0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
What I really want to know is how an increase in an object's energy will increase its mass. Even in the simplest closed system, an example of how energy converts into mass would help.
Quote from: Lamprey5 on 24/01/2011 20:40:38What I really want to know is how an increase in an object's energy will increase its mass. Even in the simplest closed system, an example of how energy converts into mass would help.Because energy *is* mass, in a stationary system. No "convertion" at all.
A very very fast moving object curves space-time mainly by its momentum.A very very fast moving object onto which a co-moving lamp is shining light, iscurving space-time an amount that is constantly increasing. The increasingspace-time curving ability is due to increasing momentum.
Could you refine your statement that "energy is mass"? I understand mass to be "that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy" (Oxford English Dictionary).
Could you refine your statement that "energy is mass"? I understand mass to be "that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy" (Oxford English Dictionary). To increase an objects temperature doesn't change the amount of matter in it, but it's mass increases, correct?
How does energy and mass curve space-time similarly?
Is energy of Earth the part of gravitation mass of Solar system ?
no, "mass is energy" doesn't mean energy is mass.There is no law of mass conservation. A particle and its antiparticle may annihilate each other and the result will be 2 photons with no mass at all. Only energy is conserved.
Mass is energy.
Mass is not additive.Energy is additive.Is there some kind of contradiction here?
BUT everybody always says that mass is not conserved.
total mass of a system of two particles with mass m1 and m2 is not m1 + m2.Furthermore, where does the mass of a massive particle come from? Part of a mass of an atom is in the EM fields between nucleus and electrons. Most of the mass of a proton or a neutron is in the strong force fields between quarks.A system of two photons not traveling in the exact same direction has mass.A static electric field has mass....The fact that mass, according to Oxford dictionary is "that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy" is not very explicative...QuoteHow does energy and mass curve space-time similarly?Because they are the same thing: the mass of a stationary system *is* that system's energy (divided by c2). The mass of a massive particle *is* the sum of all the energies of the different components of that particle, if it's made up of other things (energy is additive).
So if one were to put a hot gold bar in a bath of cold water, the mass of the gold bar would be less afterwards because it's atoms have less energy. But overall, the bar contains the same amount of matter in it.
If I understand that correctly, then I have another question: if most of the mass of a massive particle is in the strong force fields between quarks, how is this true? I mean, since an amount of matter and an amount of energy are physically different, or at least they do not appear the same, why do they have the same mass?
Quote from: jartza on 26/01/2011 18:42:58BUT everybody always says that mass is not conserved.Not me.  At least I would specify the context. Remember: energy in a stationary (= zero total momentum) system *is* mass.Take a box with perfectly reflecting inner walls, weighs it: it has mass m. Inject light into it, so that its total energy has increased of E. Then weighs again the box in a super sensitive scale. Now the box' mass is m + E/c2, and there is no doubt about it.
It is energy that is conserved not mass if you check the total energy of both of he systems they will be the same when you include the energy of the photon
That only really works when you use mass energy equivalence to posit a pseudo-mass for the photon - electron-positron annihilation has two massive particles interacting and emitting two energetic but massless particles. mass just isn't conserved - energy is. mass is the energy of a particle at zero momentum - this is not a valid case for the photon. energy is conserved - mass is not necessarily conserved except when you are actually calculating energy but declaring it as mass
weight≠mass You're flogging a dead horse - photons have many properties, states and characteristics; mass is not one of them.
Well why not put this conservation law into use.Let's put a proton and an electron in a box. After a while there is ahydrogen atom and a photon in the box. We close the box carefully. Nowthe mass of this box will not change. So from the law of conservation of mass:mass of proton + mass of electron = mass of hydrogen atom + mass of photon in a box
let's solve mass of hydrogen atom from the equation:mass of hydrogen atom = mass of proton + mass of electron - mass of photon in a boxWe see that mass of hydrogen atom is SMALLER than mass of one proton and one electron.(You said it's larger)
If photons create weight do they lose energy for it?
Everyone has a right to have their own opinion, I guess.But what would impress me would be someone showing me a case where any kind of mass measuring device measures a closed box changing its mass.Does any mass measuring device exist?
Lightarrow"the mass of the atom is lower than the sum of the masses of electron and proton"I find this a little confusing, I appreciate than when an Electron and Proton are united to form a Neutron there is a loss of mass due to the emission of an antineutrino but when a naked Proton acquires an Electron to form a Hydrogen atom how does the loss of mass occur
Oh yes, they say that photons curve space-time with their momentum.
I had in mind the gravitational equivalent when a body falls from a quasi infinite distance to a gravitating body, in this case there is an obvious acquisition of energy and relativity mass in addition to the mass of the captured body.
Quote from: jartza on 26/01/2011 09:28:28Oh yes, they say that photons curve space-time with their momentum.That depends, according to the Bonnor beam model. But there are several views to that one. Also, as a photon only can be shown in its interaction, where do those beams 'exist'?
When electron falls into proton, mass of electron INCREASES, mass of proton DECREASES, and vacuum's em-field becomes exited and its mass INCREASES.
Quote from: jartza on 29/01/2011 00:55:54When electron falls into proton, mass of electron INCREASES, mass of proton DECREASES, and vacuum's em-field becomes exited and its mass INCREASES. Which movie is it?