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.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top