TransWikia.com

Why gravity (through mass) or waves sums?

Physics Asked by PDD on December 22, 2020

Maybe it sounds as very stupid but I cant understand why there is possibility to summation and synergy something. So please be patient to my question 🙂
We have 3 objects with own gravitation force but when they become into one single object they have single (m1+m2+m3) mass and common gravity (with one center of mass).
As example there is three objects with abstract 1, 6 and 2 mass values

1 + 6 + 2 = 9

Why there is sum but not only MAX of sums?

max(1, 6, 2) = 6

Or even maybe to apply thermodynamics case? Cold + hot waters to getting average warm as example? Hot 100°C and 0°C with equal 50g of water from both sides

(50 * 0 + 50 * 100) / (50 + 50) = 50°C

average(1, 6, 2) = 3

Sure then appears next question — why then there possible growth of value and increasing to big objects at all?
How does something from almost zero (0.00000001 as example) sums to 1 or 2 or even 6 and 9…?

Maybe you had explanation from waves summation?

Help me to understand why does our material world make it possible to sum things into large objects. From speck of dust into Jupiter

3 Answers

In physics, when we study macroscopic systems, we distinguish between what we call extensive and intensive quantities. Extensive quantities count the total amount of something, so they depend on the total amount or volume of whatever macroscopic system you're looking at. Intensive quantities are rates of change that are independent of the size of the system that you're looking at.

Examples of extensive quantities are volume, mass, energy, and entropy. All else equal, the bigger the system you look at, the larger an extensive quantity will be. Examples of intensive quantities are pressure, density, temperature, and specific heat capacity. We can have two systems that have the same temperature, but if one is larger than the other, the larger system will have internal energy.

From a macroscopic point of view, mass is extensive, so to get the total mass of a system we add the masses of all its subsystems. Temperature is not extensive, because it is a rate of change telling us how one extensive quantity (entropy) changes with respect to another extensive quantity (energy) is varied$^{dagger}$. If we have a thermodynamic system composed of interacting subsystems initially at different temperatures, the subsystems will eventually come to a common temperature that maximizes the entropy of the total system. This comports with our intuition that hot and cold systems in contact will come to thermal equilibrium at at an "average" temperature between the systems.

Microscopically, we can argue from Newtonian physics that the reason that a system of three particles acts as a single mass as because the potential energy of a particle of mass $M$ in the presence of three other masses $m_1$, $m_2$, $m_3$ is begin{align} U(mathbf{R},mathbf{r_1},mathbf{r_2},mathbf{r}_3) &= - sum_{i=1}^{3} frac{GM m_i}{|mathbf{R} - mathbf{r}_i|} + U_{text{int}}(mathbf{r}_1, mathbf{r}_2,mathbf{r}_3)\ &=U_{text{ext}}({|mathbf{R}-mathbf{r}_i|}) + U_{text{int}}(mathbf{r}_1, mathbf{r}_2,mathbf{r}_3) end{align} where $U_{text{int}}$ is the potential energy of interactions between the three masses $m_i$. (We might as well take the center of mass of the $m_i$ as the origin.)

If the external mass $M$ is far away from the three masses $m_i$ (relative to the distance of each of the $m_i$ from their common center of mass) then interaction between the external mass $M$ and the others can be expanded in the multipole expansion as begin{align} U_{text{ext}} = frac{GMm_{text{tot}}}{|mathbf{R}|} + ldots, end{align} where $m_{text{tot}} = m_1 + m_2 + m_3$. This is the microscopic justification for the additivity of gravitational mass.

From the microscopic point of view, we can't say anything about the temperature, because we only define intensive quantities like temperature for macroscopic/thermodynamic systems (as rates of change of extensive quantities in the thermodynamic limit).

$^{dagger}1/T = partial S / partial U$

Correct answer by d_b on December 22, 2020

In the case where there are many masses, the resultant gravitational field at any point, is the vector sum of the gravitational fields at that point due to each mass. Thus the fields from each mass are independent of each other. In the cases where you have many masses merging to form one mass, then the gravitational field at any point will be the gravitational field of one mass where this mass is the sum of the initial seperate masses eg.,

$U_1 + U_2 + U_3 = frac{Gm_1}{r_1^2} + frac{Gm_2}{r_2^2} + frac{Gm_3}{r_3^2} = frac{GM}{R^2}$

where $M = m_1 + m_2 + m_3$.

It is a result of nature that fields and fields from masses and masses add in this way. You can call this the “linearity of nature” and is a fundamental property of nature. This is true for many other phenomena such as waves (superposition). I don’t think it’s possible to know why, and this may be a question for philosophers.

Answered by Dr jh on December 22, 2020

That sounds like a deep abstract algebra question applied to a quite basic physical assumption. Yes we generally just assume mass adds or sums like normal numbers. There are at least 3 physics ideas behind what we think of as mass: counting, weight, and inertia. First counting the number of billiard balls in a box. We expect that number to be a useful quantity in many ways. Second the weight of the box is observed to simply increase as the sum of all the identical balls and combining the balls from a box with 6 and another with 3 will give a weight of ... yes 9. Some balls may be heavier but again that’s easy enough to deal with. These seem well founded reasons to use the simple math idea of adding. Later if you try to accelerate a box of balls across a slippy horizontal surface you find a resistance which is called inertial mass, the more balls the lesser the acceleration for the same force and Newton’s f=ma arises if you measure things carefully. Inertial and gravitational mass thus appear to sum like basic numbers, called linearity, but in some highly extreme physical situations our ideas of mass needs careful examination eg rest mass from Einstein, energy equivalence and in quantum physics there’s lots of scope for re-examining how we view mass as with all variables. Perhaps I miss the point, as it seems to go against a lot of what we take for granted.

Answered by blanci on December 22, 2020

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question

Get help from others!

© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP