Does an electrical charge have weight?

[mivey]

This was an interesting tidbit about the world's most sensitive scale that can measure a zeptogram (10-21)g with the next goal of a yoctogram (10-24)g :

http://www.impactlab.com/2005/03/30/the-worlds-most-sensitive-scale/

 

[ohmhead]

Yes if you say electrons add weight to a object ?

But i dont see this are you saying we add weight to a capacitor how is this done ?

I know they have a weight they must but charging up a cap only places a positive charge or negative charge on each plate that were already there.

 

[mivey]

Are you saying the effect of gravity and weight are not the same?

Yes

Gravity is a force of pull between objects

Weight is combined gravity and mass of a material matter

I said the effect of gravity. I think we are agreeing on what weight is. What you did not get is that I am saying energy responds to gravity also.

Where did that come from? Did I say you were adding electrons?

Yes if you say electrons add weight to a object ?

Of course they do. I just don't recall saying we have added any electrons.

But i dont see this are you saying we add weight to a capacitor how is this done ?

I know they have a weight they must but charging up a cap only places a positive charge or negative charge on each plate that were already there.

Because energy responds to gravity also and we added energy to the capacitor. We had to force the "charges" to go where we wanted because that is not their natural equilibrium point and they desperately want to leave the place they are in. This stress is the stored energy.

When they go back to their desired place, they will relax and no longer be desperate to move. This relaxation is the release of energy.

When we add energy by applying a current they want to move to the other plate and won't be happy until enough of them have moved to reach the new equilibrium point.

When we remove the current, they are now stranded away from home in a stressful condition. The want to go back home because we changed the equilibrium point again. This stress also responds to gravity and makes up part of the total mass.

If we provide a current path, they will heat the road up going home (heat loss) and relieve the stress. Once they are all home, they are in their natural living condition and there is no extra stress in the system at that point. This loss of stress is also a loss of some gravity response.

 

[ohmhead]

Well Mivey you are correct and i do understand magnetic energy does effect weight of any object due to gravity .

So the cap will when charged increase in weight due to pull of gravity.

We have always wondered about theory who came up with how a electron orbits or why we learn theory how we see it is different from one point of view to another but its theory .

We make electrical energy by sunlite - fusion - magnetic force - heat- chemical ect ect but there must be a bigger picture did we miss something ?

Whats the next level of energy going to be is it in front of us i always thought the earth has the answer its magnetic field itself and the skys clouds can we harness static electric in the skys maybe use the ocean as a bigg salt water capacitor make power and energy free?

You look at how everything relates to another can we make a electron move without some force or energy wasted ?

Let me stop i just always wonder how we cant see a electron but they know how many electrons are in orbit around its atom makes you think who really knows or is it just how we teach theory to understand what we dont understand ?

 

[Besoeker]

I'm not sure where I need to begin as this material has been covered several times. Let's see if I can find where to begin.

Do you understand the following?:
1) A system may be made up of many things including matter and energy in different forms.
2) A system at rest does not mean all of the internal parts are at rest.
3) The system is at rest if its center of momentum is our reference frame.
4) The change in mass of a system at rest is equal to the change in energy divided by c^2

Yes, I am aware of those points.
Point four is, of course, one of the fundamentals of the theory of relativity.
It equates mass and energy. But can it be reversed to infer a change in mass resulting from a change in electrical charge?
I mean physical mass rather than relativistic mass?

 

[mivey]

Yes, I am aware of those points.

Point four is, of course, one of the fundamentals of the theory of relativity.

It equates mass and energy. But can it be reversed to infer a change in mass resulting from a change in electrical charge?

I mean physical mass rather than relativistic mass?

Yes. It is a matter of the system definition and reference frame.

By physical mass, you mean rest mass. But even that requires a closer look as it is not as different as you might think. Let's look through our universal scope to see what I mean.

To start, keep it simple and say and object's mass is a property that can be measured by looking at an the object's acceleration in response to an applied force (inertial mass). We could also look at how the object responds to a gravitational field (gravitational mass). While the inertial mass and gravitational mass can be measured multiple ways, it is accepted that these are equivalent (the Equivalence Principle). They have been measured over the years and they keep finding them to be equivalent (currently have been found to be closer than one part in 10^13).

Let's look through our scope at a far off view. Look at the response of one stellar body to another's gravitational pull, maybe a star. We can measure this response and calculate a mass for that body. If we zoom into that body, we find that it is actually not one physical body but is made up of other physical bodies, energies, etc. Great. Now we know that a stellar body can be considered as one mass or a collection of masses. But what about real life here on earth?

When we measure the rest mass of an object, our reference frame is such that the object as a whole does not seem to move. This is your "physical mass". Put that body in motion relative to the reference frame and it gains additional mass. This is your "relativistic mass". So why not just measure everything standing still?

We can't measure a photon standing still because it moves at the speed of light. It's mass is made up of "pure" energy. If we attach our reference frame to the photon, our frame is now moving at the speed of light and the photon will have zero mass (i.e. it will have no rest mass). The other question is what does "standing still" mean?

Consider an object at rest that we can see with our eyes. We can measure its rest mass. But that is not the complete story. That is the rest mass given a defined system and reference frame. Our system boundary is an infinitely thin shell on the surface of the object and our reference frame is the center of the object. Consider what happens when we zoom in on this object with our scope.

As we focus in a little closer, we begin to see smaller objects: molecules, atoms, electrons zipping around, maybe even some light or heat waves, etc. We can even see some bonds between atoms that are stretched because of an elevated energy state. So rest mass is relative itself. What we called rest mass when we were zoomed out is now revealed to actually be a combination of even smaller "rest masses" and other energies. In a previous frame we called all of this one system. Now we see a whole group of smaller systems.

What happens when we zoom in even closer on the smallest of these small systems? Some think that we will just find some energy in a bound state. Nobody knows. But as far as we know, it is all just energy in some form. "Rest mass" is just another form of energy. What we decide to be "rest mass" depends on one's reference frame.

Physicists change reference frames when zooming in like other folks change shirts. They can be so buried in relative frames that it looks like a nightmare, but that is their playground. Then when they talk to us normal folks, they can confuse the stew out of us because we don't live and breath the same assumptions that they take for granted and they just figure you should know what they mean.

So what do we now realize? All those little bits of energy inside a system do make up the total mass of the system. We can define some of that energy as "rest mass" and some as "relativistic mass" but it is all part of the system's total mass. It just depends on what you are focusing on.

So how do we get mass from a "pure energy" object like a photon? Enclose it within a system, then zoom out, and it is now part of the system mass, just like some of the photons that are zipping around inside the star we looked at from the very beginning.

What happens when an object absorbs energy? It becomes part of the system mass until it is released again. Heat up the center of a rock at rest and the rock will gain rest mass. The energy is now enclosed within the system boundary defined by an infinitely thin skin on the surface of the rock.

Enclose a twisted rubber band by a system boundary and the energy that is stored in those stretched molecular bonds now adds to the system mass. If the rubber band unwinds, it will create kinetic energy, heat energy, etc. that can escape our system boundary and cause our rubber band system to lose mass.

What about a rubber band that is "stuck"? Let's call it a molecule instead of a rubber band. This molecule has a rest mass m1. Find a object with rest mass m2. Let's define a system enclosing the molecule and object. The system has rest mass m1+m2 = m.

We have found that we can smash the object into the molecule and get two new objects with mass m' = m1'+m2' < m . All momentums are accounted for to find the new rest mass m'. We measure a quantity of energy released that measures E. We find that it is exactly equal to the reduction in system mass by E = (m - m')*c^2. This has been done over and over through the years in many labs and it continues to verify the rest mass-energy equation of E=mc^2.

 

[ELA]

Does an Electrical charge have weight?

Does an Electrical charge have weight?

Most definitely...

If enough of them get together they can threaten to kill you!

I would consider that weight

 

[__dan]

My premise

My premise

My premise.

Look again at the single electron in a bound state, part of an atom or molecule.

In the stable bound state, no radiation is observed. Changing the electron's energy level requires the emission or absorbtion of a photon, a quantized change in energy.

But ... is the electron moving in the stable bound non radiative state. Is it a point as assumed (taught). does it 'orbit', does it travel in a bond shared in molecules.

If the electron did travel, it would radiate. A charge in motion radiates by Maxwell's Laws. But if the electron radiates, it gives up energy to the outside, it loses energy, loses its capacity to perform bonding in a molecule, loses stability of its arrangement. In sum, if the stable bound electron radiated, the universe would progress to an inert (hot) gas cloud. This does not happen. Non radiation, the stability of matter and electron bonding, is observed.

Take CH4, methane. How hard is it to raise CH4 to the point where it becomes unstable. Very. If it were easy, CH4 would break down naturally in the environment instead of being ubiquitous. Take long chain hydrocarbons. Could they stay together in molecules for a nanosecond if the component electrons were moving about inside, moving and radiating, radiating and giving bond energy sacrificially to the outside. The electron has a big job to do, holding matter together in substances.

My premise: The assumption of the electron as a point charge is defective and needs to be discarded. The point charge model, where the electron is a statistical nonphysical description, physics professors will tell you it's too complicated to solve CH4 using the statistical algorithms. They have a hard time solving for H using relativistic statistics.

The scientific method has four parts. The fourth part is the test of usefulness. Relativity fails the test of usefulness. It is not science.

One of the salient points that comes out of reading historical accounts, at the time of the Copenhagen interpretation, 'Rank', winning mathematical prizes, appointment to university posts, status and money, becoming the guy that fills the wastebasket rather than the guy that empties it, was heavily dependent on joining the dominant orthodoxy. There were competing models that had to be discarded. There's a lot of curve fitting.

The math is full of canceling out infinities, ie. infinity-infinity=zero, and infinity / infinity = 1. There's a lot for room for slop there, like (infinity+1) - infinity = ?. After all, the electron's energy level would have to refill from an infinite source it it were a point charge and moving in the stable bound state.

Built on this, the single electron being a nonphysical statistical algorithm, if you can accept this, it becomes easier to accept that it mathematically gains weight when it has a delta E (gains a photon).

Rather than science or economics, this is more like how a rooster runs a henhouse. Nothing more needs to be said about conformity being very deep in the genetic code, having the "great mass of man" repeat dogma instead of being trained to think, to analyze, to visualize.

 

[mivey]

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

The mass of the system that has the earth one one side and the brick on the other does have an increase in mass. There is a gravitational field between the two.

This assumes that whatever moved the two objects apart is external to the system because the mover gave up the required energy (i.e. gave up mass to the earth-brick system).

How does potential energy have mass??

Yes. But that does not mean it is stuck in the brick alone. The energy is in the earth-brick system.

Does the equation mean energy has height?

It means there is a change in energy when the distance between two objects changes because of the gravitational field between them. Change the net energy of the system and you change the net mass.

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

The energy gain caused by the gravitational field increases the system mass.

 

[steve66]

Mivey:

I still haven't seen you post any reference that says an increase in potential energy causes an increase in mass. And frankly, I wouldn't consider a "ask the physicist" or a "google ask" forum a reliable reference. I doubt they agree on anything any more often than we do here on the Mike Holt forum.

I also think you are misunderstanding and misquoting some of the references you did provide. Just because in some cases an increase in energy results in an increase in mass does not make it a general rule.

For example, your claim that more energy equals more mass would mean that mass must be radiating from my stereo speakers. After all, energy (in the form of sound waves) radiates from speakers, so by your claim, mass must also radiate from the same speakers. Do you really believe that?? If so , where do you think this mass comes from, and where does it go?

Consider another example. Current flows through a wire. The magnetic field stores energy, and the field radiates throughout space. If we believe your theory, we must also believe that mass radiates out of a wire and throughout space. So current flowing through a wire must be creating mass out in the vaccum of space and all throughout space. Do you believe that?

Steve

 

[mivey]

Mivey:

I still haven't seen you post any reference that says an increase in potential energy causes an increase in mass. And frankly, I wouldn't consider a "ask the physicist" or a "google ask" forum a reliable reference. I doubt they agree on anything any more often than we do here on the Mike Holt forum.

I also think you are misunderstanding and misquoting some of the references you did provide. Just because in some cases an increase in energy results in an increase in mass does not make it a general rule.

For example, your claim that more energy equals more mass would mean that mass must be radiating from my stereo speakers. After all, energy (in the form of sound waves) radiates from speakers, so by your claim, mass must also radiate from the same speakers. Do you really believe that?? If so , where do you think this mass comes from, and where does it go?

Consider another example. Current flows through a wire. The magnetic field stores energy, and the field radiates throughout space. If we believe your theory, we must also believe that mass radiates out of a wire and throughout space. So current flowing through a wire must be creating mass out in the vaccum of space and all throughout space. Do you believe that?

Steve

I believe the idea that rest mass is another form of energy. I believe that you can make a distinction between rest mass and relativistic mass. I also believe that this distinction is what is confusing you.

The energy coming from your speakers comes from the energy being put into the speakers. Don't go so far as to forget the basics. Where do you think the energy that radiates from the plug-in heater comes from? From the power supply of course. The energy that leaves the speaker is delivered to whatever system absorbs it. The speaker converted energy from one form to the other. Converting electrical energy to mechanical energy is nothing new.

If the energy from the current in your wire (your system) radiates out into space (a separate system), then your system is losing mass. I would not call it "creating" mass but you certainly have exchanged mass with space. Converting energy from one form to another is a better way to look at it. By the way, if you are thinking the "vacuum of space" is empty, think again.

Consider a radioactive material that is decaying. It actually loses rest mass as the energy radiates away from it. It is not hocus-pocus.

Finally, I'm not sure you would believe ANY reference that did not hold with your misconceptions. You simply have to get away from the idea that only particulate matter demonstrates the property of mass.

 

[mivey]

Steve,

Let me follow up by asking you the following:

Given an object of an particular mass. Measure the response of that object to a gravitational field and call the response "Xg", or measure the response to an applied force as "Xi" (gravitational or inertial response).

Now let the object transfer some energy to a separate system or object, (say by a heat exchange or a photon emission, etc). The object still has all of the original "particles" of matter like electrons, protons, etc. but has lost energy only. Now re-measure Xg and Xi of the object.

If you do not think that a new measurement of Xg or Xi will show a change, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.

If you understand that Xg or Xi will change, but do not like saying it has lost mass, then we are just using different definitions of mass. I am OK with either definition as both work in the field of physics. As I said earlier, it is just a matter of reference frames and definitions.

Do you believe Xg or Xi will change or stay the same?

 

[glene77is]

1 coulomb = 1.60 x 10^19 electrons. So the electrons in 1 amp-second is 6 X 10^(-12) kg. not a lot of weight.

Cold,
FWIW, the electrons drip out the other end!
That should balance the scales.

 

[glene77is]

Current physics say nothing goes faster than light.

Mivey,
Classical Newtonian physics is wonderful,
and almost agrees with Quantum Mechanics, sometimes.

FWITW,
I like your Classical approach better.
Much easier to discuss.
Keep up the good work.
I got to go back and read the rest of this cool thread!

 

[mivey]

And frankly, I wouldn't consider a "ask the physicist" or a "google ask" forum a reliable reference. I doubt they agree on anything any more often than we do here on the Mike Holt forum.

By the way, "Ask the physicist" is not a forum. The questions are answered by a physicist:

"The Physicist" is F. Todd Baker. Professor Baker has more than 35 years of college and university teaching experience. He is recently retired from the University of Georgia where he taught and did nuclear physics research for 32 years. Previously he held a postdoctoral research associate position at Rutgers University and teaching positions at Carroll College (Wisconsin) and St. Lawrence University. In his research activities he has more than 70 publications in refereed journals as well as numerous presentations at conferences and workshops.

Like I said, I have my doubts you would believe any credible source. I'm sure any source I post would be considered "tainted" by you because it supports what I have been trying to say.

The stuff I have been saying is not cutting edge but common knowledge in the physics world. I've read some of the cutting edge stuff they write and I find it interesting but hard to follow at times.

Sure, these guys debate who has the best definition and perception of what mass and energy and gravity really is, but I don't think they don't argue over the fact that energy responds to a gravitational field because that is just a trivial given.

 

[mivey]

Mivey,
Classical Newtonian physics is wonderful,
and almost agrees with Quantum Mechanics, sometimes.

FWITW,
I like your Classical approach better.
Much easier to discuss.
Keep up the good work.
I got to go back and read the rest of this cool thread!

Thanks.

There are unexplained anomolies, but that will probably be the case until we can get a closer look at what is actually going on at the atomic level. The models we currently have do a pretty good job for the most part.

I wish they would hurry up and finish the Theory Of Everything so we could get it all settled. :grin:

 

[mivey]

By the way, "Ask the physicist" is not a forum.

And I forgot about the other link I provided. It is not a forum either but a site run by NASA:

This is the "Ask an Astrophysicist" service of the Imagine the Universe! web site. We specialize in cosmic-ray, gamma-ray, and X-ray astrophysics, and other satellite based astronomical observations. Our research subjects are often exotic, like black holes, quasars and dark matter.
...
As a group, our current volunteers have expertise in space-based astronomy and cosmology, particularly in in X-ray, gamma-ray, and cosmic-ray astrophysics, and of astronomy of exotic objects in general. The questions we welcome the most are the ones that we are uniquely qualified to answer: questions about the objects and processes that we observe using satellite based instruments, or in some closely related areas of astronomy or physics.

More Here:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/whoarewe.html

 

[__dan]

Thanks

Thanks

And I forgot about the other link I provided. It is not a forum either but a site run by NASA:
More Here:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/whoarewe.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

From your link:

"The Answer

No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. "

No argument there, they are carrying the mass and characteristic energy (momentum) as separate terms, which they are.

Mass is stable and unchanging (zero for the photon), energy is gained and lost resulting in momentum changes or other delta E effects.

 

[mivey]

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

From your link:

"The Answer

No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. "

No argument there, they are carrying the mass and characteristic energy (momentum) as separate terms, which they are.

Mass is stable and unchanging (zero for the photon), energy is gained and lost resulting in momentum changes or other delta E effects.

And I have said more than once that photons have no mass:

As you approach the speed of light (the rest frame for the photon) the mass would approach zero. That is why we say they have zero mass.

We can't measure a photon standing still because it moves at the speed of light. It's mass is made up of "pure" energy. If we attach our reference frame to the photon, our frame is now moving at the speed of light and the photon will have zero mass (i.e. it will have no rest mass).

As I said, it depends on how you define mass. If you include a photon in a system, it increases the mass of that system.

You're welcome.

 

[steve066]

The energy coming from your speakers comes from the energy being put into the speakers. Don't go so far as to forget the basics. Where do you think the energy that radiates from the plug-in heater comes from? From the power supply of course. The energy that leaves the speaker is delivered to whatever system absorbs it. The speaker converted energy from one form to the other. Converting electrical energy to mechanical energy is nothing new.

We all know where the energy comes from and where it goes. But your claim is that MASS must also radiate from the speakers. Where does the MASS come from and where does it go? How could you quantify the mass of energy coming from a speaker? What particles pop up in the air around the speaker to produce this increase in mass?? Of course, the point is that none of this really happens

The same argument applies for the magnetic field caused by current flowing in a wire. How does current create a MASS in the middle of a vaccum in space??? Do particles pop up out near Pluto because I close the switch on a circuit?? They must according to your description. After all, current causes a magnetic field that travels throughout space, and that magnetic field carries energy. If you stop and think about it for 2 minutes, you should be able to realize that energy is not the same thing as mass.

And you think I'm confused.