Where does binding energy, or internal kinetic energy exist?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of binding energy and internal kinetic energy in systems of electrically charged bodies and their implications for gravitational mass. Participants explore how these energies contribute to the gravitational characteristics of the system, particularly in relation to dark matter and gravitational lensing.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the binding energy and relative kinetic energy of two orbiting charged bodies contribute to the total gravitational mass of the system, implying that the total mass is greater than the sum of the individual masses.
  • Another participant counters that there does not need to be extra mass, as energy and momentum, including the electric field, also contribute to gravitational effects through the energy-momentum tensor.
  • A different participant discusses the nature of binding energy, noting that it can be negative for gravitational systems, indicating that bound systems have less energy than unbound ones, and raises concerns about the implications of binding energy being large enough to account for dark matter.
  • One participant elaborates on the definition of energy in electrically bound systems, mentioning the relationship between kinetic energy and electromagnetic field energy, while questioning how to handle infinities associated with point charges.
  • This participant also raises questions about the localization of gravitational binding energy, suggesting that it cannot be defined in the same way as electromagnetic energy and discussing the conditions under which conserved energy can be defined in asymptotically flat space-time.
  • They propose that while a coarse scan of the gravitational field may resemble that of a single rotating mass, finer scans would reveal the complexities of two orbiting particles.
  • The participant concludes by noting that light deflections can be predicted, but there is no unique interpretation of these deflections in terms of energy density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the contributions of binding energy and internal kinetic energy to gravitational mass, with no consensus reached on whether extra mass is necessary or how binding energy should be localized in gravitational systems.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and implications of binding energy in both electromagnetic and gravitational contexts, as well as the treatment of infinities in electromagnetic field energy. The discussion also highlights the complexity of defining energy in non-trivial space-times.

mrspeedybob
Messages
869
Reaction score
65
If I have 2 electricly charged bodies orbiting one another, the binding energy must contribute to the gravitation of the system. Their reletive KE must also. So the total gravitational mass of the system is greater then the sum of the indivual objects. If I used a laser and gravitational lensing to map mass distribution of the system where would I find the extra mass?

Next question: Does gravitational binding energy work the same way? How large is the gravitational binding energy and the internal kinetic inergy of a galaxy in comparison to the missing mass-energy of dark matter?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There does not have to be any extra mass. The energy and momentum will also gravitate. So will the electric field, in its own right. The energy-momentum tensor of static charged matter includes terms for the mass and the electric field.
 
That's right but the sign of binding energy depends on the interaction. For example, binding energy of helium nucleus is negative (you gain energy by fusing hydrogen into helium) while binding energy of uranium is positive (you gain energy by fission instead). With gravity, binding energy is always negative, so a bound system has less energy than an unbound system. This is because gravity always sucks.

As a side note, if the binding energy would be so massive that it could explain dark matter, gravity would be entirely unstable, because the binding energy would feed to itself, basically making all massive objects have infinite energy.
 
mrspeedybob said:
If I have 2 electricly charged bodies orbiting one another, the binding energy must contribute to the gravitation of the system. Their reletive KE must also. So the total gravitational mass of the system is greater then the sum of the indivual objects. If I used a laser and gravitational lensing to map mass distribution of the system where would I find the extra mass?

There's a consistent definition of energy for the electrically bound system - you'll find that the total energy is the kinetic energy plus the energy stored in the electromagnetic fields - in geometric units said field energy is proportional to E^2 - B^2. In the case where B=0, I believe this expresssion become 1/2 epsilon E^2 in non-geometric units (from wiki).

If you have point charges you have the usual problem with the infinities of the electromagnetic field energy - I'm not quite sure how this is dealt with, except by avoiding point particles.

Next question: Does gravitational binding energy work the same way? How large is the gravitational binding energy and the internal kinetic inergy of a galaxy in comparison to the missing mass-energy of dark matter?

You can't, in general, localize the gravitational binding energy the same way you did the electromagnetic energy. If you are in an asymptotically flat space-time you'll be able to define a conserved energy which should be the ADM and/or Bondi energy of the system (and as far as I know the two energies should be equal if there are no gravitational waves). But there won't be a single, consistent way to localize this in terms of an energy density.

Being in an asymptotically flat space-time is more-or-less necessary to carry out your experiment anyway, or at least very highly convenient. Asymptotically flat space-time means that there isn't any effect from the rest of the universe. If you restrict yourself to a small enough area, you can probably use the asymptotically flat calculations as a reasonable approximation to what you actually measure.

A coarse scan will show, from the outside, a gravitational field that looks like that of a single rotating mass with the appropriate energy - I believe the system will have a metric that looks pretty much like a Kerr metric.

A finer scan will reveal the details with two orbiting particles.

You'll be able to predict light deflections - but there won't be a unique intepretation of them as an energy density that transforms in a covariant manner, alas. For instance, pseudotensor methods will give results that are both non-covariant and non-unique.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K