Increase in PE due to increased mass

In summary: The hotter body lost energy as it cooled.The hotter body lost energy as it cooled.Okay but there is still one problem: The hotter body lost potential energy as it cooled. Where did that energy go?The extra energy is converted to kinetic energy by the hotter body.The extra energy is converted to kinetic energy by the hotter body.
  • #1
Altair Tans
14
7
Suppose a body is held stationary at a height h above earth, having some PE

Now if the same body is in orbit around Earth at same height, owing to its velocity its mass increases causing the PE at that height to be more than what it was when the body was stationary.

Where did the extra energy come from?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Whatever you used to accelerate the mass.
 
  • #3
Ibix said:
Whatever you used to accelerate the mass.
But the work done by that external agent would cause increase in kinetic energy.it is not doing any work against force of gravity(as they are perpendicular). So if its not doing work against gravity how is its work converted to gravitational PE?
 
  • #4
Altair Tans said:
Now if the same body is in orbit around Earth at same height, owing to its velocity its mass increases causing the PE at that height to be more than what it was when the body was stationary.
Your premise is mistaken - it's mass does not increase because of its velocity, at least not the way you're thinking, so the question does not arise. Confusion of this sort is why the the concept of relativistic mass is seldom used these days: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-relativistic-mass-and-why-it-is-not-used-much/

You can safely say that the total energy of the orbiting object is greater than the energy of the suspended object. The "extra" energy is kinetic energy, and as @Ibix says, it came from whatever you used to accelerate the object.
 
  • Like
Likes ComplexVar89 and Ibix
  • #5
Nugatory said:
Your premise is mistaken - it's mass does not increase because of its velocity, at least not the way you're thinking, so the question does not arise. Confusion of this sort is why the the concept of relativistic mass is seldom used these days: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-relativistic-mass-and-why-it-is-not-used-much/

You can safely say that the total energy of the orbiting object is greater than the energy of the suspended object. The "extra" energy is kinetic energy, and as @Ibix says, it came from whatever you used to accelerate the object.
Thank you. I understand now
 
  • #6
What @Nugatory said. I should read more carefully. You can't handle gravity in a relativistic universe by just substituting relativistic mass into Newtonian gravitational formulae.
 
  • #7
Altair Tans said:
Suppose a body is held stationary at a height h above earth, having some PE

Now if the same body is in orbit around Earth at same height, owing to its velocity its mass increases causing the PE at that height to be more than what it was when the body was stationary.

Where did the extra energy come from?
Suppose two bodies at different temperatures are held stationary at a height h above earth, having some PE

Now if the hotter body heats the cooler body, owing to the cooler body's increased heat energy its mass increases causing the PE at that height to be more than what it was when the body was cooler.

Where did the extra energy come from?
 
  • #8
jartsa said:
Now if the hotter body heats the cooler body, owing to the cooler body's increased heat energy its mass increases causing the PE at that height to be more than what it was when the body was cooler.

Where did the extra energy come from?
The hotter body lost energy as it cooled.
 
  • #9
Nugatory said:
The hotter body lost energy as it cooled.

Okay but there is still one problem: The hotter body lost potential energy as it cooled. Where did that energy go?-----------------

Okay I answer myself: It went to the body that gained potential energy.
 
  • #10
Altair Tans said:
Suppose a body is held stationary at a height h above earth, having some PE

Now if the same body is in orbit around Earth at same height, owing to its velocity its mass increases causing the PE at that height to be more than what it was when the body was stationary.

Where did the extra energy come from?

Special relativity by itself will not handle gravity. Getting gravity to work correctly along with relativity was why Einstein created General Relativity. This was not an easy, or short, task that can be fully explained in a post that's a few paragraphs long. It gets involved, but we can say a few things. The shortest reasonable answer is that, as I already said, we do need General relativity, not special relativity to answer your question, and that there is more to GR than plugging in some different values for mass into Newtonian formulae.

I could give you a brief rundown of some of the various sorts of masses that are defined in special and general relativity (I'm not sure I know all of the later but I could talk about the 'Big Three'). However, I'm not sure if that's interesting to you especially since it won't be sufficient to answer your question. None of these sorts of masses will allow you to plug them into Newton's formula, and get the answer you seek.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #11
Nugatory said:
The hotter body lost energy as it cooled.

It's not that easy. The hot body loses energy by emission of heat radiation and the cold body receives energy by absorption of this radiation. If the emitted and absorbed energy would be equal, the sum of the rest energies of both bodies would remain constant. But the potential energy of the system would change due to the changed mass of the bodies. The question remains, where the difference comes from or goes to and the answer is: The heat released from the hot body and the heat absorbed by the cold body are actually different due to red- or blueshift (depending on the mass ratio of the bodies). The difference comes from or goes to the potential energy of the system.
 
  • #12
DrStupid said:
It's not that easy. The hot body loses energy by emission of heat radiation and the cold body receives energy by absorption of this radiation. If the emitted and absorbed energy would be equal, the sum of the rest energies of both bodies would remain constant. But the potential energy of the system would change due to the changed mass of the bodies. The question remains, where the difference comes from or goes to and the answer is: The heat released from the hot body and the heat absorbed by the cold body are actually different due to red- or blueshift (depending on the mass ratio of the bodies). The difference comes from or goes to the potential energy of the system.
Let's say object number two is a sphere around object number one. This way we get rid of the distracting redshift.

And let's put those two objects as far from all masses as possible. This makes the potential energy of the objects as large as possible. We usually do this when we do not want to consider general relativity, right? So maybe we can forget the general relativity here too?
 
  • #13
jartsa said:
Let's say object number two is a sphere around object number one. This way we get rid of the distracting redshift.

No, we don't. There is still a red- or blueshift in the gravitational field of object one.
 
  • #14
DrStupid said:
No, we don't. There is still a red- or blueshift in the gravitational field of object one.
Oh. Well then object one is two thin and light papers, one paper attached to the inside of the object #2, other one on the outside of the object #2. (Object #2 was a sphere, if anyone has forgotten)

Now I hope redshift is eliminated. I mean on the average redshift should be zero.
 
  • #15
DrStupid said:
It's not that easy. The hot body loses energy by emission of heat radiation and the cold body receives energy by absorption of this radiation. If the emitted and absorbed energy would be equal, the sum of the rest energies of both bodies would remain constant. But the potential energy of the system would change due to the changed mass of the bodies. The question remains, where the difference comes from or goes to and the answer is: The heat released from the hot body and the heat absorbed by the cold body are actually different due to red- or blueshift (depending on the mass ratio of the bodies). The difference comes from or goes to the potential energy of the system.
That's not right. One way to see this is to analyze the problem with the zero point of the gravitational potential set at the height of the two-body system, instead of at infinity or the surface of the Earth as we usually do. Now the potential energy of the system is zero and remains zero no matter what happens to the masses of the individual objects. Thus, conservation of energy requires that whatever is lost by one body is gained by the other; there's nowhere else for it to go.

You are right that if the two bodies are exchanging heat through thermal radiation there will be a (tiny) gravitational redshift/blueshift if their masses are different. But in this case clocks on the surface of each object are also running at different rates because gravitational time dilation is at work. The "uphill" object will receive low intensity red-shifted light for a longer time, so ends up receiving the same amount of energy as was emitted by the "downhill" object.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #16
jartsa said:
I mean on the average redshift should be zero.

That depends on the specific conditions. If yes, than the change of the potential energy should also be zero.

Nugatory said:
One way to see this is to analyze the problem with the zero point of the gravitational potential set at the height of the two-body system, instead of at infinity or the surface of the Earth as we usually do.

What is "the height of the two-body system"?

Edit:

After reading your post again I have an idea what you mean. Are you talking about the potential energy of the two-body system in the gravitational field of a third body only? That is indeed constant, but that's not the full story. There is also a potential energy due to the gravitational field of the two bodies itself and this part of the total potential energy is changing.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
In this thread a poster has a problem with disappearing potential energy:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/potential-energy-and-annihilation.936094/

And here in this thread a poster has a problem with appearing potential energy.

So maybe the solution to the disappearing potential energy there is the appearing potential energy here, and vice versa.

(Seems obvious to me that it it so)
 
  • #18
jartsa said:
So maybe the solution to the disappearing potential energy there is the appearing potential energy here, and vice versa.

Yes, that's what I mean. The potential energy of the system is increased and the energy of the radiation is decreased by redshift (or the other way around with blueshift). The total energy remains constant.
 
  • #19
DrStupid said:
Yes, that's what I mean. The potential energy of the system is increased and the energy of the radiation is decreased by redshift (or the other way around with blueshift). The total energy remains constant.

Do you mean this redshift:

Light climbs away from the annihilation point and redshifts, because light is climbing away from other light. The amount of redshift is maybe a few microjoules.

Or this:

Matter-antimatter fuel is lifted from the ground to a position high above the earth. The lifting causes the light of annihilation of the fuel to have more energy, maybe a few megajoules more.
 
  • #20
@jartsa,

Of course the first one. In the second case there is no redshift involved and there is no reason why the energy released during annihilation should depend on the gravitational potential.
 
  • #21
Nugatory said:
That's not right. One way to see this is to analyze the problem with the zero point of the gravitational potential set at the height of the two-body system, instead of at infinity or the surface of the Earth as we usually do. Now the potential energy of the system is zero and remains zero no matter what happens to the masses of the individual objects. Thus, conservation of energy requires that whatever is lost by one body is gained by the other; there's nowhere else for it to go.

You are right that if the two bodies are exchanging heat through thermal radiation there will be a (tiny) gravitational redshift/blueshift if their masses are different. But in this case clocks on the surface of each object are also running at different rates because gravitational time dilation is at work. The "uphill" object will receive low intensity red-shifted light for a longer time, so ends up receiving the same amount of energy as was emitted by the "downhill" object.
No. Anything that climbs loses energy. When we ask where the lost energy goes, the answer is: "it goes to the system". I have seen that answer many times here.

If two things climb away from each other, both things lose energy. The system gains potential energy.
 
  • #22
jartsa said:
No. Anything that climbs loses energy. When we ask where the lost energy goes, the answer is: "it goes to the system". I have seen that answer many times here.

If two things climb away from each other, both things lose energy. The system gains potential energy.
How can two objects both climb away from each other unless they are on opposite sides of the larger body? Also I'm pretty sure in Nugatory's example the height of the objects with respect to the designated origin is not changing.
 
  • #23
Sorcerer said:
How can two objects both climb away from each other unless they are on opposite sides of the larger body? Also I'm pretty sure in Nugatory's example the height of the objects with respect to the designated origin is not changing.

When an object moves from lower potential to higher potential, it 'climbs', except when something else 'lifts' the object. To 'climb' is to 'self-lift'.

When space contains two objects, there is a potential difference between any two points of the space, except when the two points happen to be on the same equipotential surface.
 
  • #24
Sorcerer said:
How can two objects both climb away from each other unless they are on opposite sides of the larger body?

Earth and Moon climb away from each other without a larger body between them. During this process the kinetic energies of both objects decrease and the common potential energy increases.
 

1. How does mass affect potential energy?

The potential energy of an object increases as its mass increases. This is because potential energy is directly proportional to mass, meaning that as mass increases, so does potential energy.

2. Why does increasing mass lead to an increase in potential energy?

This is due to the formula for potential energy, which is PE = mgh. "m" represents mass, "g" represents the acceleration due to gravity, and "h" represents the height of the object. As mass increases, the value of "m" in the formula increases, leading to a higher potential energy.

3. Does the increase in potential energy due to increased mass apply to all objects?

Yes, the increase in potential energy due to increased mass applies to all objects as long as they are within the Earth's gravitational field. This is because the formula for potential energy takes into account the gravitational force acting on an object, which is constant on Earth.

4. How does an increase in mass affect the potential energy of a system?

In a system where multiple objects are interacting with each other, an increase in mass in one or more of the objects will result in an overall increase in potential energy for the entire system. This is because the potential energy of a system is the sum of the individual potential energies of its components.

5. What other factors can affect potential energy besides mass?

In addition to mass, the height of an object and the strength of the gravitational field it is in can also affect potential energy. Additionally, if the object is in a system with other objects, the distances between them and the forces acting on them can also influence potential energy.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
970
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
792
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
350
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
758
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
594
Replies
6
Views
998
Back
Top