energy conservative (Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy) Introductory Physics Homework 6
[SOLVED] Mechanical Energy vs Potential Energy & Kinetic Energy Introductory Physics Homework 3