Gravitational Effect from Relativistic Mass: Answers & Questions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the gravitational effects of relativistic mass and its implications in physics. It concludes that relativistic mass does not contribute to the total mass of the observable universe and that an object moving at relativistic speeds does not become a black hole. The paper by Olson and Guarino (1985) is referenced, indicating that a moving mass can induce nearly double the velocity change compared to a slower object with the same energy. Additionally, Hawking radiation is deemed irrelevant in this context, as the energy from infalling matter is primarily radiated away before reaching a black hole.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity and relativistic mass
  • Familiarity with black hole physics and Hawking radiation
  • Knowledge of gravitational effects in curved spacetime
  • Basic principles of energy conservation in relativistic contexts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Olson and Guarino paper, "Measuring the active gravitational mass of a moving object"
  • Study the implications of relativistic mass in cosmology
  • Explore the mechanisms of energy radiation in black hole accretion disks
  • Investigate the differences between relativistic mass and invariant mass in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, astrophysicists, and students of theoretical physics seeking to deepen their understanding of relativistic effects and black hole dynamics.

stefanbanev
Messages
50
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Does relativistic mass make a proportional gravitational effect on observer it flies by?
Does relativistic mass make a proportional gravitational effect on observer it flies by? Does 1 ton (resting 1 ton) of lead moving relatively observer at some speed close enough to C may appear as a micro black hole? What abort Hawking radiation in this case? Does it mean that we may convert any mass to energy via Hawking radiation simply by speeding up such mass fast enough? How relativistic mass contributes to total mass of observable universe? ~13.8+ billion light years away any proton must have ~infinite mass relatively Earth' observer; does it meant that universe has an infinite mass relatively Earth' observer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stefanbanev said:
Does relativistic mass make a proportional gravitational effect on observer it flies by? Does 1 ton (resting 1 ton) of lead moving relatively observer at some speed close enough to C may appear as a micro black hole?
No. Speed is relative. You are currently moving at 0.999999c relative to a high energy cosmic ray, so according to it you have a huge relativistic mass. Do you feel like a black hole?

stefanbanev said:
How relativistic mass contributes to total mass of observable universe?
It doesn't. The concept doesn't translate simply to the case of curved spacetime, even if one persists in using it in special relativity.

This kind of misconception is one of the reasons that relativistic mass has been a deprecated concept for decades. Popsci sources have not caught on, sadly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lomidrevo
...that said, with a lot of caveats, a mass moving relative to you does deflect your path more than a naive Newtonian calculation would suggest. The last time this came up, @pervect suggested:
pervect said:
I believe you get up to a factor of 2 "greater mass" from something approaching the speed of light. This is not relevant to your cosmological example.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
stefanbanev said:
Summary: Does relativistic mass make a proportional gravitational effect on observer it flies by?

Does relativistic mass make a proportional gravitational effect on observer it flies by?

It winds up having more than a proportional effect, if one measures the effect by the velocity induced by the relativistic flyby. See for instance Olson, D.W.; Guarino, R. C. (1985). "Measuring the active gravitational mass of a moving object". In the ultra-relativistic case, the moving mass induces nearly twice as much veloicty change as a slower-moving object with the same energy . ( Energy a synonym for relativistic mass that I greatly prefer to use).

Does 1 ton (resting 1 ton) of lead moving relatively observer at some speed close enough to C may appear as a micro black hole?

No. Whether an object is a black hole or not is a different question than asking how much velocity a relativistic flyby induces in an observer. Being a black hole is a frame-independent property, so an object that is not a black hole in it's rest frame is not a black hole in any frame.

What abort Hawking radiation in this case? Does it mean that we may convert any mass to energy via Hawking radiation simply by speeding up such mass fast enough? How relativistic mass contributes to total mass of observable universe? ~13.8+ billion light years away any proton must have ~infinite mass relatively Earth' observer; does it meant that universe has an infinite mass relatively Earth' observer?

The accretion disk of a black hole radiates much of the energy of infalling matter away before the matter reaches the black hole, without any need for hawking radiation, which is a tiny quantum effect.

Basically, as dust falls into the black hole, it speeds up, and collisions between the dust particles heat them up, causing them to radiate energy away.

To do this to an object effectivel, one might have to break it up into pieces, first, so the pieces can hit each other.

The "mass of the observable universe" isn't really well defined. One could come up with a coordinate dependent figure by insisting that one use the standard cosmological coordinates, but one wouldn't get the same number in other coordinates.
 
pervect said:
... without any need for hawking radiation, which is a tiny quantum effect.

"Tiny" for normal BH not for micro BH. The BH with 1-ton of resting mass would evaporate in seconds (if not microseconds), converting all its mass into energy with 100% of efficiency. Well, it would be a quite spectacular manifestation of "tiny" effect ;o)

Regarding to ultra fast non-zero-mass particles with speed above some C*0.99999999999... threshold which may make such particles heavy enough to make a noticeable tide-effect on observer, long before that it becomes a femto/yocto-BH which evaporates. So, it implies that the energy/speed for non-zero-mass particles has an upper limit because of Hawking radiation. Pls correct me if I'm wrong...
 
Something moving ultrareletivistically relative to you does not appear like or become a BH. Full stop. Your whole premise is simply false.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
PAllen said:
Something moving ultrareletivistically relative to you does not appear like or become a BH. Full stop. Your whole premise is simply false.

And with that, this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K