The equation for gravitational potential energy is:

$$V(r) ={GMm\over r}$$

In the reference frame where $M$ is stationary. I am wondering for mass $m$ here do we need to consider its relativistic mass? And what would be the reason behind it?

  • $\begingroup$ There is never a need to consider relativistic mass. It is considered a poor idea these days. In any case, you cannot do gravitational problems the way you are attempting. $\endgroup$ – m4r35n357 Aug 2 '19 at 17:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Relativistic mass is basically an obsolete convention: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133395/4552 $\endgroup$ – user4552 Aug 2 '19 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/122319/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 2 '19 at 22:10

The answer is a big NO. I will show this with one (very naive) counter example.

Assume that we should use relativistic mass in $v=-\frac{GMm}{r}$. Let's say S is inertial observer who moves in $z$ direction with veloctiy $u$. Sun is at the rest at $(x,y,z)=(0,0,0)$ and Earth orbits the Sun in $xy$ plane with velocity $w$. Now, from S's perspective Earth and Sun move in $z$ direction with velocity $-u$ and based on our assumption we should use relativistic mass for Earth and Sun. The velocity of Earth in $xy$ plan is small enough compare to $-u$ so it's safe to neglet it for now. Suppose that Sun's invariant mass is $M$ and Earth's invariant mass is $m$. According to S, their relativistic mass will be $M'=\gamma_uM$ and $m'=\gamma_um$ respectively. If we put them in $v$ we will see that $v'=-\gamma_u^2\frac{GMm}{r}$ which is a lot greater than $v$. The problem is, Earth's velocity in $xy$ plane will become slower by a $\gamma_u$ factor from S's point of view. You can see it from velocity addition formula. Now, $F'=-\nabla_rv'$ So $F'_g=\gamma_u^2\frac{GMm}{r^2}$.

Earth-Sun system is in equilibrium (that's centrifugal force is equal to gravitional force in Sun's frame hence Earth doesn't change its orbit, roughly), So in Sun's frame we have $F_g-F_c=\frac{GMm}{r^2}-\frac{mw^2}{r}=0$. According to first special relativity principle, Earth should not change its orbit in other inertial frames like S, that's $F'_g-F'_c=0$, but unfortunately it's not the case because $F'_g-F'_c=\gamma_u^2\frac{GMm}{r^2}-\frac{mw^2}{\gamma_ur}\ne 0$ clearly. Which shows that assuming relativstic mass is not a good idea.

P.S: Actually, instead of velocity addition formula, one can check Earth's motion in $xy$ plane from S's point of view with time dilation formula, That's, Earth orbits the Sun every $365$day from Sun's point of view, So from S's perspective it should take $\gamma_u 365$day for earth to complete its rotation. That would mean Earth's angular velocity is decreased by a gamma factor. If you want to consider relativistic effect, you will need Einstein field equations.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your response. I got your point but here is one confusion I have: following your argument, in Sun's frame, the Earth is not stationary with respect to the sun, so should we have a gamma factor for the potential energy? I am referring to this line: $F_g-F_c=\frac{GMm}{r^2}-\frac{mw^2}{r}=0$. I am not sure if that changes anything, but is my point valid? $\endgroup$ – Yiyang Zhi Aug 13 '19 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ @YiyangZhi For the sake of counter example (i.e assuming relativistic mass in $v$ although it's wrong) yes your are right, but remember, the velocity of the Earth in $xy$ plane is very small, that's $\gamma_\omega \approx 1$ that's why I didn't write it in sun's frame, I didn't even consider it in S frame (i.e $\gamma_{u+\omega'}\approx \gamma_u$) too. $\endgroup$ – Paradoxy Aug 14 '19 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ Well if we were to consider them, still we could see that the first principle of relativity would be violated. That's why we should only use invariant mass in $v$. The proper way to calculate relativistic force, in SR at least, without considering GR is different. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) check Acceleration and force section. Because Earth moves at $x,y,z$ axes at the same time w.r.t S, calculation is a bit of hassle. $\endgroup$ – Paradoxy Aug 14 '19 at 8:11

General relativity does not describe gravity using a scalar potential as in Newtonian gravity. GR's closest equivalent to the Newtonian potential is actually the metric.

No, you don't get a description of the sources of the gravitational field in GR by considering relativistic mass rather than mass. The source of the gravitational field in GR is the stress-energy tensor, not a scalar mass or mass-energy density. The mass-energy density is one of the 16 components of the stress-energy tensor.


I would start with the metric line element for the nonrotating central gravitational field $$ ds^2=(1-2m/r)dt^2-(1-2m/r)^{-1}dr^2-r^2(d\theta^2 + sin^2\theta d\phi^2), $$ where $m=GM/c^2$. The variation of this is zero, where $ds$ is the proper time and is defined at an extremum. It is really a form of action. We can further see this if we divide by $ds^2$ with the four-velocities defined by $U_t=dt/ds$, $U_r = dr/ds$, $U_\theta = d\theta/ds$ and $U_\phi=d\phi/ds$. This gives $$ 1=(1-2m/r)U_t^2-(1-2m/r)^{-1}U_r^2-r^2(U_\theta^2 + sin^2\theta U_\phi^2), $$ and clearly the variation of $1$ is zero. Now factor out $U_t=dt/ds$ $$ 1=[(1-2m/r)-(1-2m/r)^{-1}v_r^2-r^2(v_\theta^2 + sin^2\theta v_\phi^2)]U_t^2, $$ where we have the coordinate velocities $v_r = dr/dt$, $v_\theta = d\theta/dt$ and $v_\phi=d\phi/dt$.

Now let us for simplicity consider a nice circular orbit so that $v_r=0$ and we shall set this on a plane with $\theta=\pi/2$ and is constant. Now we have $$ 1=[(1-2m/r)-r^2\omega^2]U_t^2, $$ where $v_\phi=\omega$ the angular velocity. We can see that obviously $U_t=[(1-2m/r)-r^2\omega^2]^{-1/2}$. This is a sort of gravitational Lorentz $\gamma$-factor.

Now I will start writing this with $m=GM/c^2$ and us small $m$ for a test mass. I now multiply by this mass-energy $mc^2$ $$ mc^2=[(mc^2-2GMm/r)-mr^2\omega^2]U_t^2. $$ Now do a little algebra $$ \frac{1}{2}mc^2(U_t^2-1) = \left(\frac{1}{2}mr^2\omega^2+GMm/r\right) U_t^2. $$ This is a sort of Lagrangian. For $U_t = 1$ we obtain a Newtonian type of result.

So this illustrates some of the connections between spacetime transformations and $-GMm/r$. In some ways the potential energy is really replaced with time dilation. The deeper a clock is in a gravity well the slower it appears. This is the main role of $-GMm/r$ that in a weak gravity limit is the Newtonian gravity potential.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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