Mass speed molecular stability

AI Thread Summary
Increasing mass with speed does not proportionally increase the forces holding molecules together; instead, molecular binding forces depend on the displacement of molecules from their equilibrium positions. As temperature rises, molecules move faster and become more displaced, leading to stronger binding forces until a critical point is reached where the bonds can no longer withstand the increased speed, resulting in phase changes like melting or boiling. It is a misconception that energy is released when breaking chemical bonds; in reality, energy must be supplied to break these bonds. The energy required to break a bond is constant and determined by the bond's quantum mechanical properties, not by the speed of the molecules. Therefore, accelerating an object does not increase its mass, and the relationship between speed and molecular stability is complex.
brad50
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
If you increase mass with speed does the forces that hold molecules’ together increase in per portion ? If not do the molecules’ fall apart with speed ? If the forces increase in per portion Why does the energy released from the muluation of those forces decrease with speed.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
To a good first approximation, molecular binding forces can be treated as harmonic, just like springs. For such a case, the force is proportional to the displacement. If you heat up a material, the molecules move faster, are displaced more from their equilibrium point and therefore the binding force increases when the molecules are furthest apart. It's not that the molecules are smart and constantly change their force to stay intact. It's just that the force depends on position, and the position changes more for higher speeds.

But there is a breaking point. At a certain point, the bond is just not strong enough to withstand high enough speeds. Such points are known as phase change points (melting point, boiling point, etc). Heat water hot enough and the water molecules speed up beyond what the bonds can hold and break apart and form steam.

You last question contains many misconceptions. First, energy is not released when you break chemical bonds. It is the opposite. It takes energy to break bonds. Think of trying to smash glass to separate bits with a hammer, or of trying to get apart two dancers who are tightly bonded. You have to apply energy to break bonds. Second, the energy required to break a molecular bond does not depend on speed, it only depends on the bond energy which is determined by the quantum mechanical specifics of the bond. Think of the molecule as sitting in a potential well, and we need a certain amount of energy to lift it up out of the well.
 
Just to clarify, are you thinking that accelerating an object to a high velocity increases its mass? If so, that is incorrect.
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top