Do objects moving at faster speeds have a stronger gravitational pull?

[gonegahgah]

This is just a question out of curiosity.

When things are traveling at a faster relative speed they are supposed to have greater mass which makes it harder and harder to increase their speed relative to the observer due to if being harder to overcome momentum. (Correct that if it has mistakes).

Mass and gravitational pull are related I thought.

So does this greater mass due to higher relative movement also present a stronger gravitational pull?

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi gonegahgah !

Yes, higher relative movement presents a stronger gravitational pull (as measured by the stationary observer).

Everything else you say is correct too, except:

… greater mass which makes it harder and harder to increase their speed relative to the observer due to if being harder to overcome momentum.

"overcome momentum"?

No, momentum is just as easy to increase at any speed.

Rather, it's that the same increase in momentum produces less and less increase in speed.

 

[Dale]

Yes, higher relative movement presents a stronger gravitational pull (as measured by the stationary observer).

Could you explain exactly what you mean by this? I think you are wrong, but I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

Say a test particle going .99c relative to the Earth passes through the Earth's gravitational field. The curvature of the test particle's path is the same whether it is the Earth that is stationary and the particle moving at .99c or if it is the particle that begins stationary and the Earth is moving at .99c. So in what sense does the gravitational pull increase when the Earth is moving at .99c?

 

[gonegahgah]

Replaced by post #5.

 

[gonegahgah]

My apologies Tim. Rather than momentum, I meant that because of the greater mass - when having a higher relative speed to the observer - it requires greater force to accelerate it faster relative to the observer. Momentum = mass x velocity so as velocity increases the mass increases, rather than remaining constant, so the momentum increase is non-linear with velocity. Is that correct? Maybe I should have referred to inertia instead of momentum?

Back to the other question... Dale you are saying no I think and Tim you are saying yes I think at the present. So I am still curious to know which is right.

Newton's formula is:
F = G(m1 x m2)/r²

So under this the increase in mass due to higher relative velocity would suggest a higher gravitational force between the two masses.

Even in GR the increase in mass would cause a greater curvature in the space-time causing the objects to deviate further.

So there-in lies my question. Does the increase in mass due to increase in relative speed (given as the reason for the light speed limit) also translate to a corresponding increase in the gravitational effect (ie. increased force (Newton) or greater space-time curvature (GR))?

 

[tiny-tim]

Could you explain exactly what you mean by this? I think you are wrong, but I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

Say a test particle going .99c relative to the Earth passes through the Earth's gravitational field. The curvature of the test particle's path is the same whether it is the Earth that is stationary and the particle moving at .99c or if it is the particle that begins stationary and the Earth is moving at .99c. So in what sense does the gravitational pull increase when the Earth is moving at .99c?

But that's the same situation being observed in two different ways …*for the question to be meaningful, we need different situations being observed in the same way …

I automatically assumed that the original question envisaged both the particle and the Earth being observed by an independent inertial goldfish …

if the goldfish sees the test particle in two identical situations, with the Earth having the same (instantaneous) positions but different velocities,

then the gravitational force on the test particle, as measured by the goldfish, will be greater when the Earth's speed is greater.

Same if the Earth is rotating … extra energy = extra mass = extra gravity, from the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass.

My apologies Tim. Rather than momentum, I meant that because of the greater mass - when having a higher relative speed to the observer - it requires greater force to accelerate it faster relative to the observer. Momentum = mass x velocity so as velocity increases the mass increases, rather than remaining constant, so the momentum increase is non-linear with velocity. Is that correct? Maybe I should have referred to inertia instead of momentum?

Yes … "inertia" would have cured it.

Newton's formula is:
F = G(m1 x m2)/r²

So under this the increase in mass due to higher relative velocity would suggest a higher gravitational force between the two masses.

Even in GR the increase in mass would cause a greater curvature in the space-time causing the objects to deviate further.

So there-in lies my question. Does the increase in mass due to increase in relative speed (given as the reason for the light speed limit) also translate to a corresponding increase in the gravitational effect (ie. increased force (Newton) or greater space-time curvature (GR))?

Yes, all correct … from the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass, extra mass (even extra "relativistic" mass) = extra gravity.

 

[Dale]

Newton's formula is:
F = G(m1 x m2)/r²

So under this the increase in mass due to higher relative velocity would suggest a higher gravitational force between the two masses.

Even in GR the increase in mass would cause a greater curvature in the space-time causing the objects to deviate further.

So there-in lies my question. Does the increase in mass due to increase in relative speed (given as the reason for the light speed limit) also translate to a corresponding increase in the gravitational effect (ie. increased force (Newton) or greater space-time curvature (GR))?

There are two problems with this. The first is that modern physicists don't use the concept of relativistic mass. It is redundant, just another name for energy, and frame variant. Instead, the word "mass" is generally taken to mean the "invariant mass" or "rest mass", which is different from energy.

The second, and more important reason, is that regardless of the name you use both rest mass and relativistic mass are scalars (one component) whereas the source of gravity in GR is the stress-energy tensor (16 components). Obviously, a scalar cannot equal a tensor. For a typical planet at rest the energy is predominantely in the mass and only the time-time component of the stress energy tensor is significant, so you can use the Newtonian approximation and your usual reasoning. However, as you examine the planet in reference frames where it is moving relativistically then the momentum components become significant also. You cannot ignore them, and you certainly cannot use the Newtonian approximation. Basically, you need to determine, not only how the energy (relativistic mass) warps spacetime, but also how the momentum does also.

 

[gonegahgah]

Thanks Tim. Very straight forward answers; though Dale still disagrees does he?

Thanks Dale for your answers too (though not really getting to a quantifiable conclusion).

So how much does the momentum warp space-time? Does it add, subtract, cancel?

And does it play its corresponding part in setting the light speed limit with equivalence?

 

[Dale]

I automatically assumed that the original question envisaged both the particle and the Earth being observed by an independent inertial goldfish …

if the goldfish sees the test particle in two identical situations, with the Earth having the same (instantaneous) positions but different velocities,

then the gravitational force on the test particle, as measured by the goldfish, will be greater when the Earth's speed is greater.

Can you justify this claim at all? I think this is wrong.

Scenario A) planet, goldfish, and test particle all at rest wrt each other. (How does goldfish measure the force on the test particle?)

Scenario B) planet moving relativistically, goldfish and test particle at rest. If I understand your argument, you are saying that the planet has more energy and therefore more relativistic mass and therefore exerts a greater force on the test particle.

Scenario B') planet stationary, goldfish and test particle both moving relativistically with the opposite velocity as the planet in B. Here the planet has no extra energy so there is clearly no extra force. My argument is that since there is clearly no extra force in B' then, by the principle of relativity, there must be no extra force in B (unless the method you have in mind of measuring force is frame-dependent).

Yes, all correct … from the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass, extra mass (even extra "relativistic" mass) = extra gravity.

No, most definitely not. If relativistic mass gave extra gravity than a sufficiently fast object of any mass would form a black hole, and http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html" .

 

[gonegahgah]

No, most definitely not. If relativistic mass gave extra gravity than a sufficiently fast object of any mass would form a black hole, and fast objects do not become black holes.

Cool. Thanks Dale (as long as that is the prevailing view).

It was just originally a question out of curiosity but it does lead me to ask:

So it is okay to treat it as increased mass when giving that as a reason why it takes more force to accelerate it relatively faster (and why it can't reach the speed of light) but it is not okay to treat it as increased mass as far as gravity goes?

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi DaleSpam!

Scenario A) planet, goldfish, and test particle all at rest wrt each other. (How does goldfish measure the force on the test particle?)

He plots its acceleration, and multiplies by its mass.

Scenario B) planet moving relativistically, goldfish and test particle at rest. If I understand your argument, you are saying that the planet has more energy and therefore more relativistic mass and therefore exerts a greater force on the test particle.
…
My argument is that since there is clearly no extra force in B' then, by the principle of relativity, there must be no extra force in B

Yes, I say that the goldfish measures a greater acceleration.

There is an extra force in B without an extra force in B' (in which the planet is at rest, while the goldfish and test particle move relativistically) …

the forces are related by the standard Lorentz equations for force, so the gravitational force from a moving mass changes in the same way as the electromagnetic force from a moving charge.

If relativistic mass gave extra gravity than a sufficiently fast object of any mass would form a black hole, and http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html" .

No, as I read that link, John Baez is disagreeing with you … increased gravitational mass due to relative motion cannot be plugged into the 2GM/c² formula for an event horizon to prove a physical contradiction.

 

[Mentz114]

Tiny-Tim:

There is an extra force in B without an extra force in B' (in which the planet is at rest, while the goldfish and test particle move relativistically) …

the forces are related by the standard Lorentz equations for force, so the gravitational force from a moving mass changes in the same way as the electromagnetic force from a moving charge.

There are no forces in GR.

the forces are related by the standard Lorentz equations for force, so the gravitational force from a moving mass changes in the same way as the electromagnetic force from a moving charge.

The Lorentz transformation only works in GR between freely falling frames with constant relative velocity ( ie almost none ).

If you are talking about forces you must be using a Newtonian approximation with SR added. That does not work, as others are telling you.

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi Mentz114!

There are no forces in GR.
…
If you are talking about forces you must be using a Newtonian approximation with SR added. That does not work, as others are telling you.

I'm using a linear approximation in which acceleration (and therefore force) can be measured in the pre-GR way.

The linear approximations with different local "zero" velocities are related locally by the Lorentz transformation … aren't they?

The test particle, or the goldfish, don't need all the paraphernalia of GR to work out the distance and speed of the planet.

They can work out that a moving (pure electric) charge has an electric force increased in the transverse directions by 1/√(1 - v²/c²) (and also a small transverse magnetic force, of course, though no increase of force in the longitudinal direction)

and that a moving mass has a gravitational force increased in the transverse directions by 1/√(1 - v²/c²) also.

A rotating star will have higher gravitational attraction than a non-rotating star of the same rest-mass for the same reason.

 

[Mentz114]

Hi Tiny,
first what I said earlier about the LT in GR isn't right. Red face.

I understand you're relating to weak field approximations. That's OK as long as nothing behaves relativistically. So the approximations may fail if your planet moves too fast. I'm not certain but I'd be concerned.

The beauty of the LT in electrodynamics is that it ensures that all inertial observers see the charged particle going through the same hoops, so to speak. The magnetic fields that may be infered by a moving observer are just there to ensure this.

The test of your treatment is this - will all observers see compatible things ?

 

[Naty1]

So it is okay to treat it as increased mass when giving that as a reason why it takes more force to accelerate it relatively faster (and why it can't reach the speed of light) but it is not okay to treat it as increased mass as far as gravity goes?

Seems like a good question!

 

[Mentz114]

So it is okay to treat it as increased mass when giving that as a reason why it takes more force to accelerate it relatively faster (and why it can't reach the speed of light) but it is not okay to treat it as increased mass as far as gravity goes?

It is probably not OK to give increased mass as a reason why the body will not reach c. But even if you do, it would still be wrong to attribute an increase in gravitational strength to an increase in mass because momentum gravitates and this might explain things without resorting a mass increase.

Newtonian gravity does not mix well with relativity until it's been cooked into GR. Technically Newtonian gravity is a weak field approximation of GR where nothing is moving relativistically - an assumption this treatment breaks.

 

[Dale]

There is an extra force in B without an extra force in B' (in which the planet is at rest, while the goldfish and test particle move relativistically) …

the forces are related by the standard Lorentz equations for force, so the gravitational force from a moving mass changes in the same way as the electromagnetic force from a moving charge.

The norm of the electromagnetic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-force" on a moving charge is the same in both frames. Each frame will disagree about if the source of the force is due to the electric field or the magnetic field, but they will agree on all experimentally measurable values including the force.

Similarly here, both frames should agree on any kind of frame-invariant measurement of "force" although some will attribute it to the energy of the planet and others will attribute it to the momentum of the planet.

No, as I read that link, John Baez is disagreeing with you … increased gravitational mass due to relative motion cannot be plugged into the 2GM/c² formula for an event horizon to prove a physical contradiction.

I agree, the increased energy cannot be plugged into 2GM/c², nor can you plug it into a=GM/r². You have to consider the momentum terms of the stress-energy tensor also, which you are ignoring. Baez mentions this when he says

"gravity does not only couple to mass as it does in the Newtonian theory of gravity. Gravity also couples to momentum and momentum flow"

The Newtonian approximations you keep thinking about and referring to are simply not relevant when you have a relativistically moving mass.

 

[gonegahgah]

It is probably not OK to give increased mass as a reason why the body will not reach c.

That was the reason that was given I thought? If not then what is the hurdle to a mass reaching the speed of c or greater (apart from loads of fuel)? I was lead to believe that the non-linear increase in mass as the velocity approached c was attributable directly to the increase in inertia. An increase in inertia due to the greater mass meant that a greater force was required to accelerate the greater mass further. Approaching c meant that mass approached - I assume infinity - so that we approached the requirement of infinite force (an impossibility) to push that last increase to the speed of c. So what is the real barrier then?

But even if you do, it would still be wrong to attribute an increase in gravitational strength to an increase in mass because momentum gravitates and this might explain things without resorting a mass increase.

Newtonian gravity does not mix well with relativity until it's been cooked into GR. Technically Newtonian gravity is a weak field approximation of GR where nothing is moving relativistically - an assumption this treatment breaks.

That's nice but there just happens to be a corresponding increase in mass as the momentum increases so why would we not look for some sort of equivalence around the subject of mass increases?

 

[Mentz114]

gonegahgah:
If you use Newton's a=F/m to explain what you see when someone accelerates away from you, then it's easy to say that what you are seeing is an increase in m or a decrease in F. Either of these will account for a decrease in a. This fine, but there's no reason to choose one over the other. It's formula juggling - with the wrong formula !

Newton+SR is supreceded by GR, so GR must be used to investigate these things.

The actual, real, underlying, physical ( call it what you will) mechanism is unknown. Even using the word 'mechanism' is probably wrong here.

 

[gonegahgah]

Newton+SR is supreceded by GR, so GR must be used to investigate these things.
The actual, real, underlying, physical ( call it what you will) mechanism is unknown. Even using the word 'mechanism' is probably wrong here.

Okay thanks. That's what I wanted - a result - whatever it was; hopefully it is in agreement with the general prevailing view.

So there is no understanding of why it happens only that it is observed to happen. (It was a brave man to suggest it before we could work out how to make observations of it). That is what I get from your last post.

Interestingly, if the observations are correct, it means that if something is moving at 9.999999c away from you and falls into a gravity well at a distance it can not increase its speed at the local acceleration rate (due to the curvature) relative to you despite the space-time curvature. So it will fall into the gravity well no significantly faster than when it was not in the gravity well.

So two objects falling into the gravity well at a distance - one moving at a low relative speed to you and the other at 9.999999c - will appear to accelerate at different rates with the faster object not following the space-time curvature correctly and falling with less acceleration; while the slow object falls at the expected acceleration rate.

That has to hold true given what we are told does it not?

 

[Mentz114]

Interestingly, if the observations are correct, it means that if something is moving at 9.999999c away from you and falls into a gravity well at a distance it can not increase its speed at the local acceleration rate (due to the curvature) relative to you despite the space-time curvature. So it will fall into the gravity well no significantly faster than when it was not in the gravity well.

So two objects falling into the gravity well at a distance - one moving at a low relative speed to you and the other at 9.999999c - will appear to accelerate at different rates with the faster object not following the space-time curvature correctly and falling with less acceleration; while the slow object falls at the expected acceleration rate.

That has to hold true given what we are told does it not?

Yes. Both phenomena are 'expected' by the theory so there's no problem.
GR is surprisingly subtle, and can even produce repulsive gravity given the right space-time.

 

[gonegahgah]

Cool. But it would give me the answer I would expect. That is that the 'mechanism' is one called 'magic'; although a consistent magic to be sure. All our physical phenomena are driven by a consistent magic that just occurs. The mechanism is beyond explanation because of this.

Other examples are:
a) Cosmological expansion that occurs only between galaxies; and has no effect upon the intra-galactic objects themselves (objects inside the galaxy) allowing very far distant galaxies to move apart at speeds greater than c; because cosmological expansion is not beholden to speed of light limitations; unlike everything else known.
b) The strong force which increases with distance until a point and then begins to decrease; unlike all other forces which weaken with distance.

Regarding the strong force (wrong part of the forum I know) wouldn't it make more sense for the strong force to be a combination of two opposing forces with the repelling force starting stronger but dropping off at a faster rate? Just like they use for levitating trains. The magnetic force starts off stronger than gravity pushing the train away but weakens at a faster rate than gravity so that there reaches a balance point where the train floats. Doesn't that make more sense than an individual force that acts differently to all the other forces in this respect ie. all the other forces weaken with distance.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Gonegahgah, your description of things you don't understand as "magic" is, frankly, offensive. It belittles the effort that other people have put into understand exactly those things, and it effectively denies the accomplishments they have made. Put simply, the fact that you don't understand something doesn't mean nobody understands it. Describing it as magic is insulting.

Part A is completely understood. Galaxies don't (presently) expand because the forces holding them together are stronger than the forces pulling them apart. The fact that you don't like the fact that they can expand away from each other faster than light is simply a statement on preference. As Whistler said, "I maintain that two and two would continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three, or the cry of the critic for five."

Part B is not only completely understood, but the explanation for it received the Nobel Prize in 2004.

 

[gonegahgah]

Thank you very much Vanadium.

What I have stated is exactly where Mentz has taken me.
I would be happy if you would contribute and take me somewhere more cohesive.
That is all I ever ask.

Not to be lead down a path to nowhere.
I know Mentz is trying to help (sorry Mentz) but he obviously doesn't know enough about it.
There are people here who do (I would think and hope).

Sometimes I have received great answers.
Other times they are just froth & bubble (again my apologies to those who try).

Statements like "completely understood" always concern me.
I remember someone famously saying something like that once upon a time about all science.
There are still ongoing data coming in that are being interpreted all the time.
Such as energies that appear to be traveling faster than c if I am correct.
I can tell you that not all my questions were able to be answered in that cosmology forum; I assume they weren't able to be because no-one answered all of them.

Galaxies don't expand of course (I'm not sure what you mean by presently; are they going to?). But you would think they would encounter the same expansion effects internally as another factor to take into account and not just outside as a net effect throughout the universe between galaxies. This idea that you can ignore something in one place as a convenience to make things work is just that - a convenience; not science.

I'm sorry if you are offended that someone might suggest that the strong force may be two forces instead of one. There is no great and mighty step in that idea. It more gels with the idea of 1 + 1 = 2 than the alternative that it should behave in a way different to everything else without reason.

I apologise if I ever step out of line. But I would like correct answers. Please.

 

[Mentz114]

I apologise if I ever step out of line. But I would like correct answers. Please.

How would you be able to tell the difference between an incorrect and a correct answer ?

 

[Vanadium 50]

But I would like correct answers. Please.

What makes you think that what I said was incorrect?

 

[Naty1]

So two objects falling into the gravity well at a distance - one moving at a low relative speed to you and the other at 9.999999c - will appear to accelerate at different rates with the faster object not following the space-time curvature correctly and falling with less acceleration; while the slow object falls at the expected acceleration rate.

They WILL appear to accelerate from you differently, but that does NOT mean either object fails to follow the "correct" space time curvature; Each object does! Each object follows the geodesic which maximizes its own proper (local) time...alternatively you can envision that the "slow" object can accelerate in the direction of it's initial velocity proportionately more than can the fast object; both objects also accelerate orthogonally. A fast moving baseball and a slower moving marble follow their own unique (different but "correct") trajectories.

 

[Dale]

I assume they weren't able to be because no-one answered all of them.

That's a bad assumption. More likely you said something offensive there too and people stopped bothering, or you did a shotgun barrage of questions without waiting for answers, or you were answered fully and completely but just don't know enough to understand the answer.

 

[Naty1]

Dalespam you posted:

Similarly here, both frames should agree on any kind of frame-invariant measurement of "force" although some will attribute it to the energy of the planet and others will attribute it to the momentum of the planet.

Your statement caught my attention because I just happened to reread (Richard Feynmann, SIX NOT SO EASY PIECES) that replacing in the Lorentz transformations x with p_x (for momentum) and replacing t with E (for energy as mc² yields the four vector momentum.

Is that what you are referring to here? If so, could you elaborate a bit further as I am trying to make some sense of the four vector momentum...whereas time in Lorentz is velocity and distance dependent (u,t) now energy is velocity and momentum dependent...

So it seems like energy and momentum transform/rotate into one another...yes? Is that what your comment implies??

 

[Dale]

Your statement caught my attention because I just happened to reread (Richard Feynmann, SIX NOT SO EASY PIECES) that replacing in the Lorentz transformations x with p_x (for momentum) and replacing t with E (for energy as mc² yields the four vector momentum.

Is that what you are referring to here? If so, could you elaborate a bit further as I am trying to make some sense of the four vector momentum...whereas time in Lorentz is velocity and distance dependent (u,t) now energy is velocity and momentum dependent...

So it seems like energy and momentum transform/rotate into one another...yes? Is that what your comment implies??

Yes, that is exactly correct. This is a very important topic, I will start a new thread.

 

[gonegahgah]

Dale I didn't say anything offensive there.
You can see in the thread itself: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=265994".
I don't try to be offensive.
But I do like to question and not just accept. I don't like to assume something is just right.
When something shows an inconsistency - to me of course - I question it further.

Mentz has made a good effort but we all have to be able to say when we get to the point that we just don't know; even perhaps offer that maybe someone else here may be able to further the topic with more knowledge.

Do you know one of the things I would wish for?
That is an educational site that is evidence data based rather than explanation based.
Surely scientific data can be summarised to show how the broader experiment producing it indicates the principle being tested.

We have our 'thought experiments' but they are no replacement for data that verifies a principle - which of course is what science tries to do. It would be nice if some actual data could be linked with these thoughts.

Those are just wishes of course. I also wish we could all have the toys that the scientists get to play with (I am saying 'play' playfully not insultingly). I have experiments in mind but no easy way to do them. They say 'where there's a will; there's a way' but obviously the will has to be concentrated enough.