Can Moving a Hydrogen Atom by an Angstrom Alter Its Mass?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter YummyFur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Quantisation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of moving a hydrogen atom in a gravitational field, specifically whether such a movement by a small distance (an angstrom or a Planck length) would result in a measurable change in the atom's mass due to changes in potential energy. The scope includes theoretical considerations of gravity and mass, as well as the quantization of gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether moving a hydrogen atom away from the Earth's center by an angstrom would theoretically increase its mass due to increased potential energy, seeking to understand the magnitude of this change.
  • Another participant challenges the idea that potential energy changes would affect the inertial mass of a small particle in a gravitational field, suggesting that it would not.
  • A further reply raises the distinction between gravitational mass and inertial mass, pondering whether potential energy manifests as mass increase only in certain systems, like springs, rather than subatomic particles.
  • One participant asserts that neither inertial nor gravitational mass changes with position in a gravitational field, arguing that only the total mass of the entire system changes when a particle moves.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of potential energy, with one participant suggesting it is a theoretical concept rather than something that gets measured directly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether moving a particle in a gravitational field affects its mass, with no consensus reached on the relationship between potential energy and mass. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the quantization of gravity and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached agreement on the definitions of mass and potential energy, and there are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of gravity and its quantization.

YummyFur
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Not sure if this should be in the quantum or classical forum, but as gravity has not been shown to be quantised yet...

My question is this, seeing as there is no quantised theory of gravity yet, that would mean that if a single atom of say hydrogen residing on the surface of the Earth was moved radially away from the centre of the Earth by a single angstrom unit, then it must be theoretically possible to calculate the increase in it's mass due to it's increased potential energy. Is this correct? If so how small is this number, in approximate orders of magnitude.

If it is correct then the same must be true if instead of an angstrom unit it is moved by a mere Planck length.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you think the potential energy of small particle in a gravitational field would change its inertial mass? I think it will not.
 
Are you suggesting that only it's gravitational mass that is increased? I just thought that potential energy manifested as mass increase, but maybe not for a subatomic particles maybe just for a system like a spring?

But the main point I wish to understand is how it can be that there is any question that gravity is quantised. I mean how can it not be, if potential energy as a result of gravity is reliant on a measurement, and this measurement must necessarily be limited by the Planck length then gravity must be quantised, must it not?
 
I think that neither inertial nor gravitational mass of the particle changes when it changes its position in gravitational field. In electrostatic field, particle has the same mass wherever it may be. It is the total mass of the whole system (source of the field) + particle that changes when the particle moves.

Do you really think that potential energy is something that gets measured? I think it is just a theoretical concept, mathematically defined to be integral of motion of equations of motion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
10K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K