I Charged box mass-energy

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter andreabalestrero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charged Energy
andreabalestrero
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A charged, metallic box has an energy content higher than an uncharged box, due to the energy stored in the electric field (which is equal to the work that has to be done to bring the charges from "infinity" to the surface of the box). So, due to the mass-energy equivalence, a charge box has a higher rest mass, and it will offer a higher resistance when accelerated. Is there a thought experiment that could explain why a charged box is harder to accelerate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
andreabalestrero said:
Is there a thought experiment that could explain why a charged box is harder to accelerate?
Didn't you just describe one?
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, berkeman and FactChecker
Actually, I was thinking something like that accelerating a charged box will produce EM radiation, and somehow the outgoing momentum of the radiation results in a force to be balanced to push the box
 
This was attempted in the 19th century. It did not work out. You get 4/3 = 1 and similar nonsense.

You cannot separate the charge from the field and say "this much mass is over here and that much mass is over there", just as you can't allocate the mass of a system of photons to each individual, yet massless, photon.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top