Re: Does energy have inertia?
- From: Sam Wormley <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:43:28 GMT
Jon Slaughter wrote:
This might be a stupid question but sorta follows from my other post.
If energy is "equivilent" to mass then shouldn't energy have inertia(since mass is the amount of inertia)?
What I'm trying to understand is if I need to think of energy as also having inertia.
Say I have a cube that contains only energy(in the classical sense). To move this energy it would require one to overcome its inertia?
I guess one way to look at it is that if I have a cube of iron that it would take a larger force to move it if it was heated up than if it wasn't? Instead of F = ma it would be F = (m + E/c^2)a where E is the energy that I put into it to heat it up?
Maybe in the above example one can think of the heat as making the atoms move faster which increased there mass so over all the whole thing is more massive?
I'm not talking about wether its practical or significant but the logic. I'm just trying to understand if I can always related energy to mass. If in some sense they are the just forms of the same thing. I do understand the E = mc^2 but I do not know if this is completely general or not(I believe it is but then it would seem that I would need to always take into account energy(well, obviously at low speeds this isn't really necessary)).
Thanks,
Jon
Yes--Gravitational mass (and from the equivance principle--inertial mass)
includes ever bit of momentum-energy.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does energy have inertia?
- From: Y.Porat
- Re: Does energy have inertia?
- References:
- Does energy have inertia?
- From: Jon Slaughter
- Does energy have inertia?
- Prev by Date: Re: Ben Newsam Electrolies the water
- Next by Date: Re: Does energy have inertia?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does energy have inertia?
- Next by thread: Re: Does energy have inertia?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
