I Does charging my phone increase its gravitational force?

Ebi
Messages
13
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Is this statement correct: "when I charge my mobile phone, according to E=mc^2, its mass increases, consequently, its gravitational force increases".
If the statement above is correct, I do not understand this concept. I guess by charging my phone I am not producing matter. Does it mean in this case, energy converts to mass (not matter)? Can someone please explain this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##E=mc^2## is rather too simplistic for this, but basically yes. All forms of energy, not just mass, are sources of gravity in general relativity. Storing chemical potential energy in the battery does therefore increase its mass and its gravitational field, at least according to theory. The effect is indetectably small.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE, Ebi Rogha and PeterDonis
Mass is rest energy. It does not require something to be produced as ”matter”. The additional mass of your charged battery is mainly due to the increase in its internal energy.

In addition, ”energy” is not a thing that converts into other things. It is a property of different systems that is conserved when accounting for all contributions. What ##E=mc^2## really tells you is how the inertia of a system in its reat frame relates to its rest energy.
 
Ebi said:
Summary:: Is this statement correct: "when I charge my mobile phone, according to E=mc^2, its mass increases, consequently, its gravitational force increases".

If the statement above is correct, I do not understand this concept. I guess by charging my phone I am not producing matter. Does it mean in this case, energy converts to mass (not matter)? Can someone please explain this?

Your cellphone battery can be thought of as being composed of atoms. You have the same number of atoms before and after charging it, but their arrangement is different. The differing arrangements of atoms have different energies. This translates to a difference in rest masses. Important to this argument is that the cellphone's momentum is zero before and after charging it, which is a necessary condition for the formula E=mc^2 to work. If the momentum wasn't zero, one would need the more general formula

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

where E is the Energy, m is the mass, p is the momentum, and c is the speed of light. When p=0, the more general formula reduces to E=mc^2.

To understand how the arrangement of atoms changes the energy, it is at least helpful and probably necessary to realize that energy is not just present in particles (in this case atoms), but in fields as well. We do not create or destroy atoms by charging the cellphone, but we do rearange them. At the atomic level, the chemical energy can be thought of as being associated with the electromagnetic fields that bind the atoms together.

The change in mass due to chemical binding energy is extremely small, too small for experiment to measure. Changes in mass due to changes in nuclear, rather than chemical, binding energy are large enough to be measured, though.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Ebi Rogha, PeterDonis, Ibix and 1 other person
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