Is mass a measurement of energy?

[Cody Richeson]

That's pretty much it. Are physical objects essentially clumps of energy, and that energy is measured as mass? And do objects become more massive as they receive more energy through push?

 

[Orodruin]

Energy is not a substance, it is a property of particles and fields.

 

[Cody Richeson]

When you say it is a "property of particles and fields," what exactly is being literally described? Is energy one of those fundamental abstracts that lacks an underlying framework of smaller constituents? Is it one of those concepts that is without physicality, like temperature and charge?

 

[jartsa]

That's pretty much it. Are physical objects essentially clumps of energy, and that energy is measured as mass? And do objects become more massive as they receive more energy through push?

Yes, it seems to be so. Energy is physical object that is not a clump, but more like fluid. While a physical object is energy in clumped state.Like, for example:

A power plant, burning coal lumps, is located at north pole, a city is at equator, power lines connect the plant and the city. When power is transmitted, the power lines droop to the west, because of the Coriolis force that is affecting the stuff flowing from the pole to the equator.

 

[Orodruin]

Energy is physical object that is not a clump, but more like fluid.

No ot isn’t. It is a property of matter and radiation and that is useful in describing those. It is not even a Lorentz invariant property so it is meaningless to state ”I have X energy”.

 

[jartsa]

No ot isn’t. It is a property of matter and radiation and that is useful in describing those. It is not even a Lorentz invariant property so it is meaningless to state ”I have X energy”.

How do we correctly describe 1000 J of energy going into a battery?

Maybe: 'Battery's energy property becomes larger'. Or 'battery becomes more energetic'.

As the battery becomes more massive in that process, I like to think the energy has mass. When energy has mass it approximately obeys Newtons law's. So it obeys same laws as matter.And how do we correctly understand the my power line example in post #4? Particularly in case of direct current?

Like this maybe:

There is an electric field and there is a Poynting-vector, and nothing is moving, when the vector points one way the lines hang one way, when the vector point the opposite way the lines droop the opposite way, and this has nothing to do with Coriolis-force?

 

[Khashishi]

That's pretty much it. Are physical objects essentially clumps of energy, and that energy is measured as mass? And do objects become more massive as they receive more energy through push?

Not exactly. Objects gain momentum and energy, not mass, when they are pushed.
The main equation relating them is
$E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$
where E is energy, m is mass, p is momentum, and c is a unit conversion factor relating distance and time.
Often this is simplified to $E = mc^2$ for a case of an object at rest. But if you push an object, it is no longer at rest. Pushing is another way of saying, adding momentum to. This increases p, and by the equation must also increase E when m is constant.

Sometimes you will see statements saying mass and energy are equivalent, but as we have seen, this only makes sense for objects at rest.

 

[ZapperZ]

That's pretty much it. Are physical objects essentially clumps of energy, and that energy is measured as mass? And do objects become more massive as they receive more energy through push?

Light has energy, but it has no mass. So already your premise has been shown to be false.

Zz.

 

[unix101os]

correct me if I am wrong but If you combine the following equations:
photon energy: E = ħc/λ
mass–energy equivalence: E = mc²

you can quantify the mass of light as: m = ħ/λc

 

[Vanadium 50]

correct me if I am wrong

You're wrong.

 

[unix101os]

You're wrong.

would you care to correct me?

 

[DrGreg]

would you care to correct me?

Because the correct formula (already given in post #7) is $E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$

 

[jbriggs444]

would you care to correct me?

See post #7 for the correct formulation.