I Why Does a Charged Box Exhibit Higher Inertia Due to Mass-Energy Equivalence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andreabalestrero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charged Energy
Click For Summary
A charged metallic box has a higher energy content than an uncharged box due to the energy stored in its electric field, which increases its rest mass according to mass-energy equivalence. This increased mass results in greater inertia, making the charged box harder to accelerate. The discussion includes a reference to a thought experiment involving electromagnetic radiation produced when accelerating the charged box, though previous attempts to validate this concept have failed. It emphasizes that one cannot separate the charge from the electric field when considering mass, similar to how the mass of photons cannot be allocated individually. Overall, the relationship between charge, energy, and inertia in charged systems is complex and not easily simplified.
andreabalestrero
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A charged, metallic box has an energy content higher than an uncharged box, due to the energy stored in the electric field (which is equal to the work that has to be done to bring the charges from "infinity" to the surface of the box). So, due to the mass-energy equivalence, a charge box has a higher rest mass, and it will offer a higher resistance when accelerated. Is there a thought experiment that could explain why a charged box is harder to accelerate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
andreabalestrero said:
Is there a thought experiment that could explain why a charged box is harder to accelerate?
Didn't you just describe one?
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, berkeman and FactChecker
Actually, I was thinking something like that accelerating a charged box will produce EM radiation, and somehow the outgoing momentum of the radiation results in a force to be balanced to push the box
 
This was attempted in the 19th century. It did not work out. You get 4/3 = 1 and similar nonsense.

You cannot separate the charge from the field and say "this much mass is over here and that much mass is over there", just as you can't allocate the mass of a system of photons to each individual, yet massless, photon.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
932
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K