B Does Relativistic Mass Affect the Way We Weigh Things?

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.
 
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...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
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...
Back
Top