Re: internal energy contributing to mass

On Nov 16, 9:05 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Jean Paul:

"Jean Paul" <jcorriv...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3e17bf7f-d4e3-4db8-86da-530ff284e420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello.

I wish to react to some of the explanations provided in
my post 'What E = mc^2 means really?'

One explained:
'And how the individual particles are "bound",
determines how much energy there is. '

I have no trouble with this one because the binding
of atoms or molecules determines the 'toughness' of
an object. For instance a gold ball is tougher than a
rubber ball. But as long as the matter is bound, it is
matter hence mass. This is the intuitive aspect of
mass.

Let me add a little depth to that. All assemblies have less mass
than the sum of the individual particles themselves. The more
the "mass deficit", the more stable the assembly. As you add mor
and more internal energy, the assembly starts to "come apart at
the seams".


I have trouble with this concept of mass deficit. See more on that
below.

Another explained:
' Electrons *don't* circle the nucleus of the atom.
They enter orbitals, states of reduced energy, and
"binding energy" is released. '

Suppose I can cut an apple in half without any
atoms or electrons and whatever particle being
lost in the cut. Because the cut is only possible
if molecules become unbound, does it imply that
the resulting two halves weigh less now than the
whole apple we started with (because some
energy was lost as the result of the unbounding)?

No, the mass will be very slightly higher. You have also (by
separating the halves) lost both hydogen bonding (expressed as
water affinity for exposed apple surfaces) and van der Waals
bonding as well.


I have a feeling that 'mass deficit' has something to do with this.
More on that below.


But still, the "binding energy" that established that lump of
mass in its stable form, *left originally* as kinetic energy...
in the form of photons. Adding some of it back in in some
fashion, makes sense that the "mass deficit" is reduced somewhat.

For instance, suppose a hydrogen atom being
released from the sun. So are you saying that
the faster the speed of the atom, the heavier it
weighs? Hum!

No. Absolutely not.
mass = rest mass = inertial mass = gravitational mass

Ok. So in E_0 = mc^2, 'm' is rest mass, and if we use instead the
equation E = mc^2, 'm' is the relativist mass.

... you throw motion into the equation, and you then need to
consider a more useful, less specific, equation:
E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
... with p a vector, representing momentum (of either the system
as a whole, or the individual "bits")


To follow from my reply just above, in this equation above, 'm' is the
rest mass, right? 'p' is the quantity of motion of particles inside
the body. So rest mass and kinetic energy contribute to the overall
mass. That is what this equation say, right?


That makes sense because the more bound
energy is, the tighter the atoms are bound hence
the denser the body,

Backwards.


So a less dense body has more energy. Must be because of that kinetic
energy. A denser body has a higher 'mass deficit', right?

At the opposite, the looser the body, the less
bound the atoms are hence the lighter the body
(for instance gas).

But the closer a gas is to the mass of the sum of the individual
gas molecules.


Is this because of the mass deficit you mentioned in your message
earlier? Sorry, but this give me a hard time. So if a rock has say 'x'
billion of atoms of each mass of 'y', then the overall mass of the
rock is less than 'x * y'. If the body is gas, then that deficit is
much less. I don't understand this 'mass deficit', but sounds
fascinating.

Just a minute. I think that this starting to make sense. If two atoms
are bound, they have less energy (hence mass) than if they were loose.
Bound atoms have less mass because they tend to have less kinetic
energy than unbound atoms. But then the two bound atoms need to spend
some energy all the time to stick together. That glue would be from
electric energy. I recall from high school chemistry that electrons
have something to do with this. It is this glue that adds to the 'mass
deficit'.

I admit still having a very hard time understanding what mass is. Do
you know of a web site 'for dummies' that explain this stuff to me? I
really what to understand this. So far the web sites I have seen are
full of equations that blow me away.

Thanks for considering my message,

Jean
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: internal energy contributing to mass
    ... determines how much energy there is. ... matter hence mass. ... I have trouble with this concept of mass deficit. ... atoms or electrons and whatever particle being ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: weight of atomic bonds
    ... The reason atoms are stable is ... because it takes energy to split them into their component parts. ... Most of the missing mass is due to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (dont be silly)
    ... it's converting some of it's mass into thrust? ... nevertheless mass is energy, energy is mass. ... iron atoms and drop it down a 1000 foot tall evacuated tube. ... the ball bearing, assuming no bits fly off when it hits bottom? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (dont be silly)
    ... it's converting some of it's mass into thrust? ... nevertheless mass is energy, energy is mass. ... iron atoms and drop it down a 1000 foot tall evacuated tube. ... the ball bearing, assuming no bits fly off when it hits bottom? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)