Gravitational potential energy, a thought experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thought experiment concerning gravitational potential energy and the mass of a system involving the Sun and Sagittarius A*. Participants explore the implications of energy transformations as the Sun falls towards Sagittarius A*, questioning how this affects the overall mass of the system and the role of gravitational potential energy in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a scenario where the Sun is free falling towards Sagittarius A* and questions how much the system weighs initially and finally, suggesting that the final state has 24% more mass due to kinetic energy gained during the fall.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of mass in terms of energy and momentum, referencing the special relativistic definition of mass and questioning whether mass is created during the falling process.
  • Some participants clarify that gravitational potential energy is not part of the Einstein stress-energy tensor and that energy-momentum conservation is a key consideration in General Relativity.
  • There is a discussion about the conservation of momentum, with some asserting that the total momentum remains zero in the center of mass frame throughout the process.
  • One participant emphasizes that kinetic energy is not equivalent to mass and discusses the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy in a Newtonian framework.
  • Another participant suggests that the mass of the system remains unchanged despite the energy transformations, while also noting the potential for energy loss through gravitational waves.
  • There is a mention of the influence of the concept of relativistic mass on the thought experiment, with some participants arguing that this idea complicates the analysis of the scenario.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of gravitational potential energy and the mass of the system. There is no consensus on whether the final state mass is a result of energy transformations or if it remains unchanged, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various theoretical frameworks, including Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity, highlighting the complexities involved in analyzing the scenario. There are also mentions of specific calculations and concepts that may not be fully resolved within the discussion.

  • #121
Bosko said:
If you use Newtonian mechanics, the potential and the kinetic energy will have the same value and the opposite sign.
We do want to be a bit careful not to overstate our case here. We can always add or subtract an arbitrary value from the potential energy, so we can always make the potential energy at any point come out positive, negative, or zero as we please. It just so happens that often (central force problems, two otherwise isolated interacting bodies as in this thread, …) it is very convenient to take the potential energy at infinity to be zero; that is the maximum of potential energy so potential energy at any finite distance will then be negative.

But in other problems we may choose different conventions. If I am standing in my front yard it may be most convenient to take the zero of gravitational potential energy to be ground level, increasing upwards. Now the mass I am holding above my head will have positive potential energy ##mgh## (reflecting the work needed to lift it to height ##h## off the ground) while the mass I dropped into the well will have negative kinetic energy (also ##mgh##, but ##h## is negative, the depth of the well below ground level).

Kinetic energy on the other hand will always be non-negative. We can choose a frame in which the kinetic energy of a given object is zero, but we can’t make it come out negative.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444 and Bosko
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Lok said:
Best of luck as this will crash eventually.
There is nothing wrong with the science here, no imminent danger of a "crash". It is your expectation that energy is always positive which needs to be adjusted. The ideas of binding energy and mass deficit (or mass defect) are well known, theoretically sound, and experimentally validated.

You asked a question and you received the correct answer from multiple experts. Now it is up to you to learn. Sometimes the result of asking a question is the opportunity to learn something surprising. That is the opportunity you have now.
 
Last edited:
  • #123
Nugatory said:
We can always add or subtract an arbitrary value from the potential energy
But we can't change direct observables, and as I have already pointed out, the externally measured mass of the system is a direct observable. So any convention for gravitational potential energy that does not have it go to zero at infinity means, as I pointed out, that there is now an arbitrary constant in the math that ends up dropping out of the analysis as soon as you try to evaluate any direct observable. So the only convention that actually makes physical sense for this scenario is that GPE goes to zero at infinity.

Nugatory said:
in other problems we may choose different conventions
Agreed, that's why I qualified my response to @Bosko with "in this scenario".
 
  • #124
Lok said:
In all honesty, how old is this mess?
It's over 120 posts now.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50 and Dale
  • #125
So to get on track…

Initial system: Total E: (rest)Mass + Ekin + Ep
Final system: Total E: (rest)Mass + Ekin + Ep has not changed (as long as no Energy left the system).
Ep converted to Ekin

But I stil have a question,
When we talk about the Mass of a galaxy like the Milky way, I get the impression only the (rest)Mass is meant, not the Ekin + Ep part.

But when we talk about the gravitational effects of galaxies we have to consider the Total E. Can someone please explain to me why the Ekin+ Ep part is different from dark Mass/Energy.
 
  • #126
bigbear73 said:
So to get on track…

Initial system: Total E: (rest)Mass + Ekin + Ep
Final system: Total E: (rest)Mass + Ekin + Ep has not changed (as long as no Energy left the system).
Ep converted to Ekin

But I stil have a question,
When we talk about the Mass of a galaxy like the Milky way, I get the impression only the (rest)Mass is meant, not the Ekin + Ep part.

But when we talk about the gravitational effects of galaxies we have to consider the Total E. Can someone please explain to me why the Ekin+ Ep part is different from dark Mass/Energy.
:welcome:

It might be better to start a new thread and reference this one if you need to. The mass of the Milky Way is almost entirely the rest mass of the stars and dark matter. The internal KE and GPE are negligible. The stars are generally too far apart and moving too slowly relative to each other for these other quantities to be significant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K