Does an electrical charge have weight?

[skeshesh]

This whole topic is about things on the atomic level. The change in mass may not have anything to do with the change in particle count. What is going on at the atomic level is the real effect.

To dismiss the topic because you can't plop it down on your bathroom scale and see it is asinine.

lol... true, true. Here's one thing i want to know though: from my understanding, a lot of the relative physics, much like imaginary components in circuit analysis, are mathematical tools used to solve problems that have real outcomes (i.e. the A bomb as someone brought up). But is relativistic mass a true physical phenomenon, or is it an applied math correction method to do the calculations?

 

[mivey]

An electrical charge does not have weight. Charge is a property that is possessed by an electron, and the electron itself has weight. The question is the same as asking if age has weight. OK, I am a person, and one property, or characteristic, that I possess is that I have weight. As I age, my weight may change. But that is not because age itself has weight, and the change in age has caused the change in weight. In the same sense, charge does not have weight.

But adding charge (or energy) to a system does change the weight. Shame on you if you were inferring otherwise as you should know better. It might be small but so is the mass of an electron. All of this is math with many decimal places.

Adding energy to a system does increase the system mass, even if you have the same number of particles. Counting electrons is not the only consideration.

 

[mivey]

lol... true, true. Here's one thing i want to know though: from my understanding, a lot of the relative physics, much like imaginary components in circuit analysis, are mathematical tools used to solve problems that have real outcomes (i.e. the A bomb as someone brought up). But is relativistic mass a true physical phenomenon, or is it an applied math correction method to do the calculations?

You are physically doing it right now as you breathe.

Remove energy from C and O2 to create CO2 and you will find less mass in the CO2 molecule than you have with the individual C and O2.

 

[skeshesh]

You are physically doing it right now as you breathe.

Remove energy from C and O2 to create CO2 and you will find less mass in the CO2 molecule than you have with the individual C and O2.

I'm not sure that is true. I guess I can look it up during lunch... or maybe you can provide a source

 

[steve66]

Adding energy to a system does increase the system mass, even if you have the same number of particles.

I'm not buying it. I would also like to see a reference. Like the example Charlie gave, a brick on a table has more potential energy than a brick laying on the floor, but the mass of the brick is the same.

I don't see why you think more energy means more mass.

Steve

 

[winnie]

I don't know if we have any measurement tools that could detect the mass difference between fuel + oxidizer and combustion products. I've not looked recently, so it entirely possible that such measurements have been made.

But we can look at a somewhat higher energy system, and we can clearly measure mass differences between two different arrangements of the same particles. For example: two Deuterium atoms can be combined in a nuclear reaction to make one Helium atom. The mass of both Deuterium and Helium is known well enough to see a difference, and that difference is accounted for by the energy released in the reaction.

-Jon

 

[__dan]

Now

Now

Now it's a party.

The point charge model of the electron is a non physical, non deterministic algorithm. Using the point charge electron model in a classical physical sense, physically having position + momentum + acceleration, leads to contradictions and obviously defective conclusions. A moving point charge would radiate which is not observed. The electron would be drawing energy from an infinite source to maintain its orbit. The electron would change its parameters in its distribution, position, momentum, by not moving (if it moved it would radiate). The electron changes by being observed.

The mathematical descriptions at the subatomic level are statistical. To take a nonphysical model and then try to say it has a mass increase or decrease, you do not have a mass change, you have a collective neurosis.

As already stated above E=M*C^2 is associated with a method of nuclear energy conversion, fission, fusion, pair production. Without a reaction there is a mass equivalence in energy but no change from one form to another. If there were we would drop another orange peel into the Mr. Fusion engine.

 

[steve66]

I don't know if we have any measurement tools that could detect the mass difference between fuel + oxidizer and combustion products. I've not looked recently, so it entirely possible that such measurements have been made.

But we can look at a somewhat higher energy system, and we can clearly measure mass differences between two different arrangements of the same particles. For example: two Deuterium atoms can be combined in a nuclear reaction to make one Helium atom. The mass of both Deuterium and Helium is known well enough to see a difference, and that difference is accounted for by the energy released in the reaction.

-Jon

OK but that's a nuclear reaction (either fussion or fission or something similar.) I don't think anyone is going to argue that mass and energy are converted back and forth in those types of reactions.

And Mivey gave an example of a standard chemical reaction. Again, I agree that some mass may be converted to heat in a chemical reaction.

But for a capacitor storing an electric charge, no nuclear or chemical reactions take place. Its just a matter of moving electrons from one plate to the other.

Anyhow, I think the original post was probably asking about a significant change in mass due to the storage of extra electrons. And I think we all agree that doesn't happen. If there were any changes in the weight of a capacitor due to E=mc^2 conversions (and I still don't think there are), they would be extremely minute.

Steve

Steve

 

[Mayimbe]

energy have mass. have you seen star wars??

 

[steve66]

energy have mass. have you seen star wars??

How does potential energy have mass??

 

[Mayimbe]

How does potential energy have mass??

the famous potential energy

E=m*g*h

m=mass
g=gravity
h=height

E have m
in the expression

 

[JFletcher]

I would say a charged battery (lead acid anyway) would weigh less than an uncharged one due to the evolution of hydrogen gas in the charging process, which escapes the battery.

 

[skeshesh]

the famous potential energy

E=m*g*h

m=mass
g=gravity
h=height

E have m
in the expression

Just because Energy is related to mass doesnt mean it has mass. Does the equation mean energy has height?

As far as chemical reactions I'm still unsure that mass reduction happens as a result of energy release (heat, light, etc.). Fusion+Fission, as far as what I remember the end of the day conclusion was (yes, we argued with the prof untill he said it) is that its based on empirical data, and even numerical analysis methods based on that data are not able to correctly predict other outcomes.

 

[StephenSDH]

the famous potential energy

E=m*g*h

m=mass
g=gravity
h=height

E have m
in the expression

So....whats your point. You are saying Height has Mass????

 

[Mayimbe]

So....whats your point. You are saying Height has Mass????

My point is that im afraid of height because of the energy involved in my mass

 

[ELA]

This is out of my realm but when you charge a capacitor you are adding energy (stored) right? So it seems like the mass could change.

There seems to be a lot of information on this on the net as in this article:

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/TRANSIENT%20MASS%20FLUCTUATIONS.htm

Search for "capacitor". There are other references to a person named "Woodward" in terms of a capacitor changing mass with a charge change.

 

[gar]

0912125-1421 EST

E (energy or work -- both mean the same thing) = Force * distance parallel to the force

So if you raise a one pound mass at normal conditions (sea level) one foot, then 1 foot-pound of energy was expended to raise the mass, and in turn the mass has stored by its new position one foot-pound of potential energy.

If that mass now falls 1 foot it will output one foot-pound of energy. That mass could be water feeding a turbine. Usually much higher fall distances are used at dams. 33,000 ft-pounds/minute = 550 ft-pounds/second = 1 horsepower.

The flow rate of the St Clair River is 182,000 cu-ft/second, at Niagara the rate is 212,000 cu-ft/second. Over the falls it is 100,000 during the day and 50,000 at night.

There are 62.427 # of water per cu-foot. Thus, 212,000 * 62.5 / 550 = about 24,000 horsepower per foot of fall. The Niagara fall distance is 325 ft, and therefore the maximum possible available horsepower is 24,000 * 325 = 7,800,000 .

.

 

[skeshesh]

0912125-1421 EST

E (energy or work -- both mean the same thing) = Force * distance parallel to the force

So if you raise a one pound mass at normal conditions (sea level) one foot, then 1 foot-pound of energy was expended to raise the mass, and in turn the mass has stored by its new position one foot-pound of potential energy.

If that mass now falls 1 foot it will output one foot-pound of energy. That mass could be water feeding a turbine. Usually much higher fall distances are used at dams. 33,000 ft-pounds/minute = 550 ft-pounds/second = 1 horsepower.

The flow rate of the St Clair River is 182,000 cu-ft/second, at Niagara the rate is 212,000 cu-ft/second. Over the falls it is 100,000 during the day and 50,000 at night.

There are 62.427 # of water per cu-foot. Thus, 212,000 * 62.5 / 550 = about 24,000 horsepower per foot of fall. The Niagara fall distance is 325 ft, and therefore the maximum possible available horsepower is 24,000 * 325 = 7,800,000 .

.

And your point is?

 

[K8MHZ]

This is out of my realm but when you charge a capacitor you are adding energy (stored) right? So it seems like the mass could change.

There seems to be a lot of information on this on the net as in this article:

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/TRANSIENT%20MASS%20FLUCTUATIONS.htm

Search for "capacitor". There are other references to a person named "Woodward" in terms of a capacitor changing mass with a charge change.

Think of it like winding a spring. You put energy into it that can be stored and released later without adding mass.

A capacitor stores energy, not electrons.

 

[Dnkldorf]

Out of curiosity, what prompted this question?

My battery died in my tractor, so I charged it up.

It felt heavier.