What constitutes a body of mass?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cjs94
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Body Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of what constitutes a body of mass, particularly in the context of celestial objects like stars and gas giants. Participants explore the criteria for considering objects as a single mass, the implications of the Chandrasekhar limit, and the effects of mass on stability and behavior in astrophysical contexts.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how close objects must be to be considered a single mass, using Earth and celestial bodies as examples.
  • Another participant suggests that the definition of a single mass depends on the measurement equipment and the context, proposing that if a composite object is close enough for the equipment to treat it as a point source, it can be considered a single mass.
  • It is noted that single-mass models may be more useful for predicting behavior than multi-mass models, with an example of solids being treated as single masses for practical applications.
  • A participant emphasizes the natural effects of mass rather than observational perspectives, specifically questioning how close an object must get to a white dwarf to influence its stability regarding the Chandrasekhar limit.
  • Another participant points out that the derivation of the Chandrasekhar limit assumes spherical symmetry and stability, indicating that simply throwing a mass at a star wouldn't suffice without achieving a stable configuration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the criteria for defining a single mass and the implications of the Chandrasekhar limit. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on how mass interactions influence stability.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mass and stability, as well as the unresolved nature of how mass influences the state of celestial bodies under varying conditions.

cjs94
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
How close do objects have to be to be considered a single mass? On Earth, with solid objects, the answer would seem to be intuitive: if an object can't fall any further then it is 'connected' to, or part of Earth's mass. But what about something like a gas giant, or a star?

I started thinking about this after learning of the Chandrasekhar limit. If there was a stable white dwarf whose mass was right on the limit and I threw an object at it, how close would it have to get before the star becomes unstable?

Chris
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When is a composite body a single mass?
Depends on the equipment you are using to do the measurement ... if the composite object is close enough that the equipment sees a point source within accuracy, it's a single mass. From an optical telescope, solar systems about other stars are a single mass.

Another way of looking at it: an object is a single mass if single-mass models are more useful at predicting it's behaviour than multimass models.
For instance, all solids are collections of atoms vibrating in a lattice: however the multi-atom model of the solid (requires quantum mechanics) is a lot less convenient for designing a go-cart than Newton's laws applied to rigid bodies.

For the chandrasakar limit dwarf .. it is already unstable: it is like a pin balanced on it's point.
Try looking more at two stars approaching each other ... see what happens.
 
Thanks, but I was asking more about the natural effects of mass rather than its perception by an observer. My understanding of the Chandrasekhar limit is that if a star is below the limit then it will remain a white dwarf indefinitely, but if it is over the limit then it will start to collapse. My question is, if I throw at a star below the limit an object of sufficient mass to make it exceed the limit, how close does the object have to get to the star before it is considered 'part of' it and causes it to start collapsing?
 
cjs94 said:
I started thinking about this after learning of the Chandrasekhar limit. If there was a stable white dwarf whose mass was right on the limit and I threw an object at it, how close would it have to get before the star becomes unstable?
The derivation of the Chandrasekhar limit assumes spherical symmetry and stability. So you couldn't just throw a mass, you have to wait until the system becomes spherically symmetric and stable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K