The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What effect does mass-energy density have on gravitational field strength?  (Read 6297 times)

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Does the mass-energy density affect gravity at higher densities? Does any amplification of field strength occur? How could we test if this were true?

Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
The gravitational force experienced between two bodies is related to the mass and distance between them. In some sense, density doesn't matter. If you replaced the Sun with a high-density object like a black hole of equal mass, the planets would retain their normal orbits because the mass/distance factor has remained unchanged. The difference with a black hole is that, since all of the mass is concentrated in the center, you can get very close to it (thus experiencing a much higher attractive force). If you got the same distance from the center of the Sun, the gravitational attraction would not be nearly so strong because much of the Sun's mass would be above you as well as below you (effectively cancelling out some of the attractive force).

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Can this ever be confirmed experimentally? The mathematics may point in this direction but does the experimental situation agree.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
In this situation if we have a mass M1 with radius R1 and a smaller mass M2 with radius R2 then the gravitational field strengths at the respective surfaces would be G1 and G2.
If we compress M1 to the same radius as R2 then length contraction and time dilation should increase. However by the reasoning above the change in the dimension of R1 should alter G1 at the surface (if we wish to preserve orbits around the mass) even though the mass has not increased and is simply compressed. Therefore G1 must increase with compression if the above statements are true. Meaning that the same mass exhibits higher field strength at its surface under compression. I.E. Gravitational amplification.
« Last Edit: 28/09/2013 23:01:36 by jeffreyH »

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
I am working on an equation for mass-energy density for gravity. I will post a graph of the results when done.

Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
In this situation if we have a mass M1 with radius R1 and a smaller mass M2 with radius R2 then the gravitational field strengths at the respective surfaces would be G1 and G2.
If we compress M1 to the same radius as R2 then length contraction and time dilation should increase. However by the reasoning above the change in the dimension of R1 should alter G1 at the surface (if we wish to preserve orbits around the mass) even though the mass has not increased and is simply compressed. Therefore G1 must increase with compression if the above statements are true. Meaning that the same mass exhibits higher field strength at its surface under compression. I.E. Gravitational amplification.
The field strength at the surface has increased because you have decreased the distance to the center. Shell theorem predicts that the strength of gravity at the surface of a sphere is dependent only upon the mass of the sphere and its radius, not its density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

For example, imagine if the Earth was a giant, hollow shell only one foot thick, but that this shell was super-dense such that it had the same mass as the real Earth. Shell theorem predicts that the gravitational force at the surface of this "shell Earth" is the same as that of "real Earth". You could do the same by positing that the Earth is hollow and 99% of its mass is tied up inside of a black hole at its center. This "black hole Earth" still exhibits the 1G force at its surface. The density and arrangement of mass within a sphere does not affect its surface gravity (assuming that the mass is distributed in a spherically-symmetrical manner).

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
In this situation if we have a mass M1 with radius R1 and a smaller mass M2 with radius R2 then the gravitational field strengths at the respective surfaces would be G1 and G2.
If we compress M1 to the same radius as R2 then length contraction and time dilation should increase. However by the reasoning above the change in the dimension of R1 should alter G1 at the surface (if we wish to preserve orbits around the mass) even though the mass has not increased and is simply compressed. Therefore G1 must increase with compression if the above statements are true. Meaning that the same mass exhibits higher field strength at its surface under compression. I.E. Gravitational amplification.
The field strength at the surface has increased because you have decreased the distance to the center. Shell theorem predicts that the strength of gravity at the surface of a sphere is dependent only upon the mass of the sphere and its radius, not its density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

For example, imagine if the Earth was a giant, hollow shell only one foot thick, but that this shell was super-dense such that it had the same mass as the real Earth. Shell theorem predicts that the gravitational force at the surface of this "shell Earth" is the same as that of "real Earth". You could do the same by positing that the Earth is hollow and 99% of its mass is tied up inside of a black hole at its center. This "black hole Earth" still exhibits the 1G force at its surface. The density and arrangement of mass within a sphere does not affect its surface gravity (assuming that the mass is distributed in a spherically-symmetrical manner).

It is not simply having decreased the distance to the centre. I can decrease the distance to the centre be digging down into the earth to the same point. However the gravitational effect would decrease and not increase. The radius makes no sense inside the mass itself as it becomes a fraction. In the inverse square nature of gravitation this will not explain compression without a functional adjustment of mass to radius.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Here is a plot I have done as density increases/radius decreases. Does anyone know at what percentage of the radius of a mass that we get the Schwarzschild radius? I would like to see if it falls correctly on this graph. The y-axis is gravity strength and the x-axis percentage of the uncompressed radius.


jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Oops. That wasn't the density plot.


Pmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
Does the mass-energy density affect gravity at higher densities?
Yes.

Quote from: jeffreyH
Does any amplification of field strength occur?
I don稚 understand what this means so I値l just say no.

Quote from: jeffreyH
How could we test if this were true?
When you tell me what amplification of field strength occur[/I] means I値l let you know.

Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
It is not simply having decreased the distance to the centre. I can decrease the distance to the centre be digging down into the earth to the same point. However the gravitational effect would decrease and not increase.
I explained this before with the Sun example. The reason that the gravity decreases when you dig into the Earth is because some of the mass of the planet is now above your head and therefore pulling on you in a direction away from the center. At the center of the Earth, gravity is at its weakest because all of the mass is around you, not below you. It pulls on you in all directions roughly equally, cancelling out the attractive force. In a black hole, the center is where gravity is the strongest because that's where all of its mass is concentrated.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
Does the mass-energy density affect gravity at higher densities?
Yes.

Quote from: jeffreyH
Does any amplification of field strength occur?
I don稚 understand what this means so I値l just say no.

Quote from: jeffreyH
How could we test if this were true?
When you tell me what amplification of field strength occur[/I] means I値l let you know.

The way I am looking at it the compression of mass produces tighter gravitational flux lines. The reason why photons get trapped is that they are outnumbered by a denser graviton field. It is like a laser beam for photons except this is an intensification of gravitons much like a laser beam. That is the 'amplification' I am exploring.

Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
The way I am looking at it the compression of mass produces tighter gravitational flux lines. The reason why photons get trapped is that they are outnumbered by a denser graviton field. It is like a laser beam for photons except this is an intensification of gravitons much like a laser beam. That is the 'amplification' I am exploring.
The more proper analogy would be to compare a gravitational field with an electromagnetic field, not a laser. Although both laser beams and EM fields are made up of photons, they have rather different properties (virtual vs. real photons). The best equivalent to a laser would be a uniform beam of gravitational waves.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
It is not simply having decreased the distance to the centre. I can decrease the distance to the centre be digging down into the earth to the same point. However the gravitational effect would decrease and not increase.
I explained this before with the Sun example. The reason that the gravity decreases when you dig into the Earth is because some of the mass of the planet is now above your head and therefore pulling on you in a direction away from the center. At the center of the Earth, gravity is at its weakest because all of the mass is around you, not below you. It pulls on you in all directions roughly equally, cancelling out the attractive force. In a black hole, the center is where gravity is the strongest because that's where all of its mass is concentrated.

You appear to be talking about a mass at normal density. I am dealing with collapsing masses. The radius here is related to an isolated mass and not a two mass interaction.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
The way I am looking at it the compression of mass produces tighter gravitational flux lines. The reason why photons get trapped is that they are outnumbered by a denser graviton field. It is like a laser beam for photons except this is an intensification of gravitons much like a laser beam. That is the 'amplification' I am exploring.
The more proper analogy would be to compare a gravitational field with an electromagnetic field, not a laser. Although both laser beams and EM fields are made up of photons, they have rather different properties (virtual vs. real photons). The best equivalent to a laser would be a uniform beam of gravitational waves.

A uniform beam works for me. Bearing in mind that like light the waves are not parallel and disperse with distance. If we could ever produce a directed graviton field we may be able to create a graviton uniform beam that would act laser like..

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Interestingly with this sort of technology it would be possible to tow quite large object in space.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
A clarification on the two graphs above. They are both in natural units. Graph 1 is the increase in gravitational strength as the radius contracts. Graph 2 is the mass density increase as the radius contracts. There is a proportionality as would be expected but what ties then together? That is my next mission.

Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
You appear to be talking about a mass at normal density. I am dealing with collapsing masses. The radius here is related to an isolated mass and not a two mass interaction.

What's the fundamental difference between "normal" densities and collapsing masses? It's just a matter of degree, really. Besides, if a higher density object has even slightly more gravity than an object of similar mass with a lower density, then that would mean that the Sun (hypothetically) collapsing into a black hole would affect the orbits in the Solar System. This is in contradiction to current physics knowledge. Look what NASA has to say on the subject: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-sun/black-hole-sun.html

Quote
If the Sun were somehow compressed enough to become a black hole, it would be less than 6 kilometers (well under 4 miles) across. It would exert no more gravitational force on Earth or the other planets in the solar system than it does now. Why? Because it would contain no more matter than it does now and it would be no closer to the planets than it is now.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
You appear to be talking about a mass at normal density. I am dealing with collapsing masses. The radius here is related to an isolated mass and not a two mass interaction.

What's the fundamental difference between "normal" densities and collapsing masses? It's just a matter of degree, really. Besides, if a higher density object has even slightly more gravity than an object of similar mass with a lower density, then that would mean that the Sun (hypothetically) collapsing into a black hole would affect the orbits in the Solar System. This is in contradiction to current physics knowledge. Look what NASA has to say on the subject: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-sun/black-hole-sun.html

Quote
If the Sun were somehow compressed enough to become a black hole, it would be less than 6 kilometers (well under 4 miles) across. It would exert no more gravitational force on Earth or the other planets in the solar system than it does now. Why? Because it would contain no more matter than it does now and it would be no closer to the planets than it is now.

You misunderstand. I agree with you. Yes the orbits would be consistent outside of the collapse. Within the collapsing region density prevails. Working out towards the original radius you arrive at the same values as you had before collapse.
« Last Edit: 30/09/2013 06:57:39 by jeffreyH »

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
I have attached a plot of standard gravity plot against density. Where these cross at a value of 1 represents normal solid matter at an ideal density. To the right series 1 represents densities above melting point, first liquid and then gas. To the left is solid matter compression which will ultimately lead to a singularity. Series 2 is the inverse square plot for gravity without reference to density. I am thinking through some conclusions at the moment.


jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
The graph above needs some correctional factor to converge the plot of high densities with normal mass density. This will reflect the distortion in gravitation experienced by collapsing objects. This distortion would result in the theoretical frame dragging experienced around the event horizon of a black hole. This effect will lesson and become 'normal' at the point where the original uncompressed mass surface would have been. I currently have no idea what this factor would be but I am looking at Hooke's law, the theory of elasticity and the linear mapping of tensors. I need to relate this to the stress energy tensor. As this relates to densities it could get very interesting.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
I have just been looking into the  Lense傍hirring effect and the equations are just a little beyond me. Is there any background on how this is put together?

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
If I am correct and there is a loss of field strength at the equator around a massive collapsed object, could this gravitational field explain the relativistic jets as gravitational waves spiral up and away from the mass. Thus pulling matter away with them? This factor could explain a weakening gravitational field in the plane of the equator.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
The wikipedia article for the Lense-Thirring effect notes that it need further explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession

Some of the symbols have no explanation. I don't believe this will lead to a gravitational explanation for the jets anyway but would like some help with clarification of the symbols.

jeffreyH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
The gravitational mass-density convergence may well explain relativistic jets and the speed of matter expulsion. Internal to the event horizon this convergence may cause a bow shaped gravity at the poles perpendicular to the equator. This bow may converge at the poles to a point-like gravitational beam and outwardly produce the conical shape of the jets. This is where the gravitational field strength would be lost from the equatorial plane and elsewhere. The origin of the bow would be the singularity and induced by the angular momentum of rotation. The intensification of the gravitational field, rather than drawing matter in, pulls matter outward in its wake. The field strength may make it more mass-like than normal. As the field reduces in strength it leaves a bulge of matter at the extremities of the jet. This gas cloud is then held together by its own gravitation.

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines