Is Energy Conserved When an Object Approaches Light Speed?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisPhy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of energy in systems involving objects accelerating toward massive bodies, particularly in the context of relativistic speeds and gravitational effects. Participants explore concepts of kinetic and potential energy, especially as they relate to objects with mass and light in gravitational fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that total energy in a system remains unchanged as potential energy decreases and kinetic energy increases when an object accelerates toward a massive body.
  • Another participant agrees with the idea of energy conservation in this specific case but notes that defining a "total energy" for the universe is complex and not always applicable.
  • There is a clarification regarding the terminology of "object" and its relation to light, emphasizing that objects with mass cannot reach the speed of light.
  • It is proposed that light can still change its kinetic energy while falling in a gravitational field, leading to phenomena like gravitational redshift and blueshift, which are said to balance changes in potential energy.
  • A later reply challenges the use of the term "kinetic" for electromagnetic energy but agrees that it changes with gravitational potential, and discusses the definition of potential energy in classical terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express some agreement on the conservation of energy in specific scenarios, but there are differing views on the definitions and implications of energy conservation, particularly regarding light and the broader universe. The discussion remains unresolved on certain conceptual points.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in defining total energy for complex systems, especially when considering the universe as a whole. The discussion also highlights the nuances in terminology and the implications of relativistic physics on energy definitions.

ChrisPhy
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Basic question I'm sure but...please help...

If there is an object of some mass accelerating toward some other massive object, I can see that total energy of system is same regardless of time as potential energy from gravity well is being lost as kinetic energy of object increases. It would appear that total energy in system is unchanged.

1) Am I correct in this understanding ?

2) If the object in question was say moving at the speed of light to start with, as the object gets closer to other massive object, isn't the gravity potential still being reduced over time ?

3) But object cannot gain any more kinetic energy (already at top speed) so I am thinking the total energy of this system is reducing as object gets closer to massive object ? But this cannot be the case...

I know I am missing a piece of the equation here, what is happening in this situation ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChrisPhy said:
If there is an object of some mass accelerating toward some other massive object, I can see that total energy of system is same regardless of time as potential energy from gravity well is being lost as kinetic energy of object increases. It would appear that total energy in system is unchanged.

1) Am I correct in this understanding ?

In this particular case, yes, you can view things this way. In the general case, it is not always possible to define a "total energy" for the system that remains constant. For example, there is no good way to define a "total energy" for the universe as a whole that works this way.

ChrisPhy said:
2) If the object in question was say moving at the speed of light to start with, as the object gets closer to other massive object, isn't the gravity potential still being reduced over time ?

A terminology note: the word "object" is normally not used to refer to light, or anything that moves with the speed of light. Particularly since you used the phrase "object of some mass", and objects with mass cannot move at the speed of light. So I'll interpret your question as asking what happens when light "falls" in the gravitational field of a massive object.

ChrisPhy said:
3) But object cannot gain any more kinetic energy (already at top speed) so I am thinking the total energy of this system is reducing as object gets closer to massive object ?

No, it still stays constant, because light can still change its kinetic energy even though it can't change its speed, and it does so when "falling" in a gravitational field. This is called "gravitational redshift" or "gravitational blueshift" depending on whether the light is rising (redshift) or falling (blueshift), and it has been observed experimentally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

So you can view the light as gaining or losing kinetic energy to balance the change in its potential energy, the same as an object with mass does.
 
PeterDonis said:
In this particular case, yes, you can view things this way. In the general case, it is not always possible to define a "total energy" for the system that remains constant. For example, there is no good way to define a "total energy" for the universe as a whole that works this way.



A terminology note: the word "object" is normally not used to refer to light, or anything that moves with the speed of light. Particularly since you used the phrase "object of some mass", and objects with mass cannot move at the speed of light. So I'll interpret your question as asking what happens when light "falls" in the gravitational field of a massive object.



No, it still stays constant, because light can still change its kinetic energy even though it can't change its speed, and it does so when "falling" in a gravitational field. This is called "gravitational redshift" or "gravitational blueshift" depending on whether the light is rising (redshift) or falling (blueshift), and it has been observed experimentally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

So you can view the light as gaining or losing kinetic energy to balance the change in its potential energy, the same as an object with mass does.


Thank you for reply. I think I understand. I didn't know that about objects with mass can not go to full C speed. Thanks...
 
Well, it probably is not appropriate to call electromagnetic energy "kinetic", but yes, it does change along with gravitational potential.
Also, I'd think potential energy for the whole system can be defined the same way as in classical physics, a sum of the potential energies between each pair of objects, as long as there are a finite number of objects... and from that total energy is also easy to define. Not sure why Peter thinks otherwise.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K