Mass increase from high velocity Q

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTechNoir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    increase Mass Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of mass increase at relativistic speeds and whether it is possible for an object traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light to reach critical mass and form a black hole. Participants explore the implications of relativistic mass, the nature of black holes, and the differences between inertial and accelerating frames of reference.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if reaching a speed of 0.99999999c could allow a finite mass to gravitationally collapse into a black hole, while acknowledging the implausibility of achieving such speeds.
  • Another participant references the Usenet Physics FAQ regarding the relationship between speed and black hole formation.
  • A participant argues that while speed is relative, black holes are defined solutions to Einstein's field equations, suggesting that a massive observer cannot become a black hole simply by traveling at high speeds.
  • Further discussion raises the distinction between constant velocity motion and acceleration, questioning if this difference affects the ability to form a black hole.
  • Another participant elaborates on the nature of coordinate systems, explaining that the gravitational singularity of a black hole is a property of spacetime itself and cannot be altered by changing frames of reference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between relativistic speeds and black hole formation. While some argue that a massive observer cannot become a black hole due to the nature of black holes, others explore the implications of acceleration and frame of reference, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of their understanding and the complexity of the concepts involved, including the dependence on definitions and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical aspects related to black holes and relativistic motion.

TheTechNoir
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Hi folks, I'm brand new here... never been a part of a physics forum before and I'm just an amateur I have no professional or academic background hah most is a grade 10 "science" course (a unit on bio, unit on chem, unit on physics not even specified and barely touched physics).

Anyways that's my introduction
Out of nowhere today a light bulb went off and I was curious about something. If you were to go for example at 0.99999999c in a spacecraft I understand that your mass would increase largely relativistically. Now I am wondering, would it be possible to reach a sufficiently high percentage of the speed of light to reach critical mass with a finite mass and thus gravitationally collapse and form a black hole? Or would that require light speed (infinite mass) which is obviously impossible. Also, if it were possible (hypothetically - I know having the energy required to reach this potential speed would most likely be completely implausible) what would happen, I mean if to the Earth's perspective you collapsed into a black hole how would that work if you were a black hole from some perspectives and not others?

Thanks if anyone can help me, I am ASSUMING it would not be hypothetically possible but the thought still struck me as worth asking.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TheTechNoir said:
Hi folks, I'm brand new here... never been a part of a physics forum before and I'm just an amateur I have no professional or academic background hah most is a grade 10 "science" course (a unit on bio, unit on chem, unit on physics not even specified and barely touched physics).

Anyways that's my introduction
Out of nowhere today a light bulb went off and I was curious about something. If you were to go for example at 0.99999999c in a spacecraft I understand that your mass would increase largely relativistically. Now I am wondering, would it be possible to reach a sufficiently high percentage of the speed of light to reach critical mass with a finite mass and thus gravitationally collapse and form a black hole? Or would that require light speed (infinite mass) which is obviously impossible. Also, if it were possible (hypothetically - I know having the energy required to reach this potential speed would most likely be completely implausible) what would happen, I mean if to the Earth's perspective you collapsed into a black hole how would that work if you were a black hole from some perspectives and not others?

Thanks if anyone can help me, I am ASSUMING it would not be hypothetically possible but the thought still struck me as worth asking.

Look at it this way: your speed is relative so you can always find a frame where you are traveling at an arbitarily large proper fraction of c, but black holes are not relative they're a specific set of soltuions to Einstein's field equations. The gravitational singularity in a balck hole cannot be done away with by choosing a different frame of reference.

So simple arguments from consistency demand that a massive observer traveling at large fractions of c cannot turn into a black hole.
 
jcsd said:
Look at it this way: your speed is relative so you can always find a frame where you are traveling at an arbitarily large proper fraction of c, but black holes are not relative they're a specific set of soltuions to Einstein's field equations. The gravitational singularity in a balck hole cannot be done away with by choosing a different frame of reference.

So simple arguments from consistency demand that a massive observer traveling at large fractions of c cannot turn into a black hole.

I read the previous link provided so I have an idea and I do know it cannot be so.

But in regards to your response (don't take this as me arguing against you or saying you're wrong) I realize that you can always find someone traveling very close to c from certain frames of reference but doesn't it make a difference whether they are traveling in force-free constant velocity motion or accelerating?
I don't mean this to dispute your post as I realize it is correct in relation to my original question as a reason for why the black hole is different and could not be created in that manner.
Thanks a lot btw both of you for the answers :)
I have a feeling if I look through this forum enough I can learn quite a lot to supplement my beginner reading (admittedly just reading things like the elegant universe or michio kaku's laymen intended books, etc. at the moment pretty new to this)
 
TheTechNoir said:
I read the previous link provided so I have an idea and I do know it cannot be so.

But in regards to your response (don't take this as me arguing against you or saying you're wrong) I realize that you can always find someone traveling very close to c from certain frames of reference but doesn't it make a difference whether they are traveling in force-free constant velocity motion or accelerating?


I don't mean this to dispute your post as I realize it is correct in relation to my original question as a reason for why the black hole is different and could not be created in that manner.
Thanks a lot btw both of you for the answers :)
I have a feeling if I look through this forum enough I can learn quite a lot to supplement my beginner reading (admittedly just reading things like the elegant universe or michio kaku's laymen intended books, etc. at the moment pretty new to this)

Well you can pretty much always choose bad* cooridinates, for example Rindler coordinates in flat sapcetime, which create a horizon like the event horizon that occurs in Schwarzschild coordinates in Schwarzschild spacetime. But these two coordinate singularities (the Rindler horizon and the event horizon in Schwarzschild cooridnates) come from extending (the) coordinate systems a bit farther than you really oughta.

The gravitational singularity at the centre of a black hole is a property of the spacetime which it sits in rather than any property of a coordinate sysetm that you might choose to map that spacetime with so you cannot make one appear or disappear by changing your frame of reference. So a balck hole is not a frame effect so cannot be created by viewing an object in a different frame of reference.


*I use the term 'bad very loosely as what is bad for one purpose may be good for another.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K