Gravity, energy and mass

[HydrogenBond]

If one looks at energy escaping a strong gravitational field it will red shift. This is most evident at the event horizon of a black hole. The red shift implies that the energy will lose potential by becoming a longer wavelength quanta. In other words, going from gamma and red shifting to x-rays drops the total energy value. Mass behaves opposite. If mass was to move away from gravity, the mass would gain potential due to the increased gravitational potential. If we let the mass go, it would accelerate back toward the gravity source converting its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy.

 

What this simple analysis implies, is that if matter was composed of pure energy at its base level, if we moved this object away from high gravity, all the energy subunits should red shift and the mass should decrease. This does not happen, implying mass can not be composed of energy as its most fundamental units. In fact, all particle theories that assume that mass is even partially composed of energy have the same problen because at least some of its composition will decrease energy/mass when escaping gravity resulting in something different than the integrated composite subjected to the same conditions. The bottom line is that the most fundamental building blocks of mass must be mass, without energy. Mass and energy equate via E=MC2, but this represents the equivilency between two distinct phases that behave opposite with respect to gravity.

[Jay-qu]

I dont know... wouldnt it be more prudent to say that photons lose energy when leaving a gravitational field. The energy tied up in matter is not a photon - they can only go at c.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't think it matters what kind of energy it is because in all cases its mass will equal zero to be able to travel at C, such that only its distance and time or wavelength and frequency will be affected. The implication is that the building blocks of matter can not be energy based or else one should notice a energy/mass decrease going against gravitational fields.

[Erasmus00]

I don't follow. In a gravitational potential, energy is conserved.

 

The reason light redshifts is because its trading its kinetic energy for potential energy. As it moves further away, kinetic goes down, potential goes up.

 

Mass does the exact same thing, kinetic goes down, potential goes up.

-Will

[arkain101]

^^ my thoughts too.

 

Both matter and energy leaving a source of gravity weaken in their ability to do work in their own specific frame. But the gravity source and frame as one frame grows in potential. right?

 

Because if the light were to be going towards gravity would it not shift oppositly and gain energy? just like the matter..

[CraigD]

If mass was to move away from gravity, the mass would gain potential due to the increased gravitational potential. If we let the mass go …

I think there’s a flaw in this reasoning.

 

To move an object with mass to a position more distant from a central object (the source of the strong gravitation field in HydrogenBond’s example), while keeping its velocity relative to the central object the same, requires a force to be applied over that distance exactly equaling the increase in gravitational potential energy (recall that Energy = Work = Force * Distance). There’s no equivalent way to add energy to a photon moving away from a central mass. An object can move away from a gravity source without the added energy of an outside force, but to do so, its velocity relative to the source must decrease. This decrease in velocity results in a (typically very small) decrease in the object’s mass.

 

So a photon “in free fall” (which can’t experience a change in velocity) exhibits a decrease in energy from moving away from a center of gravity via a reduction in its frequency, while an object with mass (which can) exhibits it via a reduction in mass.

… if matter was composed of pure energy at its base level …

I think this reveals a critical confusion of the relationship between mass and energy given by E=M*c^2. Mass is not “composed of pure energy” any more than energy is “composed of pure matter” – they are equivalent, which implies that neither is more fundamental than the other.