- #1
nomisrosen
- 24
- 0
How does moving at near the speed of light affect the geometry of space-time? How does an object increase in mass in relation to its speed? Does this have to with more collisions with the theoretical Higgs boson?
That is a very complicated question and I do not believe there is a general answer to that question.nomisrosen said:How does moving at near the speed of light affect the geometry of space-time?
For more on the issue of the gravitational field felt from a moving mass, see [post=3294448]this post from pervect[/post]. I'm not actually sure it would be right to say "more spacetime curvature" though--how are you quantifying curvature, and what coordinate system are you using? In an asymptotically flat spacetime I imagine we'd be able to have some sort of "approximately" inertial coordinate systems, and in this case for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be the case that the spacetime curvature is in some sense "greater" in the frame where the object is moving than the one where it's at rest, even though we're talking about the exact same spacetime geometry expressed in different coordinate systems...it's quite possible that would be true under the appropriate definitions, but unless you know of a source that spells this out mathematically I don't think you can just trust intuitions here.Naty1 said:Sometimes those things appear static in a given reference frame, other times they move. Since a faster object has more energy than a static one relative to a given frame, such a faster object would cause more gravity...more spacetime curvature.
Naty1 said:Movement tends to curve spacetime because movement implies energy and energy, along with mass, surves spacetime...that is, has gravitational effects. Even light which has no mass. Certain things curve spacetime according to GR...energy, momentum flow, mass, pressure, etc...
Some overview, no math, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
Sometimes those things appear static in a given reference frame, other times they move. Since a faster object has more energy than a static one relative to a given frame, such a faster object would cause more gravity...more spacetime curvature.
You can get an idea from this diagram:
http://www.relativitet.se/spacetime1.html
Naty1 said:Movement tends to curve spacetime because movement implies energy and energy, along with mass, surves spacetime...that is, has gravitational effects. Even light which has no mass. Certain things curve spacetime according to GR...energy, momentum flow, mass, pressure, etc...
JesseM said:For more on the issue of the gravitational field felt from a moving mass, see [post=3294448]this post from pervect[/post]. I'm not actually sure it would be right to say "more spacetime curvature" though--how are you quantifying curvature, and what coordinate system are you using? In an asymptotically flat spacetime I imagine we'd be able to have some sort of "approximately" inertial coordinate systems, and in this case for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be the case that the spacetime curvature is in some sense "greater" in the frame where the object is moving than the one where it's at rest, even though we're talking about the exact same spacetime geometry expressed in different coordinate systems...it's quite possible that would be true under the appropriate definitions, but unless you know of a source that spells this out mathematically I don't think you can just trust intuitions here.
nomisrosen said:What would happen if you tried to apply more energy to a photon? Would it develop a mass without having had one to begin with?
I partly disagree with this discussion...This is obvious because speed is frame dependent while geometry is not.
...how are you quantifying curvature, and what coordinate system are you using?
I beg to differ.PAllen said:I partly disagree with this discussion. An object moving near the speed of light, inertially, has no different influence on spacetime geometry than a 'stationary' object. This is obvious because speed is frame dependent while geometry is not. The geometry can be analyzed in the object's frame, in which case it is stationary, and all geometric conclusions will hold in any other frame.
Passionflower said:I beg to differ.
For instance two masses moving relative to each other create gravitational waves, and one factor is the relative speed between the two masses.
Naty1 said:PAllen:
Using that diagram: As one moves faster in space (velocity) one moves slower in time, right? That's one change in geometry. Also, there has got to be some frame(s) in which gravity increases since energy does. So somehow curvature would seem to need to change: in the simple diagram, extra velocity increase the slope...the green line goes up faster than the red...does the geometry remain fixed?? Can we "visualize" somehow the gravittational (curvature) change?
Perhaps we first should ask the poster if he is talking about test bodies with insignificant mass or massive bodies.PAllen said:By definition, the geometry of spacetime is independent of coordinates or the motion of 'small test bodies' (defined as objects too small to significantly perturb the background geometry).
Passionflower said:Perhaps we first should ask the poster if he is talking about test bodies with insignificant mass or massive bodies.
Passionflower said:Perhaps we first should ask the poster if he is talking about test bodies with insignificant mass or massive bodies.
nomisrosen said:Let's say a body with insignificant mass, like an electron, for example.
Could you theoretically apply so much energy to the speeding electron that it would become heavy enough to warp space-time infinitely, like a miniature black hole?
JesseM said:For more on the issue of the gravitational field felt from a moving mass, see [post=3294448]this post from pervect[/post]. I'm not actually sure it would be right to say "more spacetime curvature" though--how are you quantifying curvature, and what coordinate system are you using? In an asymptotically flat spacetime I imagine we'd be able to have some sort of "approximately" inertial coordinate systems, and in this case for what you're saying to be true, it would have to be the case that the spacetime curvature is in some sense "greater" in the frame where the object is moving than the one where it's at rest, even though we're talking about the exact same spacetime geometry expressed in different coordinate systems...it's quite possible that would be true under the appropriate definitions, but unless you know of a source that spells this out mathematically I don't think you can just trust intuitions here.
The Higgs Boson is a subatomic particle that is responsible for giving other particles their mass. It was first theorized in the 1960s and was finally discovered in 2012 by scientists at the Large Hadron Collider.
The Higgs Boson is important because it helps to explain the origin of mass in the universe. It also plays a crucial role in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is the current best understanding of how particles and forces interact.
The Higgs Boson is related to the geometry of space-time through the Higgs field, which is a fundamental field that permeates all of space. The interactions between the Higgs field and other particles give rise to the geometric properties of space-time, such as mass and the curvature of space.
No, the Higgs Boson, like all other particles with mass, cannot travel at the speed of light. This is because the closer a particle gets to the speed of light, the more massive it becomes, making it impossible to reach the speed of light.
The discovery of the Higgs Boson has allowed scientists to better understand the fundamental building blocks of the universe and the forces that govern them. It also helps to explain the origin of mass and the structure of space-time, providing a deeper understanding of the universe at both the smallest and largest scales.