What Happens to Gravitational Fields When Mass Converts to Energy?

Katamari
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I understand energy mass equivalence, but when mass is changed to energy what happens to it's gravitational field?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nothing. Stays the same. Whatever form the 'energy' takes: kinetic energy of the decay products, photons, etc, all those things are sources of gravity also. At least initially until things fly apart, the gravitational field will be the same.
 
Mass is not the source of the gravitational field. The source of the gravitational field is the stress energy tensor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor

The mass only gravitates in the first place because it has a lot of energy.
 
I think the radiation would have to be kept in a perfectly reflecting box, or the gravitational field would change for a nearby observer. If the matter and antimatter are in the box, then anihilate, the field produced by the box and contents would not change. Pedantic is my middle name.:smile:
 
Katamari said:
I understand energy mass equivalence, but when mass is changed to energy what happens to it's gravitational field?

Even in Newtonian gravity, without conversion of mass to energy, the gravitational field of a system can change when the system evolves over time. For example, the gravitational field of the earth-moon system changes as they orbit around their common center of mass. However, those changes fall off quickly with distance, so an observer who is far away compared to the size of the system observes a constant field, equal to the field that would have been produced by a single particle with the same total mass.

In GR, there is no uniquely defined measure of mass-energy that is conserved in all spacetimes. As DaleSpam pointed out, it's the stress-energy tensor that is really fundamental in GR, not mass-energy. However, there are scalar measures of mass-energy such as ADM and Bondi mass that are conserved in specific types of spacetimes, such as asymptotically flat spacetimes. The distant, static field of a system in an asympotically flat spacetime is determined by its ADM or Bondi mass in exactly the way you would think. ADM and Bondi "mass" include both mass and energy (because otherwise they wouldn't be conserved).

So the short answer to your question is yes if you're talking about the distant, static field, in an asymptotically flat spacetime, and no otherwise -- which is not that different from the Newtonian answer.

-Ben
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top