Where Does the Radiated Energy Come From in a Gravitational Collision?

AI Thread Summary
In a gravitational collision between two massive bodies in space, the initial gravitational potential energy converts to kinetic energy as they move toward each other. Upon impact, this kinetic energy transforms into heat due to the inelastic nature of the collision, which is then radiated away. The discussion highlights that while energy is radiated, the total rest mass of the combined bodies remains constant, adhering to the principle of mass-energy equivalence. However, it is noted that the mass of a bound system is typically less than the sum of its unbound constituents, a phenomenon known as mass deficit. The conversation emphasizes the complexities of energy transformation in gravitational interactions and the importance of understanding binding energy.
dtfroedge
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Presume there are two massive bodies in open space, having zero relative velocity, and having the same space ambient temperature. That is, the incoming and out-flowing black body radiation is balanced and the temperature is unchanging. Presume these bodies become gravitationally attracted, and fall together. On impact the temperature will rise, and then the excess thermal energy will be radiated away, returning to the ambient state. By both Newtonian and Relativistic mechanics, the total rest mass is equal to the sum of the rest mass of the two combined bodies. (Black Hole theory depends on it.)
The question is, from whence did the radiated energy come?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From the gravitational potential they had when in space.
This was converted to kinetic energy when they started to move towards each other.
The k.e. was converted into heat in the inelastic collision, and the heat was radiated away.
 
This is certainly not my area of expertise and I am quite probably wrong, but it would seem that the kinetic energy of the bodies, built up as they fell toward each other through the force of gravity could be released as heat energy if this were considered a partially inelastic collision. It's a good question, and I'd love to be corrected on this if I'm wrong...
 
Update: Stonebridge, you beat me to it, but at least it looks as if I was thinking along the correct lines...
 
I should have added that some of the (kinetic) energy could have been used to deform the masses when they merged; depending on how they actually did that. So that the original source was the gravitational p.e. - though it won't have all been converted into the radiated energy. There would be some losses on the way!
 
Remember, any energy associated with the gravitational field is part of the mass, and is all accounted for after the particles are merged.
 
dtfroedge said:
Remember, any energy associated with the gravitational field is part of the mass, and is all accounted for after the particles are merged.
I don't see a question in there (and it doesn't sound right anyway...)...what are you getting at?
 
There was a quantity of energy radiated away, yet the entire e=mc^2 is still there
 
dtfroedge said:
the total rest mass is equal to the sum of the rest mass of the two combined bodies.
dtfroedge said:
Remember, any energy associated with the gravitational field is part of the mass, and is all accounted for after the particles are merged.
dtfroedge said:
There was a quantity of energy radiated away, yet the entire e=mc^2 is still there
Actually, all of this is incorrect. The mass of any bound system is always less than the mass of the unbound constituents. This is called the "mass deficit" and is related to the binding energy of the system. It is really only significant for nuclear binding, but it applies to the other forces also. Your specific scenario is described in the 3rd paragraph in the Mass Deficit section of the Wikipedia article on Binding Energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
 
  • #10
DaleSpam said:
Actually, all of this is incorrect. The mass of any bound system is always less than the mass [/url]

DaleSpam
You're right, very good.
 
  • #11
I am impatiently waiting for a point here, dtfroedge.
 
Back
Top