Does Relativistic Mass Affect the Way We Weigh Things?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of relativistic mass and its potential effects on the weighing of substances, particularly in relation to atoms and molecules. Participants explore whether relativistic effects influence the behavior of these particles under varying conditions of temperature and pressure, and how this might impact measurements in chemistry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether relativistic effects impact atoms and the weighing of substances, suggesting that kinetic energy related to temperature and pressure could introduce such effects.
  • Another participant asserts that relativistic mass has no physical effect and is merely a definition, noting that it has largely fallen out of use in modern physics.
  • Some participants argue that while relativistic mass is not considered physical, it can be related to energy levels in heavy atoms, which can be measured.
  • One participant discusses the increase in mass due to added energy from heating an object, but emphasizes that this effect is too small to be practically measurable with standard scales.
  • Another participant highlights that the mass of a composite object depends on the total energy in its rest frame, including contributions from kinetic energy and binding energy of its components.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance and implications of relativistic mass. While some argue it has no practical effect on weighing substances, others suggest that energy considerations in relativistic contexts are still significant. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the practical implications of these relativistic effects.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the measurability of relativistic effects and the definitions of mass being used. The conversation also reflects a historical context in which the term "relativistic mass" has evolved and its current standing in physics education.

MarkSK
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone.
I have some questions related to relativistic mass: Does atoms and molecules are affected by this relativistic effects? and does relativistic mass affects the way we weigh things?
What I mean is; (and based on my limited knowledge of Special and General Relativity ) atoms an molecules have more (or less) kinetic energy in relation to temperature and pressure, so, if these particles move then there may be some relativistic effects going on, right?

I know we can calculate the relativistic mass using:

8dccf40d5ea0e15d8b97019f8f49ce9e56bcf8a0

But the tricky thing is the speed of individual atoms (or molecules)

So, the point is, do these relativistic effects affect atoms? and does this affect the way that a chemist might try to weigh a substance?

Beware that I don't know much about relativity, so I'd love to know where is the problem in my reasoning
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MarkSK said:
does relativistic mass affects the way we weigh things?

No. Relativistic mass has no effect on anything because it's not physical. It's just a definition of a term. Originally researchers thought it might be a genuine relativistic generalization of the concept of mass, but it soon became quite clear that that was not to be the case. That was over 100 years ago. The term stuck, however, and didn't start to disappear from the college-level introductory physics textbooks until the 1990's. Since that time it has virtually disappeared.

So, the point is, do these relativistic effects affect atoms? and does this affect the way that a chemist might try to weigh a substance?

No. The effect is too small for a chemist to have to worry about. It won't show up because the scales used to weigh stuff are not precise enough.

It does effect the energy levels of atomic electrons in the heaviest of atoms to an extent that can be measured.
 
Mister T said:
No. Relativistic mass has no effect on anything because it's not physical.

Relativistic mass is physical in the same way that energy is physical.
 
MarkSK said:
So, the point is, do these relativistic effects affect atoms? and does this affect the way that a chemist might try to weigh a substance?
When you add energy to an object by heating it, its mass increases. However, as Mister T noted, this effect is too small to be measurable in practice.

Consider a 100 g (0.1 kg) chunk of copper. Heat it enough to raise its temperature by 1000°C, which brings it to just below the melting point if you start from room temperature. Look up the specific heat of copper and calculate the amount of energy added. Then use E = mc2 to calculate the corresponding increase in mass.

How many decimal places of precision would a scale have to have, in order to register this increase?
 
First of all, I suggest that you read this. It will tell you why physicists today generally do not talk about relativistic mass (short version: it is not very useful as a "mass" and it is in essence just the total energy of an object rescaled by ##1/c^2##).

Second, if you have a composite object, such as an object made out of several atoms as you took as an example, what matters for its mass is the total energy it has in its rest frame (this is the mass-energy equivalence). If its parts are moving in the object's rest frame (such as thermal motion of atoms), then also the kinetic energy of the parts (as well as their rest masses and any binding energy) contribute to this mass.
 
Thanks a lot for the answers!

Orodruin said:
First of all, I suggest that you read this. It will tell you why physicists today generally do not talk about relativistic mass (short version: it is not very useful as a "mass" and it is in essence just the total energy of an object rescaled by ##1/c^2##).

Thanks, Orodruin, I'll take a look at your post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K