Special relativity and stars' masses

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of mass in the context of special relativity as it pertains to stars, specifically addressing whether the mass of a star should include the effects of relativistic speeds of its particles or if it should be considered solely as rest mass. The scope includes theoretical considerations and conceptual clarifications related to relativistic mass and energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the mass of a star should account for the relativistic mass of high-speed particles or just its rest mass.
  • Another participant suggests that the star's mass can be viewed as including the "relativistic mass" of its particles, while also noting a more modern perspective that considers mass as the total energy divided by c² in the star's rest frame.
  • A follow-up post clarifies that the initial consideration was for a star moving at speeds much less than the speed of light, and questions whether a star moving at 1/3 the speed of light would have a different mass.
  • Another participant introduces the invariant mass formula from special relativity, explaining that in the star's rest frame, momentum is zero, and thus the mass is equivalent to its energy, while noting that in a moving frame, both energy and momentum increase but the invariant mass remains constant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to conceptualize mass in the context of special relativity, with some supporting the inclusion of relativistic effects and others advocating for a focus on rest mass and total energy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of relativistic speeds on a star's mass.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of mass and energy, as well as the assumptions made about the speeds of stars and their particles. The implications of relativistic effects on mass are not fully explored or agreed upon.

omiros
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody I am a first year student and I have a question about stars' masses.

I've been thinking about, what happens to a star's mass cause of the high speeds of the particles there. Do we consider the 'extra' mass, 'caused' by relativity (really high speed particles are heavier than those that are slow) or do we just think about its rest mass?

Thanks in advance :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're thinking about the random motion of the particles associated with the star's temperature, right? In that case, yes, one way to look at it is that the star's mass includes the "relativistic mass" of those particles.

Another way, which is more in line with the way most physicists think of mass in relativity now (that is "mass" = "rest mass"), is to say that the star's mass is its total energy divided by c2, in the reference frame in which the star as a whole is at rest (its total momentum is zero).

The star's total energy in turn consists of

  • the energy associated with the "rest masses" of the individual particles
  • the kinetic energies of those particles
  • the (negative) potential energy that keeps all those particles together as a star
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
jtbell said:
You're thinking about the random motion of the particles associated with the star's temperature, right? In that case, yes, one way to look at it is that the star's mass includes the "relativistic mass" of those particles.

Yes, I forgot to specify it. I've been thinking of a star with speed<<c.

So now we might say that this stars has a mass of 10kg let's say, however in reality is it more massive?

And if we had the case of fast moving star 1/3c would that affect its 'mass' too?
 
In special relativity the invariant mass (in units where c=1) of a system is given by m²=E²-p². In the star's rest frame p=0 for the star as a whole, so m=E (or in units where c≠1: E=mc²). In any frame where the star is moving both p and E increase so that m remains the same.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K