relativeistic stars

[kg]

<p>The Physics for Future Presidents lecturers look great!</p><p>My question is this:&nbsp; If objects increase mass as the accelerate what would happen to a star if it got up to relativistic speeds?&nbsp; I don't really care how you do it.&nbsp; I know stars get slingshotted about inside clusters and whatnot.&nbsp; If the stars mass increased without changing the atomic forces&nbsp; controlling fusion wouldn't the star simply explode once it reached a certain speed!?!&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Physics for Future Presidents lecturers look great!My question is this:&nbsp; If objects increase mass as the accelerate what would happen to a star if it got up to relativistic speeds?&nbsp; I don't really care how you do it.&nbsp; I know stars get slingshotted about inside clusters and whatnot.&nbsp; If the stars mass increased without changing the atomic forces&nbsp; controlling fusion wouldn't the star simply explode once it reached a certain speed!?!&nbsp; <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Objects increase in mass as a function of velocity.&nbsp; In this case the star, relative to itself, would be at rest.&nbsp; Hence it would not see an increase in mass from its own reference frame and therefore would see no change in internal gravity or the processes that control fusion.&nbsp; From your perspective, you might see it explode but you would also see the star age more quickly than would an observer moving along with the star.&nbsp; In its own reference frame the star would gothrough the normal aging process and perhaps explode.&nbsp; From your reference frame that aging could take place very quickly, depending on the relative speeds. </p><p>So the answer to your question is yes, but I think the easiest way to see that is through the time dilation effect of special relativity.</p><p>[EDIT]&nbsp; See below where derekmd correctly points out that I have my reference frames mixed up in this analysis.&nbsp; The star should actually live longer in the reference frame of an outside observer.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I would think that if the star is moving at relativistic speeds, it would age more slowly to an observer outside it reference frame.&nbsp; As for it exploding... other than through natural mechanisms it would evolve as prediction by it's mass.&nbsp; Thought it is moving at relativistic speeds, the mass it gains is in the form of kenetic energy, not any physical matter added to it.&nbsp; It doesn't physically get heavier, it just gets more difficult to acccelerate.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would think that if the star is moving at relativistic speeds, it would age more slowly to an observer outside it reference frame.&nbsp; As for it exploding... other than through natural mechanisms it would evolve as prediction by it's mass.&nbsp; Thought it is moving at relativistic speeds, the mass it gains is in the form of kenetic energy, not any physical matter added to it.&nbsp; It doesn't physically get heavier, it just gets more difficult to acccelerate. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You are correct.&nbsp; I got my frames mixed up.&nbsp; It would apparently take longer to go through the usual cycle from the point of view of an outside observer.</p><p>My real point is that things would proceed normally in the frame of reference of the "moving" star, and it is easiest to analyze the physics in that reference frame. But that would cause it to live longer in the frame of reference of the outside observer, as you correctly note.&nbsp; So, it would not suddenly explode.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[astralith]

The above explainations make sense to me. What has me confused is the example I've heard used to discribes what the Higgs field does (that as matter moves it attracts Higgs particles and gets more massive). I'm I misunderstanding that popular "celebrity attracts fans" analogy? Applied to stars it would seem to me that the components get heavier (even though I know that's wrong or else Kirk could never lift his butt out of the captain's chair).

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The above explainations make sense to me. What has me confused is the example I've heard used to discribes what the Higgs field does (that as matter moves it attracts Higgs particles and gets more massive). I'm I misunderstanding that popular "celebrity attracts fans" analogy? Applied to stars it would seem to me that the components get heavier (even though I know that's wrong or else Kirk could never lift his butt out of the captain's chair). <br />Posted by astralith</DIV></p><p>I don't know enough about the Higgs field to be certain, but it sounds to me like what you are describing is somebody's idea of how to explain relativistic effects using the Higgs field.&nbsp; So far as I know, whatever the situation with the Higgs field turns out to be, it will not make a big difference in the predictions of general relativity under most circumstances.&nbsp; It may have something to say about an eventual theory of quantum gravity.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>