Register to reply 
Massive objects moving too fast 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb2708, 02:27 PM

P: 24

I've been puzzling over this for quite sometime and have not been able to find it anywhere here which is stunning. What if you had a structure that was moving fast enough to have it's relativistic mass be...1 kg for now. And we had this 1 kg mass zipped by something that was 0.5 kg for sake of argument. What would be the "grativistic(sp?)" forces at work here? Should I try and use Newton universal law to figure it out? or would the speed negate any other forces because it is just simply moving too fast. Here's another thought: Is gravity affected by time or is time affected by gravity?
Thank you for reading and if it has already been said please just post a link or a few keywords I can search for. :) Coughlan 


#2
Feb2708, 02:38 PM

Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,693

No, that gravitational force, at a specific instant, would be calculated, in special relativity, by using Newton's gravitational formula with the distance between the objects and their masses at that instant.
I specified "in special relativity" because, of course, general relativity has a completely different way of computing gravity. 


#3
Feb2708, 02:41 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,087

I'm not clear on your scenario, but if it involves gravitational interaction between masses which are in relative motion, there is a newer theory than Newton's gravity, called general relativity which deals with this.



#4
Feb2708, 03:09 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 26,148

Massive objects moving too fast
I think what you're asking is:
Gravitational force depends on mass and distance. Is that mass the ordinary mass (restmass) m, or, for something moving at a very fast speed v, is it the increased mass [tex]\frac{m}{\sqrt{1\,\,v^2/c^2}}[/tex]? Erm … I don't actually know the answer to that! 


#5
Feb2708, 05:23 PM

P: 24

Well what I was referring to was this. In order to calculate a relitivistic mass you need to take into account its energy. Thus the fast you go the more mass you have. So what if this high speed object with its new mass passes a stationary object half its weight? What happens? Is the second object attracted to the first? I hope that helps



#6
Feb2808, 09:34 AM

P: 28

I'm going to take a guess here. From my understanding, at relativistic speeds, an object doesn't gain mass, per se. By that I mean it doesn't gain particles or anything. Gaining mass at high speeds is a bad interpretation because it leads to weird conclusions when you talk about a mass traveling at, say, a 30 degree angle between the x and y axis. Does it gain more mass in the x direction than the y since the velocity component is higher in that direction? As you can see, different masses in different directions of the same object doesn't make much sense. But, if you interpret mass as a quantity that tells you the resistance to change in its trajectory, I think it makes more sense. Then, in my analogy about traveling at 30 degrees, its conclusion would be that it's harder to accelerate the mass in the x direction than in the y direction. So the big point is, if something is going at a relativistic speed in a particular direction, it harder to make that object go any faster in that direction than if it were going at a lower speed. In your question, I assume you're talking about some big object passing beside another big object at a high speed. I think you should break things down into vector components. Let's say object B is at the origin in the xy plane, and object A is traveling in the ydirection and passed the xaxis at some distance "d" from the origin. Since object A is going beside object B, and the gravitational force is one of attraction, object B wouldn't cause A to go any faster in the ydirectionit's pulling it towards the origin. So the effect would be that object A would gain a velocity component in the x direction, toward object B. Since object A is not traveling at relativistic speeds in this direction, it's normal mass would be used. If you want the situation of the gravitational pull being in the same direction as the relativistic velocity, you need General Relativity. Special Relativity does not apply to noninertial frames. Hope this helps.



#7
Feb2808, 11:27 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 26,148

The increased mass, restmass times [tex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\,\,v^2/c^2}}[/tex], is the same for all directions. 


#8
Feb2808, 11:46 AM

P: 6

You are trying to unify Special Relativity with newtonian gravitation, I guess.
At the moment I have no idea about how doing that, but on one point I am quite sure. Newton's gravity has as framework the Euclidean space and threevectors, while Special Relativity resides in the spacetime (Minkowski space) and uses fourvectors. So, Newton's law cannot be used as it stands, but needs to be generalized to the fourdimensional case, as one usually does for Electromagnetism, introducing the fourpotential A^{\mu}. However, the generalization of Newton's law to Minkowski space (if it is possible) has not to be trivial! If we assume it possible, then one uses fourmomenta and fourforces and should be able to deal properly with newtonian gravity. I think I have been right! 


#9
Feb2808, 01:02 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 26,148

No. All Newtonian laws can be converted into fourdimensional laws.
You just have to be careful! Usually, it just involves multiplying the mass by [tex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\,\,v^2/c^2}}[/tex]. In electromagnetism, for example, E and B are parts of a sixcomponent tensor in fourdimensional space, and would be different for an observer with a different velocity, but for any particular observer the usual threedimensional rules for E and B apply. 


#10
Feb2808, 04:18 PM

P: 1,544

Just ignore any impulse to apply the gamma factor to mass at all to satisfy any apparent effect you think you see from your point of view. Energy is defined by applying gamma to momentum no more than that is needed. No need to assume that the momentum value change is the result of a change in any actual mass inside the equation for momentum. Physicist today find it makes much better sense to view the momentum itself as being altered relativisticly by time and distance changes defined in the gamma factor. Those effects are what is important not the idea that it “looks as if the mass changed”. That is all that has happened, the relativistic effects are real. Not what only seems like a change in mass from our point of view. 


#11
Feb2808, 06:23 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 26,148

I'm quite happy to accept that there's more than one way of looking at the same mathematics, and which you choose is largely a matter of taste. My taste is to say that the mass increases. That's perfectly consistent with the mathematics. If you want to state clearly what your taste is, I'll probably be happy to agree with you that that's fine too. I'll just add that if you have two identical boxes containing identical flywheels, one flywheel rotating and one not, and you can't see inside the box, then you'll find that the one with the rotating flywheel is more difficult to push, and you have little alternative but to say that that box has increased mass! 


#12
Feb2908, 03:28 AM

P: 6

Electromagnetism is a very special case! In fact Einstein conceived Special Relativity starting from it (in his pioneer work "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", "on the electrodynamics among bodies").
He also said that Special Relativity was already contained in Maxwell equations, for which Galileo transformations give problems. The same problems are absent for newtonian gravity, so one has to investigate some sort of "gravitodynamics among bodies"! :) Namely, which are the relativistic effects in newtonian gravity? And how do you build the gravitational fourpotential? Anyway, in my opinion the rest mass, being a scalar, should be used as the source of the gravitational force. The gamma factor would enter through Lorentz transformations! 


#13
Feb2908, 05:00 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 26,148




#14
Feb2908, 11:09 AM

P: 24

Wow thanks for the response. I had no idea that this topic was so unclear. I figured that I was just missing something. I still don't know what to think but it has been a great thought provoking experience non the less!



#15
Feb2908, 11:12 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,850

There's a big problem trying to reconcile Newtonian gravity with special relativity. In Newtonian gravity, two masses exert equal and opposite forces on each other simultaneously. In relativity, there's no such thing as "simultaneous", so if the masses are moving relative to each other, you are in trouble.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe you have no choice but to use general relativity. I'm no expert, but I recall other answers to similar questions saying that, in GR, gravity relates to energymomentum rather than to (rest) mass. So even photons have some (tiny) gravitational influence. 


#16
Feb2908, 11:15 AM

P: 24

...I was afraid someone was going to say that. Unfortunately I couldn't do Tensor Calculus to save my life. As a matter of fact I'm barely hanging on with regular calculus. So I guess I'll just have to take your guys' word for it. Thank you for the prompt responses! :)



#17
Feb2908, 11:23 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,850

I would suggest to everyone that when we talk about mass, we should make it clear whether we mean "relativistic mass" (proportional to energy, including kinetic energy) or "rest mass" (="invariant mass"). The modern fashion is for "mass" to mean "invariant mass". In these forums, many readers are struggling to work out what mass is, so we should avoid ambiguity. For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know why, the invariant mass m_{tot} of a collection of particles can be defined by [tex](\Sigma E)^2 = m_{tot}^2 c^4 + \Sigma \textbf{p}^2 c^2 [/tex]. which reduces to [tex]\Sigma E = m_{tot} c^2 [/tex] in the box's frame, where the total momentum is zero. For each individual particle of invariant mass m, [tex]E^2 = m^2 c^4 + \textbf{p}^2 c^2[/tex], so [tex]E > m c^2[/tex], and [tex]m_{tot} > \Sigma m[/tex]. 


#18
Feb2908, 11:32 AM

Mentor
P: 11,879

The "gravitational field of a moving object" has been discussed fairly regularly here. Note particularly Pervect's posts in the following threads.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205073 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153173 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=150342 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Do we observe fast moving objects in the universe?  General Physics  12  
Massive objects traveling near the speed of light  Special & General Relativity  2  
Why don't all massive objects collide?  Special & General Relativity  3  
Massive objects in the immediate solar neighbourhood  Astronomy & Astrophysics  23  
Massive objects going 99.9% speed of light.  Special & General Relativity  12 