Are charged batteries heavier?

  • Thread starter rootone
  • Start date
  • Featured
  • #26
102
10
Something to do with Higgs field?

A common misconception, the Higgs field is only responsible for about 1% of the mass of an atom,

Explained here by Frank Wilczek...

Full video here http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/15942-the-origin-of-mass-and-the-feebleness-of-gravity

Somehow that doesn't make sense though.

Why stop there, if you think about it nothing makes sense. For example, once upon a time there was a huge cloud of molecular hydrogen and not much else, then by a convoluted series of condensations a conscious being emerged wondering why things don't make sense.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Dale
Mentor
Insights Author
2020 Award
31,811
8,656
by way of muons?
No, why would there be muons? There are no nuclear reactions or cosmic rays in a battery.
 
  • #28
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,917
3,167
No, why would there be muons? There are no nuclear reactions or cosmic rays in a battery.
Yeah. Word salad. :wink:

I was thinking that the change of an electron between orbitals would involve a particle energy-mass conversion.
 
  • #29
3,388
944
once upon a time there was a huge cloud of molecular hydrogen and not much else, then by a convoluted series of condensations a conscious being emerged wondering why things don't make sense.
Thanks for those.
Are you related to Douglas Adams by any chance?:wink:
 
  • #30
Nugatory
Mentor
13,498
6,603
So, to bring this back to the OP's question:
the inflow of electricity, in the form of electrons, causes molecules to change shape, and some of the electrons' orbital energy is converted back to mass ... by way of muons?
No, it's much more straightforward than that. The mass of a multi-particle system is generally not equal to the sum of the masses of the particles of which it is composed.,
 
  • Like
Likes Vectronix and jerromyjon
  • #31
CWatters
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
10,541
2,307
If you think this measurement is feasible, why don't you go ahead and give it a try? I concur with Andy Resnick. No measurement technique exists that can measure a change in mass of 1 part in 10^14.
Oh I don't think it's feasible I just didn't understand why differences between batteries would be the problem if only one is used.
 
  • #32
102
10
The mass of a multi-particle system is generally not equal to the sum of the masses of the particles of which it is composed.,

Which is fundamentally why atoms and molecules form, because like water nature generally wants to live on the ground floor.
 
  • #33
DrClaude
Mentor
7,616
4,037
Which is fundamentally why atoms and molecules form, because like water nature generally wants to live on the ground floor.
That's not correct. Energy is not the relevant quantity, its entropy!
 
  • #34
Dale
Mentor
Insights Author
2020 Award
31,811
8,656
I was thinking that the change of an electron between orbitals would involve a particle energy-mass conversion.
It does, but the particle in question is the whole atom or molecule, not the electron. An excited atom is more massive than an atom in the ground state. In the transition the energy is lost to photons and/or KE.
 
  • #35
256bits
Gold Member
3,487
1,494
Δ√QUOTE="Andy Resnick, post: 5951029, member: 20368"]The uncertainty/statistical spread of a discharged battery's mass is likely many times larger than a pg[/QUOTE]
Looking at a harmonic oscillator, torsional:
Originally, I had thought that since the period is proportional to the square root of the mass, .... could be faulty thinking.

Background:
Time period of oscillation of twisting wire,
https://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1140/phys1140_sp05/Experiments/M4Fall04.pdf
upload_2018-3-1_2-57-33.png

or frequency,
ω = √[ (k/I )
I - moment of inertia of the mass(s)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

For the Cavendish balance,
This is the regular formula, for two masses separated horizontal distance 2L, and hanging from a wire.
upload_2018-2-28_23-56-28.png

T -period
m - mass
L - distance to wire
k - torsion coefficient of the wire

The mass hanging from the wire could be a single battery, or two on extended arms similar to the Cavendish setup.

We should have, with the battery uncharged
T1 = C√( m )
where C is a constant composed of 2, π, √L2/2k

Similarly, with the battery charged,
T2 = C√( m + Δm )

Squaring each equation, and subtracting
T12 - T22 = C2 Δm

or
Δm = T12 - T22 / C2

Like you said could be impractical due to errors in measurement for C.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-28_23-56-28.png
    upload_2018-2-28_23-56-28.png
    962 bytes · Views: 350
  • upload_2018-3-1_2-57-33.png
    upload_2018-3-1_2-57-33.png
    744 bytes · Views: 373
  • #36
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,917
3,167
It does, but the particle in question is the whole atom or molecule, not the electron. An excited atom is more massive than an atom in the ground state. In the transition the energy is lost to photons and/or KE.
I've struggled with this on and off over time.

(I know this is a digression, since now I'm invoking nuclear reactions, but humor me for a moment.)

When a nucleus f̶i̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ undergoes fission, and loses mass, that mass is carried away by a particle moving very fast. If I have read correctly, the momentum of that particle (which incorporates its KE) will account for the mass missing from the end product. True?

Does this mean that the energy that the mass was converted from is KE? No mysterious other energy emitted?


If so, is the same momentum at work in a molecular reaction? i.e, is the change in the KE of the various particles factored into the equation?

(I'd better go back and read my books. This stuff is slipping out of my head. Actually ,maybe I'd better pick up some new books.)
 
  • #37
102
10
When a nucleus f̶i̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ undergoes fission, and loses mass, that mass is carried away by a particle moving very fast. If I have read correctly, the momentum of that particle (which incorporates its KE) will account for the mass missing from the end product. True?

I believe this is what Lise Meitner understood when she helped her previous subordinates back in Germany understand what was happening. She calculated that the missing mass had indeed become the kinetic energy of the split atom pieces.
 
  • #38
1,507
126
I've struggled with this on and off over time.

(I know this is a digression, since now I'm invoking nuclear reactions, but humor me for a moment.)

When a nucleus f̶i̶s̶s̶e̶s̶ undergoes fission, and loses mass, that mass is carried away by a particle moving very fast. If I have read correctly, the momentum of that particle (which incorporates its KE) will account for the mass missing from the end product. True?

Does this mean that the energy that the mass was converted from is KE? No mysterious other energy emitted?


If so, is the same momentum at work in a molecular reaction? i.e, is the change in the KE of the various particles factored into the equation?

(I'd better go back and read my books. This stuff is slipping out of my head. Actually ,maybe I'd better pick up some new books.)



Nature's conservation laws say that a box filled with matter and anti-matter and weighing 1 kg can become a box filled with radiation and weighing 1 kg.

The law of conservation of mass demands that the total mass of the box does not change.

In that annihilation process matter became radiation. Those two things, matter and radiation, have the same mass, if we assume that the mass of the container stays the same.

("Radiation" can be replaced e.g. by charged batteries. "Matter and anti-matter" can be replaced e.g. by nuclear plant)

Quantum mechanics: "If cat's transformation to a dog does not violate conservation laws, then the transformation happens with some probability"
 
Last edited:
  • #39
54
11
It is more massive. Let's calculate how much. The battery on my laptop stores about 50 W-h = 180,000 Joules. Δm = ΔE/c^2 ~= 2 picograms. Hard to measure!
Has anyone ever told you what a spoil sport you are?
 
  • #40
phyzguy
Science Advisor
4,878
1,828
Has anyone ever told you what a spoil sport you are?

Oh well. Reality has a way of intruding on some of the best ideas.
 
  • #41
19
4
@CWatters, you might want to re-read that Wikipedia entry more closely.
 
  • #42
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
9,748
6,839
Several posters in this thread talked about the relationship between mass and energy. If the OP had chosen a gas-filled bottle instead of a battery, the complex talk about molecules in this thread could have been avoided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass said:
For example, a scale would measure the kinetic energy of the molecules in a bottle of gas to be part of invariant mass of the bottle, and thus also its rest mass.

So if a the gas in the bottle is warmed, it weights more. No atomic/molectular effects are necessary.

I think the easier way to think about it is that energy gravitates. But it can be very tricky. KE is frame dependent. So if all the particles in the bottle move the same direction, their KE is zero in some rest frame, and there is no invariant mass. But if they move in many directions, there is an invariant KE and an invariant mass associated with the KE.

From the same wiki article:
Note that for reasons above, such a rest frame does not exist for single photons, or rays of light moving in one direction. When two or more photons move in different directions, however, a center of mass frame (or "rest frame" if the system is bound) exists. Thus, the mass of a system of several photons moving in different directions is positive, which means that an invariant mass exists for this system even though it does not exist for each photon.
 
  • Like
Likes jerromyjon and phyzguy
  • #43
PAllen
Science Advisor
8,414
1,671
Several posters in this thread talked about the relationship between mass and energy. If the OP had chosen a gas-filled bottle instead of a battery, the complex talk about molecules in this thread could have been avoided.



So if a the gas in the bottle is warmed, it weights more. No atomic/molectular effects are necessary.

I think the easier way to think about it is that energy gravitates. But it can be very tricky. KE is frame dependent. So if all the particles in the bottle move the same direction, their KE is zero in some rest frame, and there is no invariant mass. But if they move in many directions, there is an invariant KE and an invariant mass associated with the KE.

From the same wiki article:
And on this score, there is experimental evidence:

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014

Part of this paper reanalyzes existing experiments to establish that kinetic energy has weight.
 
  • #44
Redbelly98
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,133
160
When you connect a battery to a charger, some material from the connectors can transfer from the charger's connector leads to the battery terminals. Or material from the battery terminals can get transferred to the connectors. Then when the battery is connected to a device and discharged, the same thing can happen.

As a result, a charged battery has about a 50% chance of being more massive than a discharged one. :-)
 
  • Like
Likes Nugatory and Dale
  • #45
35,625
12,160
For absolute mass measurement.
But what about mass difference.
Using a Cavendish torsion balance, the period of oscillation should be comparable to the square root of the difference in mass, or rather 10-6 seconds, and that 'should be' fairly easy to measure with a current time clock.
Just wondering.
The period of oscillation is proportional to the square root of the total mass. You don't have anything that is directly sensitive to a mass difference of the same object at different times. There is no known way to repeat the Cavendish experiment with a 10-14 accuracy. If there would, we wouldn't have such a large uncertainty for the gravitational constant.

The best relative gravimeters reach a ~10-12 sensitivity. Heating something can change the mass by ~10-12 - but not if you want to keep it superconducting, as required by the gravimeters. We are maybe 1-2 orders of magnitude away from measuring a mass change from a temperature change. The mass change of a battery is even smaller.
 
  • #46
118
50
This reminds me of the discussion on Chief delphi about whether or not adding code to a robot increases mass
 
  • #47
97
34
Since you can add energy to a battery then extract it later, considering mass energy equivalence, it should be more massive, no?

Yes.

Energy and mass can be converted into each other and are equivalent. But, the conversion factor is the square of the speed of light. Hydrogen bombs convert mass to energy - a little mass makes a lot of energy. Charging a (sealed) battery converts a little bit of energy to mass - and a little bit of energy makes a miniscule amount of mass.

It is more massive. Let's calculate how much. The battery on my laptop stores about 50 W-h = 180,000 Joules. Δm = ΔE/c^2 ~= 2 picograms. Hard to measure!

To put phyzguy's value into perspective, from 2010 to 2017 there have been, give or take, about 1.5 billion laptops sold. Pretend all those batteries could hold the same charge... if you measured the mass of all the batteries sold with laptops from 2010 to 2017 uncharged, and then charged them all, and measured the mass precisely again, you would find the 1.5 billion batteries gained about 3 grams of mass total.
 
  • #48
PAllen
Science Advisor
8,414
1,671
Picking up a battery to put it on a scale will transfer many orders of magnitude more mass from your fingerprints than the increase due to charging it.
 
  • #49
1,241
189
What if instead of weighing batteries, you could prove one was lighter and by roughly how much...
 
  • #50
1,241
189
Hydrogen bombs convert mass to energy - a little mass makes a lot of energy.
and a little bit of energy makes a miniscule amount of mass.
Way to put it into perspective.
 

Related Threads on Are charged batteries heavier?

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
929
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
11K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Top