The mass of a body on the surface of the Moon is greater than that on Earth according to the equation E=mc^2

Jadon Camacho 2022-11-05 Answered
The mass of a body on the surface of the Moon is greater than that on Earth
according to the equation E = m c 2
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

AtticaPlotowvi
Answered 2022-11-06 Author has 18 answers
Yes, but... When considering the energy of a bound gravitational system, it is best to think of the system as a whole. Consider the following thought experiment: You begin with a ball held at some height above the surface of the earth. Let's say that the rest mass of the elevated ball + earth system is m 1 . Then you allow the ball to drop to the surface of the earth. When it hits the ground, some energy is released as sound, thermal vibrations, and eventually thermal radiation. Some of this energy will escape into space. Again, because of the E = m c 2 relation for objects at rest, the rest energy of the dropped ball + earth system, m 2 , will be less than m 1 .
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-05-20
It would be nice to have a cute method that uses Lorentz transformations of basis vectors by exponential transformation using gamma matrices. To avoid confusion, let's assume + + + signature. Given γ μ as gamma matrices that satisfy t r ( γ μ γ ν ) = 4 η μ ν , then we have t r ( γ μ γ ν ) = 4 η μ ν if we put: γ μ = exp ( A ) γ μ exp ( + A )where A is any matrix.
Boosts and rotations use A as a bivector. For example, with α a real number, A = α γ 0 γ 3 boosts in the z direction while A = α γ 1 γ 2 gives a rotation around the z axis.
Solving for the value of α that gives a boost with velocity β = v / c appears to be straightforward. But how to do the rotations?
And by the way, what happens when you generalize A to be something other than bivectors?
asked 2022-10-22
Dark energy physically can be interpreted as either a fluid with positive mass but pressure the negative of its density (pressure has units of energy/volume, and energy is mass), or a property of space. If it's a fluid, it should add to the mass of black holes like any form of energy (no hair), and the black hole should grow? However, if dark energy is a property of space, then this won't happen. Is my reasoning correct that we can differentiate (in theory) by looking at black hole's growth rate?
asked 2022-05-18
Environmentally induced decoherence makes wave function collapse unnecessary. But the environment, usually taken to be some heat bath, introduces a preferred frame. (That in which the total (spatial) momentum vanishes.) So, doesn't then the decoherence time depend on the motion of the prepared state relative to the environment? And, doesn't the ultimate environment, all particles in the universe, introduce a preferred frame into quantum mechanics in the sense that the decoherence time is relative to this frame? And would this be measureable, at least in principle
asked 2022-10-21
In classical (Newtonian) mechanics, every observer had the same past and the same future and if you had perfect knowledge about the current state of all particles in the universe, you could (theoretically) compute the future state of all particles in the universe.
With special (and general) relativity, we have the relativity of simultaneity. Therefore the best we can do is to say that for an event happening right now for any particular observer, we can theoretically predict the event if we know everything about the past light cone of the observer. However, it tachyons (that always travel faster than the speed of light) are allowed, then we cannot predict the future since a tachyon can come in from the space-like region for the observer and can cause an event that cannot be predicted by the past light cone. That is, I believe, why tachyons are incompatible with causality in relativity. Basically, the future cannot be predicted for any given observer so the universe is in general unpredictable - i.e. physics is impossible.
Now in quantum mechanics, perfect predictability is impossible in principle. Instead all we can predict is the probability of events happening. However, Schrodinger's equation allows the future wavefunction to be calculated given the current wavefunction. However, the wavefunction only allows for the predictions of probabilities of events happening. Quantum mechanics claims that this is the calculations of probabilities is the best that can be done by any physical theory.
So the question is: "Is the predictability of the future to whatever extent is possible (based on the present and the past) equivalent to the principle of causality?" Since prediction is the goal of physics and science in general, causality is necessary for physics and science to be possible.
asked 2022-08-24
Is there any way in which a bound state could consist only of massless particles? If yes, would this "atom" of massless particles travel on a light-like trajectory, or would the interaction energy cause it to travel on a time-like trajectory?
asked 2022-05-19
Suppose we have a sphere of radius r and mass m and a negatively charged test particle at distance d from its center, d r. If the sphere is electrically neutral, the particle will fall toward the sphere because of gravity. As we deposit electrons on the surface of the sphere, the Coulomb force will overcome gravity and the test particle will start to accelerate away. Now suppose we keep adding even more electrons to the sphere. If we have n electrons, the distribution of their pairwise distances has a mean proportional to r, and there are n ( n 1 ) / 2 such pairs, so the binding energy is about n 2 / r. If this term is included in the total mass-energy of the sphere, the gravitational force on the test particle would seem to be increasing quadratically with n, and therefore eventually overcomes the linearly-increasing Coulomb force. The particle slows down, turns around, and starts falling again. This seems absurd; what is wrong with this analysis?
asked 2022-09-26
Lorentz Boosts in the same direction should form a group. Two boosts along the x axis should produce another boost along the x axis. Is that correct?

New questions