Does GR predict SR mass changes?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Shaw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr Mass Sr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between General Relativity (GR) and Special Relativity (SR), specifically whether GR can independently calculate mass changes at escape velocity without referencing SR. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and implications of gravitational time dilation and relativistic mass.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that GR can show that the predicted time dilation on a planet's surface matches the time dilation required by SR at that planet's escape velocity.
  • Others contend that deriving mass increase at escape velocity without SR is unlikely, as the relativistic mass equation is based on local inertial frames, which GR does not address independently.
  • One participant notes that GR builds upon SR by introducing curved spacetime and field equations, making it difficult to separate the two theories as suggested.
  • Another participant mentions that the concept of "relativistic mass" is not commonly used in modern GR, highlighting the complexity of mass treatment in GR, including various types of mass like Komar, ADM, and Bondi masses.
  • Some participants propose that GR can calculate changes in gravitational mass independently of SR, referencing external materials to support this claim.
  • A later reply challenges the notion that the equivalence of time dilations is merely a coincidence, providing a detailed argument linking escape velocity and gravitational time dilation through energy considerations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether GR can independently calculate mass changes at escape velocity without reference to SR. There is no consensus, as some argue for the independence of GR in this context while others emphasize the foundational role of SR.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of mass definitions in GR and the potential limitations of applying SR concepts to GR scenarios. There are unresolved aspects regarding the derivation of mass changes and the implications of time dilation.

Shaw
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
GR can be used to show that the predicted time dilation on the surface of a planet equals the time dilation required by SR at that planet's escape velocity. Can it also be used to independently calculate the mass increase at that velocity without any reference to SR?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shaw said:
GR can be used to show that the predicted time dilation on the surface of a planet equals the time dilation required by SR at that planet's escape velocity. Can it also be used to independently calculate the mass increase at that velocity without any reference to SR?

No, and it's unlikely that such a derivation could be found because the derivation of the relativistic mass equation is done in a local inertial frame - and GR doesn't tell us anything about local inertial frames that SR hasn't already told us.

This is in contrast to gravitational time dilation, which is pretty clearly a non-local phenomenon. Even then, it's more of a happy accident than a deep result that the two time dilations you mention happen to come out the same.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
GR is built on top of SR - it basically adds the idea that space-time is curved and the field equations that describe the evolution of said curvature to special relativity. So it's not really possible to cut off GR from SR in the manner in which you suggest.

Additionally, the concept of "relativistic mass" you describe isn't used in GR, and it's hardly used in modern treatments of SR anymore. (You'll find it in old textbooks, and it also seems to be widely used in popularizations).

The treatment of mass in GR is rather complex, there are at least three different sorts of mass that are in common use, none of which is universally applicable. The so-called Komar mass (also called energy at infinity) which applies to static situations, is probably the one most closely related to your observation about escape velocity. Other sorts of mass in common use in GR are the ADM and Bondi masses.
 
Shaw said:
Can it also be used to independently calculate the mass increase at that velocity without any reference to SR?

Yes, GR can be used to calculate the change of gravitational mass, that SR does not refers to:

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/mass_articles/Olson_Guarino_1985.pdf

The usefulness of such calculations is another question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nugatory said:
This is in contrast to gravitational time dilation, which is pretty clearly a non-local phenomenon.

So is escape velocity. That's not a coincidence; see below.

Nugatory said:
Even then, it's more of a happy accident than a deep result that the two time dilations you mention happen to come out the same.

It's not an accident. Consider:

* Escape velocity is a measure of the energy per unit mass that needs to be added to an object to get it from rest at the surface of the planet to infinity--i.e., it's a measure of the change in energy per unit mass from the surface of the planet to infinity. But mass and energy are the same thing in relativity, so it's really a measure of the change in energy per unit of energy, i.e., the "fractional change in energy" from the surface of the planet to infinity.

* Gravitational time dilation is a measure of the redshift of light emitted from the surface of the planet and received at infinity--i.e., it's a measure of the change in energy per photon from the surface of the planet to infinity. But the redshift is really a ratio; it's the change in energy per unit of energy in the photon, i.e.,...the "fractional change in energy" from the surface of the planet to infinity.

Another way of seeing the correspondence is to imagine the following thought experiment:

* A device at infinity creates a bunch of photons with total energy ##E## and sends them down to the surface of the planet.

* At the planet's surface, the photons are converted to an object with rest mass ##m = E## as measured locally. The extra energy in the photons (since they were blueshifted during the descent) is used to boost the object to escape velocity and send it back out to infinity.

* When the object reaches infinity, it is at rest (since it had just enough velocity to escape), so its total energy is equal to its rest mass ##m##, which equals ##E##.

Obviously, the energy gained by the photons in falling (which is determined by the gravitational redshift/time dilation) must be equal to the energy needed to boost the object to escape velocity; otherwise conservation of energy is violated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K