Does stopping a very fast object makes it lighter?

  • Thread starter Reogl
  • Start date
  • #1
25
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hey guys,
If we stop a very fast moving object will it lose weight ?..i need a hand on this matter. Thanks
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
34,273
10,319
No, unless something additional happens which you did not specify here.
 
  • #3
25
0
No ideal what to add..

maybe: speed of moving object = half c , stop point in reference to the point of initial contact..

in a way , since you mention "unless" i assumed it is positive
 
  • #4
1,420
112
Well ... hot brakes surely have more mass than cool brakes.

Now, if the mass of a car can not change, then other parts of a car must lose mass, when the brakes are gaining mass.
 
  • #5
25
0
time [itex]\downarrow[/itex]

m=1
........:cool:............... fast moving
v=c/2-->

m=1
........:grumpy:<--F=1...... x=0 start stopping
v=c/2-->

m=?
.......:mad:<--F=0....... x=1 End here
v=0
 
Last edited:
  • #6
1,420
112
Let us postulate that:
1: mass is conserved in a closed system
2: radiation has mass

Now let us consider a fast moving electron that enters a magnetic field. In a magnetic field electrons:
1: radiate
2: decelerate

Mass is conserved in the closed system consisting of the electron and a magnet, so the mass increace caused by the creation of radiation is cancelled by the mass decreace caused by the deceleration of the electron.
 
  • #7
25
0
Awesome! mass was decreased then we have "light electron"
but will the -e absorb radiation & increase mass if magnet field is reverse to accelerate it?
 
  • #8
65
0
I'm not sure about this - surely in some reference frame any moving object will be stationary, or in another reference frame have a much greater velocity. Wouldn't it only be apparent that it had 'higher energy' if it was collided with something?
 
  • #9
1,420
112
I'm not sure about this - surely in some reference frame any moving object will be stationary, or in another reference frame have a much greater velocity. Wouldn't it only be apparent that it had 'higher energy' if it was collided with something?
A discharging battery loses mass, this can be verified experimentally.
A charging battery gains mass, this can be verified experimentally.

An electric car, with two batteries, accelerates using battery 1, and then decelerates charging battery 2 with the energy generated during the deceleration, has the same mass at the end as at the beginning, except that battery 1 lost some mass, and battery 2 gained some mass.

Now let us ask: How did mass travel from battery 1 to battery 2 ?

Well my answer is that when the car was moving at high speed, the mass had left battery 1, but the mass had not entered battery 2, so the mass was in the material of the car.
 
  • #10
1,420
112
Awesome! mass was decreased then we have "light electron"
but will the -e absorb radiation & increase mass if magnet field is reverse to accelerate it?
No magnetic field is needed in this case.

Let's weigh a cold piece of metal.

Then we warm the piece of metal using a micro wave owen.

Then we weigh again.

We notice that the weight incraced. The electrons in the metal absorbed radiation, and now the collection of electrons weighs more.
 
  • #11
25
0
correction.."light electron" is not especial. same as any electron at rest..

#10 Interesting , thanks

a reliable source informed me that minimum mass of an object is when it is at rest..
 
Last edited:
  • #12
34,273
10,319
Let us postulate that:
1: mass is conserved in a closed system
2: radiation has mass
Both postulates are wrong. Energy is conserved, and radiation has energy (but not mass). Mass is not conserved.
You can assign an effective mass to a system, based on its total energy content in its center of mass. That is conserved, but it is not the sum of masses of its components.

A discharging battery loses mass, this can be verified experimentally.
A charging battery gains mass, this can be verified experimentally.
Do you know of any publication showing this?
The effect is there (with the effective mass as above), but it is so tiny that I did not know that it can be measured yet.
 
  • #13
25
0
What if the object is a meteor that just missed the moon and is suddenly prevented by a superman from colliding with our planet successfully halted before entering the atmosphere?

Maybe far out example of no heat exchange involved, the doubt is: when we push on object it would gain mass to not reaching c, and halting the meteor is like pushing it too.

s.o.s.
 
  • #14
34,273
10,319
What if the object is a meteor that just missed the moon and is suddenly prevented by a superman from colliding with our planet successfully halted before entering the atmosphere?
Why do you expect any changes?
If you do not expect changes, why did you invent that scenario?

when we push on object it would gain mass to not reaching c
The concept of relativistic mass leads to all sorts of misconceptions, and you won't find it in modern physics any more. Just in some old textbooks and at bad science websites.
 
  • #15
25
0
sorry..lets omit the "to not reaching c"
i expect answer.
scenario is part of the query.

oh.. is relativity passe
 
  • #16
34,273
10,319
when we push on object it would gain mass
That is wrong.
Unless you use a definition of "mass" which was abandoned some decades ago.
 
  • #17
25
0
That is wrong.
Unless you use a definition of "mass" which was abandoned some decades ago.
confusing one mfb
you mean That is right only if I use abandoned definition of "mass".
so where can i get this decades old "mass'' definition?


I am new to science and starting on "emersion stage" and afraid someday i shall reach the "i had enough-of-it stage"
___________________________________________
Imagination is superior to knowledge : A German Physicist -Mathematician
Pots don't crack by themselves : A mother
 
Last edited:
  • #18
1,420
112
Both postulates are wrong. Energy is conserved, and radiation has energy (but not mass). Mass is not conserved.
You can assign an effective mass to a system, based on its total energy content in its center of mass. That is conserved, but it is not the sum of masses of its components.
I see.

So: When two fast objects are stopped, the effective mass of the object pair decreases.

For example, when an electron hits the magnetic field of the earth, the effective mass of the electron-earth system decreases, and radiation is produced with effective mass equal to the lost effective mass.

Do you know of any publication showing this?
The effect is there (with the effective mass as above), but it is so tiny that I did not know that it can be measured yet.
I meant that with good enough instruments the mass change of charging battery could be measured. I think there is no need to call this mass change "change of effective mass".
 
Last edited:
  • #19
34,273
10,319
you mean That is right only if I use abandoned definition of "mass".
Right. See relativistic mass for details.

jartsa said:
For example, when an electron hits the magnetic field of the earth, the effective mass of the electron-earth system decreases, and radiation is produced with effective mass equal to the lost effective mass.
I would not talk about a single mass for "electron+earth" together... but if you do that, and the radiation is lost, the effective mass of "electron+earth" is reduced and the leaving photons carry some energy. However, that change is completely negligible.
 

Related Threads on Does stopping a very fast object makes it lighter?

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top