E=mc^2 and gravitational potential energy

AI Thread Summary
Lifting a boulder increases its mass slightly due to the energy associated with gravitational potential energy, as described by E=mc². This increase in mass affects the gravitational potential energy of the boulder, but the energy does not belong solely to the boulder; it is part of the entire system's energy. The mass of a system is a combination of the masses of its components and their interactions, which includes binding energy. The discussion clarifies that while the concept of infinite regress in mass increase is flawed, the system's mass does converge due to the finite energy required to separate bound particles. Ultimately, the extra mass is tied to the energy itself, reflecting the relationship between mass and energy in gravitational contexts.
Archosaur
Messages
333
Reaction score
4
So, I've heard that if you lift a boulder into the air, it's mass increases slightly as per e=mc^2.
Well, my question is, does gravity act on this new mass? If so then shouldn't it have slightly more gravitational potential energy, and thus slightly more mass etc. ad nauseum?

Would the infinite series I've suggested converge?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Archosaur said:
So, I've heard that if you lift a boulder into the air, it's mass increases slightly as per e=mc^2.
Where did you hear that? The increase in potential energy, which is what I assume you are talking about, doesn't belong to the boulder by itself.
 
When two objects are attracted to one another, one must do work to separate them. That work increases the energy level of the system and via E = mc2 the mass of the system. The mass of the particles is one thing and the mass of the system is another. The fact is that the mass of the system is a combination of the mass of the parts and the interaction between them.

Also, the infinite regress does converge because it only take a finite amount of energy to separate the bound particles from one another (this is the binding energy of the system).
 
The question is slightly messed up, but yes, the proper mass of the sum of two separate mass is greater than the total mass of both put together. This is usually described as bonding energy.

I can't make out exactly how you are conceptualizing this, and the fact that you ask if it converges tells me your not that clear about it either. But yes, gravity is self gravitating (nonlinear) in some sense, and it does converge.
 
Doc Al said:
Where did you hear that? The increase in potential energy, which is what I assume you are talking about, doesn't belong to the boulder by itself.

Gah... of course :/
Forgetting that the Earth is a thing is an embarrassing mistake.

But then... where is this extra mass? Doesn't mass have to "be" somewhere?
 
That's the magic of E=mc2. The inertia is in the energy itself.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Gravitational potential energy -- Why is it always negative?
Replies
10
Views
3K
How does gravitational potential energy work?
Replies
27
Views
11K
Potential Energy: Rigorous Understanding & E=mc²
Replies
8
Views
2K
Gravitational potential between two massive particles....
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Change of coordinates in a potential energy field
Replies
2
Views
1K
Energy Confusion (Conservation of Energy?)
Replies
4
Views
2K
I How to interpret this definition of potential energy?
Replies
10
Views
2K
How to relate the gravitational potential energy zero to the axes?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Question About Potential Energy
Replies
3
Views
2K
Gravitational potential energy and continuous matter
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top