Candles on ridiculously sensitive scales

  • Thread starter Thread starter Edi
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether a candle in a closed jar would weigh the same as an identical candle that is burning, given that the energy in the burning candle is already part of the system. It is concluded that both candles would have the same mass, as the energy from the chemical bonds does not change the overall mass of the system. The conversation also touches on the concept of mass increase due to energy input from external sources, contrasting it with the internal energy present in the burning candle. An analogy involving a wind-up car is used to illustrate that the car does not gain mass during acceleration since it is wound up at rest before being released. Overall, the key point is that the mass remains unchanged when energy is already contained within the system.
Edi
Messages
176
Reaction score
1
If we had the capacity to measure masses this small:
Would a candle in a closed jar be just as heavy as identical candle in a jar, but which is on fire?
(say, some chemical touched and ignited the candle in one jar, but is just sitting next to the candle in other, so mass is exactly the same)
As I understand, more energy in a system actually makes it heavier as particles move around and become relatively more massive, but that is if energy is put into the system from outside. What happens in this case, where the energy is actually in the system from beginning, but in a form of chemical bounds?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Edi said:
If we had the capacity to measure masses this small:
Would a candle in a closed jar be just as heavy as identical candle in a jar, but which is on fire?
Yes, the mass would be the same.


Edi said:
As I understand, more energy in a system actually makes it heavier as particles move around and become relatively more massive, but that is if energy is put into the system from outside. What happens in this case, where the energy is actually in the system from beginning, but in a form of chemical bounds?
since the energy is already there the system is neither gaining nor losing any energy. (assuming no light or heat escapes the burning jar)
 
There is another explanatory example of this: Does a wind-up-car become heavier during acceleration, if it reaches relativistic velocities?

2283425240_956a2defea.jpg
 
A.T. said:
There is another explanatory example of this: Does a wind-up-car become heavier during acceleration, if it reaches relativistic velocities?

Wind up car would receive energy input from a .. giant hand, from outside the system. (?)
 
Edi said:
What happens in this case, where the energy is actually in the system from beginning, but in a form of chemical bounds?

Mass of molecule is a bit less than of summ of it's unbounded atoms. The same as for nuclear reactions, which is more observable, for example, compare mass of He4 to 4 Hydrogen.
 
Edi said:
Wind up car would receive energy input from a .. giant hand, from outside the system. (?)
Not during acceleration. It is winded up at rest, then released.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top