Is Energy Conserved When an Object Approaches Light Speed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisPhy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
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.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top