- #1
Crazy Tosser
- 182
- 0
Did General Relativity predict any mass changes of objects in a strong gravitational field?
DaleSpam said:Mass is the norm of the four-momentum, so I believe that it is invariant regardless of the curvature tensor.
Naty1 said:Not sure what you are getting at...GR doesn't work so well in the most extreme gravity...black holes...
gravitational forces within a black hole will tear any entering matter to shreds...apparently space ends and is replaced by only time...I assume mass as we know it disappears...in any case mass defect (binding energy) must be recouped as nuclear constituents are ripped apart...do only fundamental constituents then remain?? What about string constituents??
Mass will also undergo curved motion, acceleration and if greater velocity increased kinteic energy and relativistic mass when moving freely in a gravitational field.
Are you saying all motion stops?
Did General Relativity predict any mass changes of objects in a strong gravitational field?
Naty1 said:I don't know. I doubt anybody does and perhaps many would disagree with the boldface in your/my post.
My post that "apparently space ends and is replaced by time" comes from one of the popular physicsts (maybe Brian Greene or Lee Smolin, I can't find the reference now.) Not knowing all the assumptions nor the math at black hole extremes where relativity and QM breaks down, your guess is as good as mine.
I would rather guess that at such extremes much of what we know as "normal" space,time,mass,time,motion, energy,etc likely changes in extreme ways and is likely unrecognizable in terms of everyday experience. If one or more of those is fundamental and others emergent, then I would also guess the emergent factors disappear first, maybe leaving fundamental constituents...perhaps those become "altered" as well...
My own guess (not a belief) is that all such consituents are linked in ways we barely understand...a simple example relationship is E=mc^2 which rocked the world when Einstein made it known.
That is where the problem lies. The definition of temperature relies on the number of microstates per energy. This can be related to molecular motion (as with more total energy, there are more states the particles can be in and they will have a greater average velocity), but it is not necessary for there to be motion.jefswat said:My understanding of tempreture is that it is a measure of the molecular motion.
No, the strength of a gravitational field is determined by the mass and distance between two objects. Having more mass does not necessarily mean a stronger gravitational field.
No, an object's mass is a fundamental property and cannot be altered by changes in a gravitational field.
A gravitational field affects the weight of an object by exerting a force on the object. The weight of an object is directly proportional to the strength of the gravitational field it is in.
No, the gravitational field is not uniform around all objects. It is stronger closer to the object and weaker further away.
No, a gravitational field is created by the presence of mass. Without mass, there would be no gravitational field.