Conservation of mass incongruent with He?

In summary, the Earth is losing a lot more hydrogen than helium. Estimates range wildly, with most estimates being a bit less than 100,000 metric tons per year. The Earth is also gaining mass from meteors. These estimates range even more wildly, from about 2,000 metric tons per year to well over 100,000 metric tons per year. We don't even know if the Earth is losing or gaining mass, but even if it was losing mass, the amount lost wouldn't affect the way it attracts us. The main reason I referred to the pressure is that even though we cannot measure the mass loss by our weight, we could (probably? yes) measure the pressure losing...so
  • #1
1ledzepplin1
15
0
Hi physicists!
My name is grant and I am curious as to how helium plays into our Earth's overall mass and gravity. It's my understanding that gravity itself is functionally dependent on the quantity of mass within closed systems or objects, and it's also my understanding that helium will escape into space.
So with that all said I am wondering what the influence is on Earth's gravity that our Earth's helium supply is, I suppose, just flowing out of our closed planet system?
Also, from the perspective of you all, how is the Earth viewed from a physics standpoint with respect to gravity? Is gravity changing on Earth from the standard 9.8m/s and if not why doesn't helium loss affect this?
Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Earth is losing a lot more hydrogen than helium. Estimates range wildly, with most estimates being a bit less than 100,000 metric tons per year. The Earth is also gaining mass from meteors. These estimates range even more wildly, from about 2,000 metric tons per year to well over 100,000 metric tons per year.

We don't even know if the Earth is losing or gaining mass.

Let's take the low number for mass gain. That means the Earth is losing about 100,000 metric tons of mass per year. That sounds like a lot, but it isn't. It's about 10-17 of the mass of the Earth. Even the best instruments can't come anywhere close to measuring Earth's gravity to seventeen decimal places.
 
  • #3
gravity is a force, 9.8 is acceleration...
Well the acceleration g changes over the Earth's surface (not because of mass loss but because of your position/distance from the center).

9.8 is a good approximation for g on the Earth's surface... Even if Earth would lose mass it wouldn't affect the way it attracts us... this is all due to Gauss's law... Because of the form of the force, you are being attracted by the mass contained in a sphere of radius = distance of the center, and that mass is not lost... In that case you are not being attracted by the outer layers of the atmosphere where the mass loss takes place.
 
  • #4
If you approximate the Earth as having spherical symmetry, then the gravity from the Earth measured at a particular point depends on the mass contained within a sphere centered at the center of the Earth which intersects the particular point. In other words, if you are standing on the surface of a spherical Earth at a particular elevation, then you feel the gravity of the Earth from all the mass below your elevation, but you don't feel the mass above your elevation. You won't feel the gravity due to helium in the upper atmosphere above your elevation. But if you were out in space, above the upper atmosphere, you do include the mass of the upper atmosphere in the gravity you feel from the Earth.
 
  • #5
I am not sure about the pressure though...I guess the pressure would have to fall if outer layers of the atmosphere are being thrown out...
since a planet with atmosphere has X value for pressure, while a atmosphere-less planet has 0 pressure...this must be true...
So how would that affect us? (expecting an answer from someone more into this kind of stuff- environmental physics) Could we measure it?
 
  • #6
ChrisVer said:
I am not sure about the pressure though...I guess the pressure would have to fall if outer layers of the atmosphere are being thrown out...
Sure it would. Luckily, no significant fraction of the atmosphere escapes to space.

So how would that affect us? (expecting an answer from someone more into this kind of stuff- environmental physics) Could we measure it?
We could certainly measure a lower atmospheric pressure.

How is that related to gravity?
 
  • #7
nothing to gravity... I guess it would be related to how much something would weight on the Earth's surface... lower pressure from above, would mean lower weight for us... (it's related indirectly to gravity)...at least that's how I think...
But the main reason I referred to the pressure is that even though we cannot measure the mass loss by our weight, we could (probably? yes) measure the pressure losing...so that we know how much is gained or loss...
 
  • #8
lower pressure from above, would mean lower weight for us
No (you get nearly the same pressure from below as well). You have buoyancy, sure, but that is related to the density of air, not its pressure. And it reduces the number the scale shows.
 
  • #9
I can definitely appreciate some of the answers citing gravitational force as a function of distance AND mass and the pressure question is very interesting and I look forward to seeing more discussion on that. I feel like, however, my gravitational question was taken a bit more literally than I was looking for and I am asking something a bit more theoretical. I am thinking that different masses contribute completely unique properties to the Earth's gravitational field and that the organization with respect to the Earth's core is what truly defines it. I'm thinking that a helium atom at x distance will produce a different effect gravitationally than a boron atom at x distance, all as a function of mass distribution. Any thoughts on this? Because a potential energy difference may exist for a particular elemental mass, at a certain distance. I just don't feel like the gravitational constant should exist. I think it's proportional
 
  • #10
1ledzepplin1 said:
Any thoughts on this? Because a potential energy difference may exist for a particular elemental mass, at a certain distance. I just don't feel like the gravitational constant should exist. I think it's proportional

That's why the the mass appears in the expressions for gravitational force and gravitational potential energy - because both quantities are indeed proportional to the mass. This is true for a very small object such as an atom, as well as for larger objects that are collections of atoms (for the latter, in principle we add the contribution from each individual atom, in practice we get the same results with less work by calculating with average densities and total masses).

And we know that the gravitational constant exists because we've measured the forces and potential energy with many different objects of widely varying size and composition... and we always get results that are consistent with mass multiplied by a constant. This is one of the areas where our feelings about how the universe should work are irrelevant - the universe is telling us how it does work (although it's still up to us to listen to what we're being told).
 
  • #11
Hahahah nugatory your sass is well received and appreciated. I asked my physics professor and she about gave me the same taste of humility in her response as well. I respect the conclusions of countless experiments that have all yielded the gravitational constant, I just can't help but poke and prod at it until I figure out exactly why that constant is as it is. This is beyond the scope of the thread and my own research though but thank y'all!
 
  • #12
So what is the problem with a constant?
We know that the force of gravity is proportional to the masses of the two attracted objects, divided by r2.
The best way to write that proportionality is by a constant factor (independent of mass or distance):
[itex] F_{(ij)}= G \frac{m_{(i)}m_{(j)}}{r_{(ij)}^{2}}[/itex]

The "nice" thing of the game is indeed [itex]G[/itex] was measured to be a "constant" (of course in reality it's not). One way for example, is the Cavendish experiment.
Of course it's not a constant :) (it's running)
 
Last edited:

1. What is the conservation of mass?

The conservation of mass is a fundamental principle in science that states that the total mass of a closed system remains constant over time. This means that mass cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or transformed into different forms.

2. How is conservation of mass related to helium?

Helium is a chemical element that follows the principle of conservation of mass. This means that the total mass of helium atoms in a system will remain constant, even if they undergo physical or chemical changes.

3. How is conservation of mass incongruent with helium?

Although helium follows the principle of conservation of mass, it can also exhibit some properties that seem to defy this principle. For example, helium can escape from a closed system due to its low molecular weight, leading to a decrease in the total mass of the system.

4. What factors can affect the conservation of mass in the presence of helium?

The conservation of mass can be affected by various factors in the presence of helium, such as temperature, pressure, and the presence of other substances. These factors can influence the behavior of helium and its ability to escape from a closed system, altering the total mass of the system.

5. How do scientists account for the behavior of helium in the conservation of mass principle?

Scientists take into account the behavior of helium in the conservation of mass principle by considering it as a special case. Helium is a unique element with low molecular weight and high mobility, which can lead to discrepancies in the total mass of a closed system. Therefore, scientists must carefully measure and account for the behavior of helium when studying the conservation of mass in a system.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
916
Replies
22
Views
832
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • Mechanics
Replies
2
Views
951
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
772
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
14K
Replies
65
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top