3
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

Suppose a baseball is traveling through a vaccum towards another object extremely fast. If it's travelling fast enough then shouldn't its kinetic energy give it enough mass that the observer thinks it should collapse into a black hole and evaporate as Hawking radiation? How can this be reconciled with the perspective of a second object at rest with the baseball, which would have no reason to see a black hole?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Rob Jeffries, Community Nov 1 '15 at 21:54

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

0
$\begingroup$

You start from a common and stubborn misconception: that objects acquire mass at high, relativistic speeds.

In reality it is the object's momentum $p$ that is relativistic:

$$p=\frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}},$$

where $m$ is mass, $v$ is velocity and $c$ is the speed of light.

See relativistic mass.

So your relativistic object could never acquire the mass needed to form a black hole.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.