Does increasing the temperature of an object increase it's mass?

Click For Summary
Heating an object, such as a rock or piece of metal, increases its energy and, consequently, its mass due to the principles outlined in Einstein's equation E=mc^2. The kinetic energy from the vibrating atoms in the heated object contributes to this increase in mass. Additionally, a compressed steel spring would also be heavier than when it is not compressed, as it contains stored energy. The discussion highlights that E=mc^2 applies primarily to objects at rest, while moving objects require a different equation. Overall, the relationship between energy, mass, and temperature is significant in understanding these physical concepts.
mcafej
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I was just thinking about einsteins famous equation E=mc^2, and I was just wondering, if I were to take, say a rock or piece of metal. If I were to weigh it, and get it's mass, I could compute how much energy it contains. However, if I were to add heat to the rock or piece of metal by putting it into a fire to just heat it up, wouldn't the amount of energy that the rock or metal contains be higher, and so wouldn't the mass be higher (since the speed of light is constant, the only thing that can increase when the energy increases is mass, right?)? Anyways, maybe I'm missing an obvious point, but I was just curious about this, so any clarification would be great.
 
Science news on Phys.org
You are absolutely correct. The measured mass would increase if you heat an object up.
 
Just remember that the equation E=mc^2 only applies to objects at rest. Objects in motion use the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2.
 
mcafej said:
Ok, so I was just thinking about einsteins famous equation E=mc^2, and I was just wondering, if I were to take, say a rock or piece of metal. [..] if I were to add heat to the rock or piece of metal [..], wouldn't the amount of energy that the rock or metal contains be higher, and so wouldn't the mass be higher [..]? [..] any clarification would be great.

Yes that is correct; the kinetic energy of the vibrating atoms in that object adds to its mass. (I don't know if it has ever been possible to measure this effect.)

See also the conclusion of the related famous paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

and a discussion of temperature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature
 
Does this also mean that a steel spring would be measured heavier in a compressed state than in a non-compressed state as it has stored energy?
 
JustinRyan said:
Does this also mean that a steel spring would be measured heavier in a compressed state than in a non-compressed state as it has stored energy?

Yep!
 
Thread 'Can somebody explain this: Planck's Law in action'
Plotted is the Irradiance over Wavelength. Please check for logarithmic scaling. As you can see, there are 4 curves. Blue AM 0 as measured yellow Planck for 5777 K green Planck for, 5777 K after free space expansion red Planck for 1.000.000 K To me the idea of a gamma-Ray-source on earth, below the magnetic field, which protects life on earth from solar radiation, in an intensity, which is way way way outer hand, makes no sense to me. If they really get these high temperatures realized in...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K