B Is mass a measurement of energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether mass is a measurement of energy, with participants debating the nature of energy as a property of particles and fields rather than a physical substance. Some argue that physical objects can be viewed as clumps of energy, while others clarify that energy does not equate to mass, particularly when considering light, which has energy but no mass. The relationship between energy, mass, and momentum is examined through equations such as E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, emphasizing that pushing an object increases its momentum and energy, not mass. The conversation also touches on the complexities of defining energy in practical scenarios, like charging a battery. Ultimately, the distinction between energy and mass remains a key point of contention in the discussion.
Cody Richeson
Messages
60
Reaction score
2
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Energy is not a substance, it is a property of particles and fields.
 
  • Like
Likes 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?
 
Cody Richeson said:
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.
 
jartsa said:
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”.
 
Orodruin said:
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?
 
Last edited:
Cody Richeson said:
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.
 
Cody Richeson said:
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.
 
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
 
  • #10
unix101os said:
correct me if I am wrong

You're wrong.
 
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
You're wrong.
would you care to correct me?
 
  • #12
unix101os said:
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##
 
  • #13
unix101os said:
would you care to correct me?
See post #7 for the correct formulation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
105
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Back
Top