Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tony M on 3 Apr 2010 21:22 As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is valid? - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one - a coil has higher mass when current passes through it - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude - the mass of an object will increase with its temperature - a spring's mass increases when compressed or stretched - compressing a quantity of gas will increase its mass To generalize the above, an exchange of energy (of any kind) is equivalent to an exchange of mass. Thank you.
From: Sue... on 3 Apr 2010 21:34 On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > valid? > > - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass > flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load > - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one > - a coil has higher mass when current passes through it > - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude > - the mass of an object will increase with its temperature > - a spring's mass increases when compressed or stretched > - compressing a quantity of gas will increase its mass > > To generalize the above, an exchange of energy (of any kind) is > equivalent to an exchange of mass. > > Thank you. Nice work! I think you just squeezed 30 typewritten pages into one paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass Sue...
From: BURT on 3 Apr 2010 21:40 On Apr 3, 6:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > valid? > > - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass > flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load > - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one > - a coil has higher mass when current passes through it > - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude > - the mass of an object will increase with its temperature > - a spring's mass increases when compressed or stretched > - compressing a quantity of gas will increase its mass > > To generalize the above, an exchange of energy (of any kind) is > equivalent to an exchange of mass. > > Thank you. Electrons vibrate quantum mechically in electricity. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 4 Apr 2010 01:04 On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > valid? > > - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass > flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load > - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one > - a coil has higher mass when current passes through it > - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude > - the mass of an object will increase with its temperature > - a spring's mass increases when compressed or stretched > - compressing a quantity of gas will increase its mass > > To generalize the above, an exchange of energy (of any kind) is > equivalent to an exchange of mass. > > Thank you. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
From: Tom Roberts on 4 Apr 2010 01:23
Tony M wrote: > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > valid? In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. > - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass > flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load No. There is only a rather loose correspondence to mass transfer. Energy is transferred, not mass, in that you could not detect mass in transit between them. It is possible to use the increased energy at the load to increase its mass, and to use the reduced energy at the source to reduce its mass, but there is no necessity to do so. In many common cases there is no definite object with a definite mass at source, load, or both, so attempting to discuss "mass transfer" is useless and perhaps meaningless. > - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one Yes (identical batteries or capacitors). > - a coil has higher mass when current passes through it Yes, if you include the surrounding volume containing the magnetic field. > - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude No. > - the mass of an object will increase with its temperature Yes. > - a spring's mass increases when compressed or stretched Yes. > - compressing a quantity of gas will increase its mass Maybe, depending on the details. > To generalize the above, an exchange of energy (of any kind) is > equivalent to an exchange of mass. No. The pattern above is: given a definite object (or volume contained in an enclosure), when you put more energy into the object (or enclosure) the mass of the object (or of the enclosure and contents) increases. Without that, it is not possible to apply the "equivalence" in any sensible manner. "Enclosure" is a bit too strong, as the example of the coil illustrates (the magnetic field of the coil is not enclosed by the coil, but is rigidly connected to it) -- it is more like "connected" than "enclosed". Note that lifting an object to higher altitude does not put more energy into the object; in some sense, speaking loosely and in Newtonian terms, that is putting energy into the gravitational field, not into the object itself. Note that in all of the above cases, when there is a change in mass, it is usually too small to be measurable. To see the problem in your attempted generalization, note that the energy of an object is the time component of its 4-momentum; the mass of the object is the norm of its 4-momentum. These are quite different concepts, with quite different properties. In some cases, changing one changes the other correspondingly, but not in all cases. For instance, throwing a baseball increases the energy of the baseball (in the frame of the thrower), but does not affect its mass [#]. When a rocket blasts off, its mass decreases (because it expels mass in the form of exhaust), but its energy increases (relative to the frame from which it started) [@]. [#] There is no enclosure that contains the thrown baseball. [@] If you put the rocket into a large box that contains both the rocket and its exhaust, the total mass of box plus contents is unchanged by blast off. Tom Roberts |