Do relativistic mass have weight?

[czeslaw]

Only relative to a non-moving mass.

There is not a non-moving mass - everything is moving or rotates. The relativistic mass increases relatively to its space and gravity too.
Creation of the matter-antimatter in collision of the relativistic particles does not mean a creation of the additional gravity. This gravity was in the relativistic particle already.

[czeslaw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by czeslaw
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...lack_fast.html - it is wrong.

czeslaw, just read all of this link, including the FAQ's. It explains the common misconceptions and it is right.

Speed has nothing to do with black hole creation!

It is difficult to create a Black Hole in relativistic movement. Recent observations of the colliding stars shows a strange effects.
Any supply of the energy increases gravity of the object.
Mercury's orbit is shifted because a time dilation in the gravitational field of the Sun. It is the same effect like at heavier (relativistic mass) Mercury when the planet is closer to Sun and moves faster. All this phenomenons are joint together.

[Nereid]

I wrote that particle can not turn in a black hole. It gains a relativistic mass - we know it experimentally - but it is not enough to reach the conditions for Black Hole.
The star can gain a relativistic energy and relativistic mass creating a Black Hole. It is what we observe during collision of the neutron stars.
The relativistic mass is not an imaginary mass it is additional oscillation of the space-time and it creates an additionally gravitational field. This gravitational field is exchanged between stars in binary systems (we observe it). Some scientists call it gravitational wave. The star moving close to other star exchange its gravitational energy and that way its orbit is shifted.
It is like Mercury orbit around Sun.
I do not believe that the clasic Black Hole exists. It might be a Gravastar only.
Recent observations of the collisions of the neutron stars shows the mysterious effects.
It is difficult to make the math. Nobody knows how behave a star close to other Black Hole.
Mercury's orbit change because the time delation in gravitational field of Sun.
It is because stronger gravitational field close to Sun. There is higher oscillation of the space-time close to Sun. It is not an imaginary or relatively effect. It is because the movement in a defined space.
Gravity increases not relatively to an observer but relatively to the space of the moving object.

So, here's a Gedankenexperiment, to test the czeslaw idea.

We have three objects, moving in a straight line; let's call them A, B, and C. Each has the same (rest) mass.

Relative to A, B is moving at a speed of v; relative to B, C is moving at a speed of v. (Of course, relative to B, A is moving at a speed of v; relative to C, B is moving at a speed of v).

In a Newtonian universe, C would be moving at a speed of 2v, relative to A (and A would be moving at a speed of 2v, relative to C).

First question: in SR, what is the relative speed of A, to C?

Let's assume that A, B, and C are a very, very long way apart from each other, so that any mutual gravitational influence is negligible.

Let's assume that A is moving so fast, relative to C, that A becomes a black hole (this is, I hope, an accurate summary of czeslaw's idea).

Does C also become a black hole? After all, relative to A, it is moving at just the same speed (and that was fast enough for a massive object to become a black hole).

We also know that, according to czeslaw, there is some minimum speed, in order for an object of a given mass to become a black hole. Let's assume that v is below this threshhold. Thus B observes that neither A nor C are black holes.

So, whether a (massive) object turns into a black hole or not, in the czeslaw idea, turns out to depend on who is doing the observing - for some observers, a black hole; for others, no black hole. Perhaps if we slow down, a black hole will turn back into a star?

Finally, czeslaw ruled out 'particles' turning into black holes.

But why? After all, any particle, even a (non-zero rest mass) neutrino, can be accelerated to a speed sufficient that its (relativistic) mass is 1 sol, or even a trillion sols.

[czeslaw]

As I wrote - the relativistic mass and gravity depends not on an observer but on the velocity relatively to the space in its reference frame (one gravitational field). We observe the particles ejected from quasar faster then speed of light "c" relatively to us on the Earth and they are not Black Holes.

To reach a relativisic velocity the particle needs an energetic field (gravity or EM). According to energy conservation this relativistic particle gains the energy of the energetic field and increases relativistic mass.

The Gedanken experiment with objects A,B,C is not complete if we do not say where they take the energy from. In an empty space it is not possible.

You know that small Black Hole is not possible because the Hawking Radiation. A star can reach a velocity close to speed of light in the gravitational field of the Black Hole only. It gains a relativistic energy from this energetic field of the BH.
We observe a shifted orbit close to heavy mass. Why ? It is a time dilation. What causes it ? Why the orbits are spiraling towards a Black Hole ? Why is it not possible to escape from an orbit around a BH ?
Because the gravity of the object increases together with an increasing mass close to BH. It is not possible to turn back from BH to an ordinary star's state.

As you know, I do not believe in a classic Black Hole - all this objects are only nearly like BH objects (Gravastars). That way the relativistic object does not collapse into a Black Hole but become very heavy Gravastar.

[Peter Wilson]

There is not a non-moving mass - everything is moving or rotates. The relativistic mass increases relatively to its space and gravity too.

I lost you. My point is that in an accellerator, for example, electrons moving at 0.99999c are very massive, relative to their rest-mass, as far as the stationary magnets and whatever used in the accellerator. But as for other electrons co-moving at 0.99999c in the beam, "everything is normal." In other words, if one of the electrons moving 0.99999c weighed one of the other electrons moving 0.99999c, the result of its measurement would be the electron's rest-mass. So no matter how close to c an electron or star moves, it will never "black-holize," because it never gains mass in its own reference frame.

As you know, I do not believe in a classic Black Hole...

I wouldn't go that far, but I would agree that our present picture of BHs is far from complete.

[RussT]

I wouldn't go that far, but I would agree that our present picture of BHs is far from complete.

Pete, what in your opinion, would make the picture clearer, in reference to SMBH's.

How they are created?
Since they are rotating and would be considered Kerr black holes, is the "ring singularity' reasonable.
What actually happens at the ring singularity?
What happens 'after' the ring sinularity?

Etc.

[czeslaw]

I lost you. My point is that in an accellerator, for example, electrons moving at 0.99999c are very massive, relative to their rest-mass, as far as the stationary magnets and whatever used in the accellerator. But as for other electrons co-moving at 0.99999c in the beam, "everything is normal." In other words, if one of the electrons moving 0.99999c weighed one of the other electrons moving 0.99999c, the result of its measurement would be the electron's rest-mass. So no matter how close to c an electron or star moves, it will never "black-holize," because it never gains mass in its own reference frame.
.

The particle moving at relativistic velocity gains a relativistic mass.
A relative velocity does not mean a relativistic velocity.
It is relativistic in one reference frame in ane gravitational field.

A Gedanken Experiment:
Black Hole is usually created if the neutron star has more then 3 solar masses.

A. A Black Hole of 4 solar masses matter meets a neutron star of 2 solar masses antimatter. They annihilate inside and there is 2 sol matter only and 4 sol relativistic energy. Is it the Black Hole still ?

B. A neutron star with 2 sol of matter meets another neutron star with 2 sol of antimatter. It is 4 sol masses creating enough gravity to Black Hole but it will annihilate. Black Hole is an object that even a photon can not escape from it. Is this Black Hole created in such a case ?

Do you think the relativistic energy (mass) does not weight ?

[Grey]

A. A Black Hole of 4 solar masses matter meets a neutron star of 2 solar masses antimatter. They annihilate inside and there is 2 sol matter only and 4 sol relativistic energy. Is it the Black Hole still ?

I wouldn't call the extra energy "relativistic". Even if we assume that the particles inside the black hole retain their identities in some form so that they can annihilate with the antimatter (which is by no means certain), we'd expect a bunch of photons to be released, and the energy they have is as real as any other. The total energy of the system remains 6 solar masses, and there's still a black hole.

B. A neutron star with 2 sol of matter meets another neutron star with 2 sol of antimatter. It is 4 sol masses creating enough gravity to Black Hole but it will annihilate. Black Hole is an object that even a photon can not escape from it. Is this Black Hole created in such a case ?

I suppose it's possible in principle that the resulting explosion could throw material clear of where the event horizon would be, but before it forms, so there might be some room for alternatives. But in general, I think it would be expected that this would form a black hole.

[Squashed]

A Gedanken Experiment:
B. A neutron star with 2 sol of matter meets another neutron star with 2 sol of antimatter. It is 4 sol masses creating enough gravity to Black Hole but it will annihilate. Black Hole is an object that even a photon can not escape from it. Is this Black Hole created in such a case ?

First off, when matter and anti-matter collide the result is energy - not annihilation, in the strictest sense of the word. There is a transformation of the particles that occurs when matter and anti-matter collide (I think you already understand this but I repeat it for a casual reader).

Your scenario raises an interesting point that I have been trying to advocate: that blackholes are just balls of energy contained by the gravitational field of the energy.

Therefore, if a 2-sol neutron star made of matter collided with a 2-sol neutron star made of anti-matter then the result would be energy but since the combined gravitational field of 4-sols of energy is sufficient to contain itself then the two bodies would form a blackhole: energy contained by its own gravity.


As far as relativistic mass goes, I think that the increase in mass that is observed is merely the "mass" of the energy used to increase the velocity - the acceleration energy. This energy is shed when particles collide in particle accelerators and the result is matter/anti-matter pairs and other exotic particles. So, the acceleration energy is converted to particles.

This raises an interesting point: we, earthlings, can never accelerate a particle in a cyclotron or other accelerator to the point where it will form a blackhole.

Why?

Because even if we converted the entire mass of the earth into energy and applied that energy towards accelerating the particle the mass of the energy would only equal the mass of the earth which is insufficient, gravitationally, to contain itself. The real result would be an incredible explosion as all the mass-energy of the earth disassembled itself.

[czeslaw]

Thank you Grey and Squashed for the opinions.
I agree with you.
The relativistic mass does have a weight.
A relative velocity does not mean the same as the relativistic and it is not possible to create a Black Hole on the Earth - it will explode because the Hawking Radiation. The far away Galaxy Clusters are escaping with a relative to us velocity near the speed of light but it is not a relativistic velocity. They move with some hunderts or thousands km/sec relatively to their space.

A star moving towards a Black Hole become very fast and gains a relativistic mass close to an Event Horizon and may become a Black Hole just when it crosses the Event Horizon - it become a part of the Black Hole (Gravastar).

[Grey]

Because even if we converted the entire mass of the earth into energy and applied that energy towards accelerating the particle the mass of the energy would only equal the mass of the earth which is insufficient, gravitationally, to contain itself. The real result would be an incredible explosion as all the mass-energy of the earth disassembled itself.

It's not about the amount of mass necessary that is sufficient, it's about the volume it's contained in. "All" you'd have to do to create an Earth-mass black hole is compress the mass of the Earth (or an equivalent amount of energy) into a sphere about 9mm in radius.

[Squashed]

It's not about the amount of mass necessary that is sufficient, it's about the volume it's contained in. "All" you'd have to do to create an Earth-mass black hole is compress the mass of the Earth (or an equivalent amount of energy) into a sphere about 9mm in radius.

There is my hypothsis of blackholes: balls of energy self-contained by its own gravity.

And there is the current, popularly accepted, theory: matter and energy are irreversibly crushed by gravity which allows blackholes of any mass because once the crushing occurs it can not be undone.

Depending upon which hypothesis/theory you choose will determine the outcome of converting the entire mass of the earth to energy to accelerate a particle: explosion or blackhole.

[john hunter]

Dear czeslaw,

You say that relativistic mass does have weight, and I agree with you.

Do you mean by this that a fast moving mass would appear to warp space-time more than a stationary one of the same rest mass?

If so, then the observations on binary pulsars should show this, but they don't. One solution to this that the gravitational mass, or effective gravitational constant G, should reduce when the objects in the binary pulsar are close. This was discussed previously in ATM , and in www.gravity.uk.com.

All the best,

John Hunter.

[czeslaw]

Dear czeslaw,

You say that relativistic mass does have weight, and I agree with you.
Do you mean by this that a fast moving mass would appear to warp space-time more than a stationary one of the same rest mass?
If so, then the observations on binary pulsars should show this, but they don't. One solution to this that the gravitational mass, or effective gravitational constant G, should reduce when the objects in the binary pulsar are close. This was discussed previously in ATM , and in www.gravity.uk.com.
All the best,
John Hunter.

It is very important to solve this question.
We observe a shift of the Mercury orbit. It is explained by a time dilation near heavy mass. This same effect is if the Mercury would be heavier when it moves faster at its perihelium. A stronger gravitational force holds the planet longer and we observe a shift.
The binary pulsars are examples how in gravitational field is the energy of the field exchanged between the stars. We observe how they come closer and closer because this orbit shift. Every binary stars will merger at least.
It is more clear if the stars are closer.
Gravitational energy, kinetic energy, rest mass energy are energies in the different systems but they are energies - an inward oscillation.

[Peter Wilson]

Pete, what in your opinion, would make the picture clearer, in reference to SMBH's. How they are created? Since they are rotating and would be considered Kerr black holes, is the "ring singularity' reasonable.
What actually happens at the ring singularity?
What happens 'after' the ring sinularity?
Etc.

Egads!
I'm a long way from having the answers to these questions, but here is why the ring-sing seems reasonable: In general, a rotating gravitational system cannot contract w/o losing energy/angular momentum. The earth cannot lose either efficiently, which is what keeps it from falling into the sun. Gas in an accretion disk around a BH, however, can rapidly shed energy and angular momentum. So the gas spirals in, getting hotter and hotter, radiating away more and more energy/momentum...until it crosses the event horizon. Then what? It cannot, by definition, lose energy to the outside world, once it crosses the EH.

So if the gas crossing the EH can no longer lose energy/angular-momentum, then it seems like it will be left in a ring. But who knows?

[Squashed]

So the gas spirals in, getting hotter and hotter, radiating away more and more energy/momentum...until it crosses the event horizon. Then what? It cannot, by definition, lose energy to the outside world, once it crosses the EH.

So if the gas crossing the EH can no longer lose energy/angular-momentum, then it seems like it will be left in a ring. But who knows?

What if the gas/matter is crushed/converted into energy - does this energy still have to preserve the angular momentum or is it free to ping around whichever way it wants?

[czeslaw]

What if the gas/matter is crushed/converted into energy - does this energy still have to preserve the angular momentum or is it free to ping around whichever way it wants?

The matter may be converted in an energy if it annihilates with an antimatter. I do not know if there is another possibility.
After annihilation two gamma rays move in opposite direction to preserve the angular momentum.

The space is like a perfect fluid and a single proton is extremaly stable structure oscillating in resonance.
If you cool a proton it oscillate just in one certain place in the space.
If you heat it become very fast like plasma and at relativistic velocity may produce new protons-antiprotons pairs.
It never decays alone in an enegy. It decays if it meets antiproton with an opposite spin.

AFAIK if the energy is concentrated like micro Black Hole it explodes. The gravity can't hold such a small Black Hole.

[Squashed]

So the gas spirals in, getting hotter and hotter, radiating away more and more energy/momentum...until it crosses the event horizon. Then what? It cannot, by definition, lose energy to the outside world, once it crosses the EH.

So if the gas crossing the EH can no longer lose energy/angular-momentum, then it seems like it will be left in a ring. But who knows?

Actually, even inside the event horizon the angular momentum can be converted to heat but the heat can not escape and is destined to ping around forever.

But according to observations there are blackholes that rotate and so if the matter is turned into energy then the energy still retains the angular momentum as czeslaw suggests:

After annihilation two gamma rays move in opposite direction to preserve the angular momentum.

This is why I do not believe in mini-blackholes:

AFAIK if the energy is concentrated like micro Black Hole it explodes. The gravity can't hold such a small Black Hole.

[Peter Wilson]

This is why I do not believe in mini-blackholes...

I thought mini-blackholes are more like dragons than bigfoot: everyone pretty much agrees they don't exist?

[Grey]

Actually, even inside the event horizon the angular momentum can be converted to heat but the heat can not escape and is destined to ping around forever.

No. Whether inside or outside of an event horizon, momentum (whether linear or angular) and energy are two very different things. One cannot be converted into the other.

[Squashed]

No. Whether inside or outside of an event horizon, momentum (whether linear or angular) and energy are two very different things. One cannot be converted into the other.

You mean if I turn my bicycle upside-down and spin the wheel, which imparts angular momentum, and then rub my hand against the spinning wheel to turn the movement into heat then the momentum remains?

[hhEb09'1]

You mean if I turn my bicycle upside-down and spin the wheel, which imparts angular momentum, and then rub my hand against the spinning wheel to turn the movement into heat then the momentum remains?

I think he just means that they are not converted into each other directly. Momentum and energy are two different things, so there is not a conversion factor. Five dollars can be converted to five one dollars, and there is a conversion factor, since they are both money. Five dollars can be converted into fun, also, but there is no conversion factor. Sometimes, money is a pain.

[Grey]

You mean if I turn my bicycle upside-down and spin the wheel, which imparts angular momentum, and then rub my hand against the spinning wheel to turn the movement into heat then the momentum remains?

Depends on what you mean by "remains". Does the wheel still have that angular momentum? No. Has that angular momentum been transferred somewhere else? Yes. To start the wheel spinning, you have to provide both kinetic energy and angular momentum from somewhere. To stop the wheel, they both have to end up somewhere else. The "movement" that you've converted into heat is the kinetic energy of the wheel, which is distinct from its momentum. Momentum and energy are conserved separately, you cannot convert one into the other.

[RussT]

Egads!
I'm a long way from having the answers to these questions, but here is why the ring-sing seems reasonable: In general, a rotating gravitational system cannot contract w/o losing energy/angular momentum. The earth cannot lose either efficiently, which is what keeps it from falling into the sun. Gas in an accretion disk around a BH, however, can rapidly shed energy and angular momentum. So the gas spirals in, getting hotter and hotter, radiating away more and more energy/momentum...until it crosses the event horizon. Then what? It cannot, by definition, lose energy to the outside world, once it crosses the EH.

So if the gas crossing the EH can no longer lose energy/angular-momentum, then it seems like it will be left in a ring. But who knows?

All of this can be known!!!

It has been said many times, that the Elegance of the Maths of General Relativity and String/"M" Theory, should be applicable to the reality of our universes workings, and that is absolutely true. The Big trick here though, is to fit the pieces of the puzzle together tightly enough through theory, that we can say, that's it!
Although they don't realize it yet, the main thing that mainstream (Using the two best theories Homo-saps have been able to come up wth, GR and QFT...quoting Nereid) has been able to accomplish, is identifying the "REAL" Singularity...the Ring Singularity in the depths of the SMBH's in the center of galaxies!!!
Modeling this singularity correctly and 'eliminating all' of the SCI-FI type stuff when it comes to 'worm holes' (these are absolutely valid mathematical solutions of GR...do we trust GR or not?), is essential to properly fitting the pieces of the puzzle together, as it applies to the workings of our universe, not whether HUMANS can travel in worm holes!!!

[czeslaw]

All of this can be known!!!

It has been said many times, that the Elegance of the Maths of General Relativity and String/"M" Theory, should be applicable to the reality of our universes workings, and that is absolutely true. The Big trick here though, is to fit the pieces of the puzzle together tightly enough through theory, that we can say, that's it!
Although they don't realize it yet, the main thing that mainstream (Using the two best theories Homo-saps have been able to come up wth, GR and QFT...quoting Nereid) has been able to accomplish, is identifying the "REAL" Singularity...the Ring Singularity in the depths of the SMBH's in the center of galaxies!!!
Modeling this singularity correctly and 'eliminating all' of the SCI-FI type stuff when it comes to 'worm holes' (these are absolutely valid mathematical solutions of GR...do we trust GR or not?), is essential to properly fitting the pieces of the puzzle together, as it applies to the workings of our universe, not whether HUMANS can travel in worm holes!!!

All Black Holes are rotating and they should be balanced in a ring singularity according to Kerr metric.
The singularity is possible if the energy is separeted from a rest mass - then the gravity is not balanced by kinetic energy.

The Black Hole is a closed system and energy (bosons ) can not escape and they are scattered on the particles of the rest mass. Such a particles will oscillate and rotate very fast.

If the Black Hole is closed at a certain balance of potential gravitational energy and kinetic energy how is it possible to destroy this balance ?
You can not contract a gasoeous nebula till the kinetic energy radiate out.

A small Black Hole till 7 solar masses needs to rotate very fast (till 1000 rev/sec) to balance a gravity. The Supermassive BH has enough room for the inner rotation (kinetic energy) and may be spherical, I think.

This idea is not clear for me yet, but I would like to defend it.
Czeslaw

[RussT]

All Black Holes are rotating and they should be balanced in a ring singularity according to Kerr metric.

This part is a great starting point. And we should be talking SMBH's because stellar bh's are very different.

Then we have the structure, and with GR modeling (maths already done) it should look like this, starting on the outside and going in

accretion disc/event horizon/black hole/ring singularity/worm hole

What else is happening here? What happens before and after?

Grey, Tensor, Celestial Mechanic, Tim ?????

[czeslaw]

This part is a great starting point. And we should be talking SMBH's because stellar bh's are very different.

Then we have the structure, and with GR modeling (maths already done) it should look like this, starting on the outside and going in

accretion disc/event horizon/black hole/ring singularity/worm hole

What else is happening here? What happens before and after?

Grey, Tensor, Celestial Mechanic, Tim ?????

It would be better to start a new thread - a creation and structure of the Supermassive Black Hole.
Would you like to start it. I am very busy for 2 weeks now and i don't know if I can reply everyday.