I know that under general relativity energy and mass are equivalent under $E=mc^2$. But has it been experimentally proven that energy alone causes gravity, for example, does a nuclear reaction generate gravity independent of the mass of the reactor alone? Is a kugelblitz possible?
-
4
- There is no such thing as "energy alone" - a "box of light" isn't "energy", it's a bunch of photons/coherent photon states. 2. Related/possible duplicate: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/209919/50583
– ACuriousMind Apr 14 '22 at 18:03 -
@ACuriousMind from what I can see, that possible duplicate looks at e=mc^2 in general terms, but does not specifically address gravity. – foolishmuse Apr 14 '22 at 18:26
-
8A nuclear reaction wouldn't "generate" gravity... the energy liberated by a nuclear reactor was always in the nuclei beforehand (i.e. in the mass of the fuel). The prediction is not that the reaction causes "more" gravity but that the reaction doesn't reduce gravity (since all the mass-energy is still there). Good luck keeping the energy output in a box long enough to weigh it, though. (Though doesn't weighing the reactants and products of a nuclear reaction as in one of the linked answers count as addressing gravity?) – HTNW Apr 14 '22 at 18:33
-
3If you're not asking about $E=mc^2$, I'm not sure what you're asking about. General relativity doesn't claim that "energy causes gravity", it claims that the Einstein field equations tell us how the stress-energy tensor determines the geometry/metric of spacetime. Are you asking about that? – ACuriousMind Apr 14 '22 at 18:39
-
@HTNW correct, what I asked was does the nuclear reaction generate gravity INDEPENDENT of the mass. So as the mass decreases, does the overall gravity stay the same? And I am not looking for a theoretical answer, but has it been experimentally tested? After all, if they few an airplane to test kinetic time dilation, wouldn't they have done some test on this as well? – foolishmuse Apr 14 '22 at 18:43
-
@ACuriousMind I am asking about E=mc^2, but I am asking about an experimental test of one particular aspect of it. – foolishmuse Apr 14 '22 at 18:44
-
"what I asked was does the nuclear reaction generate gravity INDEPENDENT of the mass." If the fuel weighs less after the reaction, Earth's gravitational force on it is reduced, so by Newton's third law its gravitational force on Earth is reduced too. This happened due to a loss of mass, in turn due to a loss of energy. – J.G. Apr 14 '22 at 21:20
-
2Does this answer your question? Does a photon exert a gravitational pull? – Apr 14 '22 at 21:32
-
The confusion arises from the concept of mass. You can only measure mass through measuring it's gravitational force, and gravity is the effect of energy on spacetime 'fabric'. So what you are really measuring is the energy content, not mass. Mass is just a conceptual construct in order to create correlations between things like force and energy. But it is somewhat illusory and this creates problems like the paradox of relativistic and inertial mass and also the wave-particle duality. Think of mass like a parameter that is derived from energy, that should clear the confusion – Nk07 Apr 15 '22 at 02:54
-
@Nk07 You can only measure mass through measuring it's gravitational force Huh? You can measure mass from inertia. – PM 2Ring Apr 15 '22 at 02:59
-
Oh right. Forgot to mention that lol. But regardless, my main point still stands that mass is a parameter that is derived from energy, not the other way round. If you measure mass using inertia, you are calculating it based on force and the rate of change of velocity, both of which are determined by energy – Nk07 Apr 15 '22 at 03:26
-
@Nk07 No, you can have massless particles that do have energy. – Apr 15 '22 at 08:59
-
@DvijD.C. I don’t think I’ve said anything that contradicts that statement – Nk07 Apr 15 '22 at 09:56
-
Unbound energy tends to move at the speed of light, and thus is hard to test for gravity. OTOH, bound energy is what gives "matter" most of it's mass, so we've already tested that extensively. – RBarryYoung Apr 15 '22 at 12:51
-
@Nk07 "my main point still stands that mass is a parameter that is derived from energy" this contradicts the fact that mass can be either zero or non-zero for a particle that has the same amount of energy. – Apr 15 '22 at 13:56
-
1I don't think this is a duplicate of the proposed question. The OP here wants to know whether there has been experimental proof of the gravitational effects of photons (and other energy), not what the theory predicts. – Michael Seifert Apr 15 '22 at 17:54
-
You're asking a question about the fundamental nature of reality. With most such questions, you're bumping against the limits of human knowledge; the path towards experimental confirmation is not going to be just a single straightforward experiment that nicely aligns with our everyday intuition and 100% satisfies your (or scientists') skepticism, it's going to be multiple lines of experimental evidence that, taken with what else is known, together build up to a high level of confidence that what you're asking about is the case. So it's not going to be a straightforward/quick answer. – Filip Milovanović Apr 16 '22 at 13:05
-
Also note that "Does energy cause gravity?" and "Is a kugelblitz possible?" aren't exactly the same question; the latter might not be impossible in the mathematical sense, but would require extremely special circumstances, so we might never see such a thing in practice. The practical feasibility of a kugelblitz is entirely separate from the first question. – Filip Milovanović Apr 16 '22 at 13:23
2 Answers
The parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism is a generalized way of exploring gravity theories, including general relativity. In the older "beta-delta" parametrization, three of the parameters ($\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, and $\beta_3$) describe how much gravity is produced by kinetic energy, gravitational energy, and internal energy respectively. In addition, there's another parameter $\beta_4$ that describes how much gravity a given amount of pressure creates; this is important for photons, since photons have a pressure equal to their energy density (up to a factor of $c$.) The case $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \beta_3 = \beta_4=1$ corresponds to all three types of energy creating the same amount of gravity as conventional mass does, given the conversion factor $E = mc^2$; this is what is predicted by general relativity.
In terms of the other PPN parameters mentioned in that article, we have: $$ \begin{align*} (\beta_1 - 1) &= \frac{\gamma - 1}{2} + \frac{\alpha_3}{4} + \frac{\zeta_1}{4} \\ (\beta_2 - 1) &= - \frac{\beta - 1}{2} + \frac{3 (\gamma - 1)}{2} + \frac{\zeta_2}{2} \\ (\beta_3 - 1) &= \zeta_3 \\ (\beta_4 - 1) &= (\gamma - 1) + \zeta_4 \end{align*} $$ From current observational bounds on gravity (such as the tracking of space probes in the solar system, the perihelion shift of Mercury, the behaviors of pulsars, etc.) these parameters are bounded to around the following orders of magnitude: \begin{align*} |\gamma - 1| &\lesssim 10^{-5} & |\beta - 1| &\lesssim 10^{-4} & \alpha_3 &\lesssim 10^{-20} \\ \zeta_1 &\lesssim 10^{-2} & \zeta_2 &\lesssim 10^{-5} & \zeta_3 &\lesssim 10^{-8} & \zeta_4 \lesssim 10^{-2} \end{align*} So to within an order of magnitude, these parameters suggest that $\beta_1$ and $\beta_4$ are constrained to be equal to 1 to within a few percent. In other words, we're pretty sure that kinetic energy and pressure create the same amount of gravity that mass do to within a few percent. The gravitational effects of gravity itself and of internal energy are even more tightly bounded.
Caveat: I'm playing a bit fast and loose with these bounds. In reality, they were all established via a series of interdependent experiments, and it's possible that the published bounds are interdependent on one another in a way that allows for larger values. Still, this hopefully gives you a feel for how this question has been experimentally addressed.
- 16,031
- 48,772
-
Now that I have digested your answer, it DOES appear that experiments on the perihelion shift of Mercury have proven that energy causes gravity. In most articles on this, it merely says something like "relativistic effects". But you have broken them down into B1 and B4, the kinetic and pressure energy factors. So if you flung Mercury at near c, then it would have nearly twice the gravity of a non-moving Mercury? Is that correct? – foolishmuse Apr 17 '22 at 13:02
-
-
@Jagerber48: The standard reference is Clifford Will, "The Confrontation Between General Relativity and Experiment", Living Reviews in Relativity 17 4 (2014). There's a summary of the parameters in Table 4, which appears to have just been copied into the Wikipedia article I linked. – Michael Seifert Sep 21 '23 at 11:12
But has it been experimentally proven that energy alone causes gravity, for example does a nuclear reaction generate gravity independent of the mass of the reactor alone?
Gravity and nuclear reactions cannot be tested in the laboratory, because gravity is a very very weak force. Only by fitting astrophysical observations with models that combine general relativity and quantum mechanics , for the nuclear reactions, one can say that "since the models fit the data, it is the total four vector energy that generates gravity for a star.
Is a kugelblitz possible?
As for kugelblitz , the introduction in wikipedia says it all:
In simpler terms, a kugelblitz is a black hole formed from radiation as opposed to matter. Such a black hole would nonetheless have properties identical to one of equivalent mass and angular momentum began more conventionally, following the no-hair theorem.
Edition after comments:
I found this review whence I copy this:
John Dotty comments:
@PM2Ring The difference in the mass defects of lithium and iron is ~0.3% of the total mass, so 5 significant digits should put a moderately tight limit on any difference between the gravity of matter and the gravity of energy using those elements.
If you measure G with lithium and then G with iron, the difference, if it exists, would be within the experimental errors as given above, imo.
- 233,453
-
2"Proven" could mean by looking at gravitational lensing, etc, which is how many of these type things are proven. So I get from your answer that it has not been proven yet. I gather it would take the energy of 100,000 suns to create a kugleblitz around the earth. Thanks. – foolishmuse Apr 14 '22 at 20:11
-
1Could be tested in the lab by a Cavendish-type experiment comparing the gravity of materials with different mass defects. Since we attribute mass defect to binding energy, if energy and nucleon mass were to gravitate differently, the experiment should measure different gravitational constants for the different materials. I suppose somebody must have done this, but I don't know. – John Doty Apr 14 '22 at 22:05
-
@JohnDoty There have been many experiments trying to verify that inertial & gravitational mass are equal for different substances. Newton himself did numerous experiments using pendulums. IIRC, in the last few decades there have been some experiments looking for the effect you mention, but it's really hard to get decent numbers from Cavendish-type experiments, which is why the value of G is only known to 5 significant figures. – PM 2Ring Apr 15 '22 at 02:56
-
1and on top of the comment of PM2Ring, there is the minute difference in binding energy between excited and ground level states to be separated in order to say that the experiments asked by the OP were and can be done in lab conditions. – anna v Apr 15 '22 at 05:51
-
@PM2Ring The difference in the mass defects of lithium and iron is ~0.3% of the total mass, so 5 significant digits should put a moderately tight limit on any difference between the gravity of matter and the gravity of energy using those elements. – John Doty Apr 15 '22 at 20:28
-
@PM2Ring Eötvös experiments are much more sensitive, but don't directly probe the gravity of the test masses. But if you assume momentum is conserved they are meaningful here. This is not a controversial assumption ツ – John Doty Apr 15 '22 at 20:33
-
