Timeline for How is potential energy incorporated into mass in special relativity? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20 at 8:32 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | More on potential energy in SR. | |
| Jun 20 at 8:31 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 20 at 6:55 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | Back in old Newtonian mechanics, you operationally defined mass (by ratio of weights) and then used mass and velocity to define momentum and energy. In modern physics, momentum and energy are upgraded into fundamental entities on their own right, and for fundamental particles that are free, their invariant rest mass energies identify which particle they are. Otherwise, in a system of particles, the potential energies and other such things modify the rest mass energies. A thermal object is just more energetic, and thus has more inertia. Momenta and energy determine velocity and rest mass. | |
| Jun 20 at 6:42 | history | closed |
naturallyInconsistent John Rennie special-relativity Users with the special-relativity badge can single-handedly close special-relativity questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed. |
Duplicate of Why does binding energy of particles, which constitutes most of macroscopic mass, make them harder to accelerate? | |
| Jun 20 at 6:09 | comment | added | Aidan Beecher | I was under the impression that it might be. I thought back to the expression for momentum in relativity. If you imagine a box with particles bouncing around inside, their momenta are higher for a higher box temperature. Since momentum is nonlinear with velocity, the individual particles are harder to accelerate when they move faster, which seems to explain why a thermal object is more massive. But maybe I misunderstand. | |
| Jun 20 at 6:07 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | That is why I gave the first comment before the 2nd. You have to stop thinking of inertia as a property of mass. It is a property of energy. When an object has more energy, it will have more inertia, i.e. by definition, harder to push around. When negative potential energy robs that energy, then it becomes easier to push around. There is no visualisation possible. This is purely a mathematical connection, consequence, and not visualisable. | |
| Jun 20 at 6:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 20 at 6:42 | |||||
| Jun 20 at 6:00 | comment | added | Aidan Beecher | I'm trying to understand this more by visualizing what's happening to the individual particles experiencing the potential that makes the system harder to push around. I don't know if this is possible. | |
| Jun 20 at 5:59 | comment | added | Aidan Beecher | I'm not sure. I guess I'm more looking to understand why potential energy can be treated the same as, say, thermal energy. Kinetic/thermal energy seem very different in character from potential energy, even though they are both forms of energy, and while I can visualize why maybe increasing thermal energy would make acceleration harder, I can't do the same with potential energy. | |
| Jun 20 at 5:53 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | For even more details, see physics.stackexchange.com/a/804393/364064 | |
| Jun 20 at 5:50 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | Does this answer your question? Why does binding energy of particles, which constitutes most of macroscopic mass, make them harder to accelerate? | |
| Jun 20 at 4:38 | history | asked | Aidan Beecher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |