Is relative mass making gravitational field?by marshallaw Tags: field, gravitational, mass, relative 

#1
Dec612, 11:09 PM

P: 1

Hello
When you have something and it gains a lot of mass m due to its high kinetic energy, so it gains a lot of relative energy. So, every object has its own gravitational field. So is the RELATIVE mass making a gravitatinal field? mathematically if g=GM/Rˇ2 does work, where you MUST add relative mass Well this would be very amazing, strange, bizzare if this was true 



#2
Dec612, 11:36 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500

If I'm understanding correctly, then you're using the terms "relative energy" and "relative mass" to mean what is referred to in standard terminology as massenergy. In standard (modern) terminology, "mass" is absolute, not relative. What we now call mass is what people used to refer to as rest mass.
The source of the gravitational field is the stressenergy tensor, not massenergy. You can sometimes get away with estimating gravitational effects by plugging massenergy into Newton's law of gravity, but it won't always work. For example, parallel beams of light exert zero gravitational force on one another, but antiparallel ones exert nonzero force. 



#3
Dec712, 12:37 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,862

A next level of approximation is invariant mass. It is often accurate up to the point where self gravitation is important, for simple systems. For example it 'explains' the antiparallel vs. parallel beams. In the former, the invariant mass of the system adds the beam energy because the momentum cancels. In the parallel case, the invariant mass is zero. Similarly, the KE of an isolated body (no matter how fast it is moving in some frame) has no relevance for any curvature invariant produced by it. However, as part of confined system of bodies (e.g. particles in a box), the invariant mass of the system will tend to include much of the KE of each body due to momentum cancellation. Just don't take this too far  the real source, as mentioned, is the stress energy tensor.




#4
Dec712, 02:21 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307

Is relative mass making gravitational field?
this question could be studied using the Aichelburg–Sexl ultraboost metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichelb...exl_ultraboost




#5
Dec712, 07:02 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 869

I would like to nominate that as the metric with the most beautiful name.




#6
Dec712, 09:48 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
P: 7,436

I tend to view energy (sometimes called relativistic mass) as a better approximation for gravity in most circumstances than invariant mass.
Examples where this approach works reasonably well. particles in a box moving thermally velocities induced by a relativistic flyby. In fact, the velocities induced by a relativistic flyby increase MORE rapidly than the approximation usig energy see http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.14280 . So using invariant mass to compute velocities due to a relativistic flyby is a very bad approximation, it's off by a factor of 2*gamma, whereas the using energy is only off by a factor of 2:1 or so. But as everyone has pointed out, the actual situation is more complex, it's really the stress energy tensor that causes gravity, and if you want to get truly accurate answers that's what you need to use. Which leads to the other reason I like to use energy. It's easier to justify as an approximation  you're approximating the stressenergy tensor by just the energy part, and throwing away the others (the momentum part, and the stress part). Invariant mass isn't part of the stress energy tensor the way energy is. The other thing that's worth mentioning is that F=GmM/r^2 doesn't work at all for relativistically moving bodies. The "field" from a moving body isn't at all spherically symmetric. Some insight into this can be gained by considering the electric field of a rapidly moving body. A search should find a lot of posts on this topic. 



#7
Dec712, 10:29 AM

P: 5,634

Marshallaw.....WOW you got great replies here,,,,,sometimes an initially insigthful answer spawns others.....
As usual when members of this group reply I have some recollecting to do. If you are that way, check out the first section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass for a bit of background.....especially 'frames'. 



#8
Dec712, 10:45 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,862

Also, the invariant mass approximation helps explain why motion relative to an observer has no tendency to produce a black hole; and why parallel motion of two bodies or beams is different in an invariant way from antiparallel motion, in terms of the effective curvature mass. 



#9
Dec712, 11:22 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,862

One more point on the difference between modeling fly by deflection versus curvature invariants:
Imagine series of identical asteroids fired to pass e.g. 10,000 km passed a some observer maintaining fixed position relative to distant stars. The first projectile is a .1, then .5., then .9c, then .999c, etc. The 'static' observer measures a peak Kretschmann invariant (the simplest curvature invariant that isn't zero for a vacuum in GR). The peak Kretschmann invariant for each projectile will be the same. [Edit: a few further observations:  The above statement is true despite that peak thrust needed for observer to retain 'static' position is greater for each successive projectile.  Imagine two asteroids going by at the same speed in tandem past hypothetical 'static' observer; versus two asteroids going by, coming from opposite directions, same speed, same closest approach to each other and to observer as tandem case. I believe:  the peak Kretschmann invariant measured by observer will be greater for the opposing motion fly by.  the peak force to hold position will be similar for the two scenarios (unlike the Kretschmann measurement) Thus, invariant mass is a better first approximation for curvature invariants (e.g. black hole formation) or estimating ADM/Bondi mass. Total energy is a better first approximation for estimating peak attractive force. ] 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Does a gravitational field have mass?  Special & General Relativity  8  
Does a gravitational field have mass?  Special & General Relativity  8  
Gravitational field has mass???  Special & General Relativity  5  
the Higgs field: so gravitational field by itself cannot confer mass?  High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics  4 