Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Thought experiment on potential energy

  1. Apr 5, 2008 #1
    If I lift an object, does its mass increase due to my investing it with potential energy? If I then drop it, does its mass increase further as it falls due to the acceleration? I don't see a contradiction here, but my intuition tells me that something is amiss.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 5, 2008 #2

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The potential energy is not a property of the object, but of the "object + earth" system.
     
  4. Apr 5, 2008 #3
    So does the mass of both the earth and the object increase?
     
  5. Apr 5, 2008 #4

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'd say yes, but at the expense of whatever lifted the object. Since you lifted the object, your mass would decrease. (Some of your chemical potential energy has been transferred to the "object + Earth" system.)

    Interesting question!
     
  6. Apr 5, 2008 #5
    And after I drop it, does its mass again increase as it falls?
     
  7. Apr 5, 2008 #6

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No; as the object falls, kinetic energy increases while potential energy decreases. Total energy (and therefore total mass) of the system remains constant. As the object reaches the ground, potential energy goes to zero kinetic energy has reached maximum and the total energy input into the object by the work done by the person who originally lifted it is entirely converted to kinetic energy. This energy is released in the form of sound waves, shot ways in the ground, and some heat at the moment of impact. Total energy of the Earth-object system never changes.
     
  8. Apr 5, 2008 #7
    Thank you both.

    Here's a follow-up, if you're interested: after I lift the object and its mass increases, if I then elevate myself by the same amount, does the mass of the object change (from my perspective) back to what it was? I am imagining that if both the object and I then fall together back to the ground, for me it will appear that we are both at rest as the ground approaches us, and so our masses shouldn't be changing as we go, and a moment before we hit the ground the ratio of our masses should be the same as it was before I lifted the object in the first place.
     
  9. Apr 5, 2008 #8

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Don't attribute the increased mass (when you lift the object) as being a property of the object; it's a property of the system (object + earth). Think of it as being stored in the gravitational field. Nothing happens to the object's mass, considered as a separate entity.

    (Perhaps someone can give you a more technically accurate description from the viewpoint of general relativity.)
     
  10. Apr 5, 2008 #9
    I guess what I don't understand is how mass-energy equivalence manifests itself. If an object is heated, if a spring is stretched, if a sphere is made to rotate faster, is there an increase in mass (equal to the invested energy divided by c squared) or does the equivalence relation only appear when mass is converted into energy and vice versa?
     
  11. Apr 6, 2008 #10

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Wait, clarrification, please:

    I think that, while the mass of the total system remains constant, the mass of the object does increase, while the work done by the person or thing that does the lifting causes them to lose the same amount of mass, keeping the overall mass of the object+person+Earth remains constant.

    Somebody please verify.
     
  12. Apr 6, 2008 #11

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why would the mass of the object increase? Not sure what you mean.
     
  13. Apr 6, 2008 #12
    Maybe this is the essence of my question: does potential energy effect an object's inertia? Will a mousetrap in the 'set' position weight more than one that is not set? (I realize that in a case like this the difference would not register on a household scale.)
     
  14. Apr 6, 2008 #13
    I think from a classical view point I've always looked at potential energy whether gravitational or stored in some way as a potential to do work, thus say an object that is moved from the bottom of a shelf to the top has no more energy or mass in it as such, but because of the way we describe energy it has more potential energy.

    I don't think that in general relativity either, the object has more mass, but the person does in a naive sense. Nor do I think the object has more energy in the same way but the system does. I could be completely mistaken, but I think it's better to consider the whole system, and not to focus on the parts too closely, as that will lead you to make faulty assumptions. The system isn't an object and it isn't a person, it is object + person=.

    The object wont weigh more or less unless it is moved spatially, and it wont have more weight when it is set necessarily either, although it may given certain conditions. But lets not confuse weight with mass. In physics particularly they are two very different measures.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2008
  15. Apr 6, 2008 #14

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'd say yes.
     
  16. Apr 6, 2008 #15

    Ich

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The mousetrap itself, if you can seperate it, yes.
    If you include the one that set the mousetrap: The mass of this system will not change. He expended energy, put it into the mousetrap. So, if you can separate both afterwards, he will weigh less the same amount that the mousetrap weighs more. It's quite the same for a planet and a particle, but it's more difficult to separate the two.
     
  17. Apr 6, 2008 #16
    I guess there's a difference of opinion out there.
     
  18. Apr 6, 2008 #17

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    About what?
     
  19. Apr 6, 2008 #18
    About whether or not setting the mousetrap will change its weight. (See the last paragraph of Schrodinger's Dog's entry.)
     
  20. Apr 6, 2008 #19

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That entry doesn't even mention the mousetrap example.

    The difference between the raised object example and the mousetrap is that the mousetrap is self-contained: All the elastic potential energy added to the mousetrap is part of the mousetrap. With the raised object, the added potential energy belongs to the system of object + earth. (So asking about the increased mass of the object doesn't make sense to me.)
     
  21. Apr 6, 2008 #20
    I took, "..and it wont have more weight when it is set..." to be about the mousetrap question. Was this a misinterpretation?
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Thought experiment on potential energy
  1. A thought experiment (Replies: 117)

  2. Thought Experiment (Replies: 5)

  3. A thought experiment (Replies: 1)

Loading...