Gravitational Potential Energy During Nuclear Reactions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Juiced101
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gpe
AI Thread Summary
During nuclear reactions, the mass of particles changes, resulting in energy release, primarily as high-energy photons. This energy, while significant, is still relatively small compared to the gravitational potential energy associated with the mass of matter. The gravitational force exerted by the matter decreases as mass is lost, but the energy from the released photons does carry gravitational effects due to their energy content. In general relativity, both energy and mass contribute to the gravitational field, meaning that photons do have a gravitational influence. The discussion highlights the complex relationship between mass loss during nuclear reactions and its implications for gravitational potential energy.
Juiced101
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A strange thought has occurred to me this morning. Each piece of matter has a huge amount of gravitational potential energy stored in the universe. My thought is that during nuclear reactions the large amounts of energy that are released would be tiny compared to the loss of gravitational potential out there. Where does the energy go? I've done a little reading and from what I can gather the changes in mass aren't exactly 'real' in the regular sense. I find this concept a little hard to grasp though. So I guess the question is during a nuclear reaction does the change in mass affect the gravitational force exerted by the matter?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Juiced101 said:
So I guess the question is during a nuclear reaction does the change in mass affect the gravitational force exerted by the matter?

Yes. As the sun loses energy through radiation and solar wind, it's mass and gravitational force is reduced. But this is only because the energy is being transferred from the sun to somewhere else. Energy is neither created nor destroyed anywhere.
 
Hey Juiced101,

Gravity is actually the weakest of the four forces in Nature. Consider the Sun -- it has enormous mass and suffers enormous forces that should make it collapse, but it does not. The energy liberated in the nuclear reactions in its core is sufficient to push the material outwards, balancing the inwards pull of gravity.

Nuclear reactions really do change the masses of the particles involved. When the Sun combines hydrogen nuclei into a helium nucleus, the helium nucleus weighs less than the sum of its parts. The "missing" mass is turned into energy, mostly in the form of high-energy photons.

- Warren
 
chroot said:
Hey Juiced101,

Gravity is actually the weakest of the four forces in Nature. Consider the Sun -- it has enormous mass and suffers enormous forces that should make it collapse, but it does not. The energy liberated in the nuclear reactions in its core is sufficient to push the material outwards, balancing the inwards pull of gravity.

Nuclear reactions really do change the masses of the particles involved. When the Sun combines hydrogen nuclei into a helium nucleus, the helium nucleus weighs less than the sum of its parts. The "missing" mass is turned into energy, mostly in the form of high-energy photons.

- Warren

Thanks warren for clarifying the loss of mass. What I'm asking is if the energy that these high energy photons contain has the equivalent gravitational force that the hydrogen had before fission. If the photons don't have a gravitational force where does the gravitational potential energy that the portion of mass that the hydrogen atoms had go?

If it isn't clear what I'm asking say imagine a tennis ball made of radioactive material a meter off the surface of the earth. If this decays and releases energy it has a lower mass than before and thus has lower gravitational potential energy. Where does that gravitational potential energy go? Do the high energy photons have a gravitational force?

Regards, Jason
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top