- #36
PBRMEASAP
- 191
- 2
El Hombre Invisible said:So potential energy really is the energy stored in the field acting between the parts,...?
That's right.
El Hombre Invisible said:So potential energy really is the energy stored in the field acting between the parts,...?
Andrew Mason said:Your question is a good one. I'll attempt an answer for you.
If you take a distant mass that has 0 gravitational potential energy and 0 kinetic energy with respect to the Earth or sun, its energy is its relativistic mass x c^2 relative to the Earth frame (at this point its potential energy is 0). So:
thats exactly what I said in my first post! PE isn't real energy, its just the promise of future energy. This means its basically a BS concept that people use to prove conservation of energy. It doesn't actually exist.El Hombre Invisible said:Bang on again. It's always good when someone cleverer than myself tells me something that I tell myself I always knew really. So potential energy really is the energy stored in the field acting between the parts, or in QT the bosons knocking around at the time... energy the parts WILL get, just not yet..?
cepheid said:El Hombre:
You know more than I do, but I thought the idea of "relativistic mass" was not a particularly useful concept. In any case, I realize that as far as the relativity aspect went, I was abrupt with the OP and should have explained things better, but I'm shaky with the stuff myself. I'd best be keeping my mouth shut. In any case, I do know that we have rest energy ("mass energy" as you called it) given by:
[tex] E_0 = m_0 c^2 [/tex]
and as I understand it, rest energy + kinetic energy (for an object in motion) is given by:
[tex] E = \frac{m_0 c^2}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} [/tex]
What I'm not clear on are the nuances/interpretations of this result. For instance, I understand that this formula for "relativistic energy" clearly shows that there is an upper limit to the velocity of an object having mass, that it can never attain c. If nothing else, infinite energy would be required. But is it really correct to say that the object's "mass" in some sense, increases as it speeds up? As you pointed out, you have to clear on what you mean by the term "mass". Rest mass does not change
michael879 said:I never really thought about this until the other day when someone asked me why something accelerating towards a planet doesn't make the planet lose mass. It makes sense according to conservation of mass/energy right? the object gains energy (speed) therefore the planet must lose energy or mass.
That is what I said. It is 0 at infinity. It decreases from that as you get closer. Gravitational PE is never positive.michael879 said:actually, the farther something away from us is the greater the Potential Energy. PE = mgh
Actually in his E=mc^2 paper Einstein used the example of a body emitting two photons at the same time, each in opposite directions. He demonstrated that if a body gives off energy E (in the form of radiation) its mass diminishes by E/c^2. When the radiation is absorbed by another body, that body increases its mass by E/c^2. Thus a transfer of energy transfers inertia between bodies.learningphysics said:Hi cepheid. I believe that in relativity, potential energy is rest mass. Einstein's [tex]E=mc^2[/tex] paper gives a nice demonstration using the case of an elastic collision between two balls. When the two particles collide the rest mass (of the system?) must increase. In other words with the [tex] E_0 = m_0 c^2 [/tex], [tex]m_0[/tex] must increase.
I'm not sure about if the increase in rest mass goes into the particles themselves or into the fields between the two particles...
But if the two particles collided together... compressed and locked together in the compressed state... then if you measured the total rest mass (using a super sensitive weighing machine)... it would weigh more than the sum of the rest masses of the two separate particles.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Andrew Mason said:Actually in his E=mc^2 paper Einstein used the example of a body emitting two photons at the same time, each in opposite directions. He demonstrated that if a body gives off energy E (in the form of radiation) its mass diminishes by E/c^2. When the radiation is absorbed by another body, that body increases its mass by E/c^2. Thus a transfer of energy transfers inertia between bodies.
AM
There seem to be several concepts here that are being confused. Why would a body have to have converted all of its potential energy (with respect to what, exactly?) before colliding with another body?El Hombre Invisible said:By the time the two bodies collide surely all potential energy that CAN be converted to kinetic energy HAS been converted to kinetic energy - i.e. by being at its minimum it is effectively 0 (unconventionally measuring potential energy as a positive quantity). If the momenta of the bodies are equal and opposite, then to conserve momentum the two bodies would stop. What you'd be counting as rest mass here is kinetic energy surely, not potential energy. Potential energy kind of implies distance, since it is the energy stored/passed between two bodies. Is that right?
El Hombre Invisible said:You're over-complicating things. Ball, planet. Ball is held above ground, is released. Potential energy is converted to kinetic energy until the ball hits the ground. At this point that the two are in contact, i.e. at the ball's lowest height, the potential energy is at its minimum and kinetic energy is at its maximum. The question was whether or not the change in potential energy alters the rest mass of the object. I was just saying that it is the change in KINETIC energy that alters the relative mass, and nothing alters the rest mass.
From the little physics I know, I've gotten the impression that gravity is a two way street. The planet is "pulling" the ball, but the ball is also "pulling" the planet. This strikes me as the reason the planet loses nothing in the bargain.michael879 said:I never really thought about this until the other day when someone asked me why something accelerating towards a planet doesn't make the planet lose mass.
Okay, well this contradicts an earlier post by someone else so you can understand my confusion. I was under the impression that rest mass, kinetic energy and potential energy were three different things, with potential being in the space in which the force interactions were occurring between the bodies taking part in them. As potential energy drops, kinetic energy increases and vice versa (also for CoE) but with rest mass staying the same. That picture made a lot more sense to me and seemed more consistent with everything else I know. CHEMICAL energy altering rest mass, sure. Potential? That's the first I've heard about it.learningphysics said:There is only rest energy and kinetic energy. If kinetic energy drops, rest energy increases (for conservation of energy)
no that's not right, PE is 0 at the center of the Earth (PE due to Earth)Andrew Mason said:That is what I said. It is 0 at infinity. It decreases from that as you get closer. Gravitational PE is never positive.
AM
michael879 said:no that's not right, PE is 0 at the center of the Earth (PE due to Earth)
Spot the mistake :whozum said:PE is 0 at infinity and at the center.
Gokul43201 said:Spot the mistake :
[tex]\Phi_{center} - \Phi_{\infty} = \int_{\infty}^0 \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr} = \int_{\infty}^R \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr} + \int_R^0 \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr}
= \frac{-GM}{R} + \int_R^0 \frac{G\rho}{r^2}~\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3~dr
= \frac{-GM}{R} - \frac{GM}{2R}
=\frac{-3GM}{2R} \not{=} 0 [/tex]
Gokul43201 said:Spot the mistake :
[tex]\Phi_{center} - \Phi_{\infty} = \int_{\infty}^0 \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr} = \int_{\infty}^R \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr} + \int_R^0 \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr}
= \frac{-GM}{R} + \int_R^0 \frac{G\rho}{r^2}~\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3~dr
= \frac{-GM}{R} - \frac{GM}{2R}
=\frac{-3GM}{2R} \not{=} 0 [/tex]
cyrusabdollahi said:Im sorry, but F dot dr is equal to the WORK done by a gravitational field. The gravitational potential energy is given by:
[tex] U= - \frac{Gm_em}{r} [/tex]
Thus as R--> infinity, U goes to zero.
P.S. I don't understand why you have E*dr, which is typically used for electric flux, and mixed it in with the gravitational formula.
cyrusabdollahi said:I do not follow you learningphysics, the integral for gravity also gives you work. It gives you U_2-U1= Work total. So solving the integral with the limits gives you the change in potential energy, which is the work done. If you want the potential at infinity, then its just going to be the value of U_2 alone, not U_2 - U_1.
cyrusabdollahi said:Edit: I searched the hyperphysics website, I see what your saying now, but then that would imply that the potential at infinity is the integral from a to b, or infinity to infinity, which is zero by definition, because it is defined to be zero at infinity. so the limits a and b would both be infinty.
cyrusabdollahi said:Right, so the question is the potential at infinity. So for the limits of integration, as you stated, would automatically make a= infinity. And since we are questioning the potential at infinity, the limit b would be infinity as well. Which would make the limits of integration therefore the same. Although, I am probably not doing something right.