Intellectuals only ITT. Today we will be discussing mass-energy

Do hotter objects have more mass then?

If I had, for example, 1 mole of sodium chloride, would it be measurably more massive at 100 degrees than at 0 degrees?

>>9164020
Yes that's actually true. But remember in practice, the amount of mass added by energy is very low relatively speaking. C-squared is an enormous number.

But, if you have two objects that are the same mass before heating, and heat one up, and your tools are accurate enough, you would notice a difference where the hotter object weighs more.

File: em.jpg (269KB, 1715x2048px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1715x2048px

>>9164016
"Weight" is measured in units of Newton (like Force), but okay, yeah.

>>9164020
"yes"
The point is to simply drop mass from the vocabulary. In Quantum field theory, "mass" is only a coeffcient in some energy density expression (Lagrangian) and notions associated with mass are "effective" ones that emergy. If you were to accept quantum field theory and general relativity, then there is only space and time and energy and mass and a bunch of derived quantities are really just [spoiler]frequency[/spoiler], i.e. quantity per time, i.e. one over time.
In the raw system, Entropy is also unitless and Temperature is just energy (which is just frequency)

>>9164020
Any energy added to the system has mass. Even a stretched rubber band weighs more than a relaxed one.

Energy and 3-momentum together form a 4-vector in space-time called 4-momentum. This means that energy is related to momentum the same way time is related to position.

It's the same with speed, you need to increase energy of a system to increase its speed. By adding more energy to increase speed of an object, you are increasing its mass, and as a result you are increasing its inertia. When a massive object gets closer to the speed of light, its inertia is so high that it becomes impossible to increase its speed anymore because inertia is a resistance to change in velocity. The function for inertia starts to get ridiculously close to infinity as you approach the speed of light. This is currently the only evidence that massive objects cannot travel the speed of light.

>>9164028
wow
now look at my hot new 5-vector
(x, y, dy/dx, dx/dx, your mom)
guess that must mean we live in 5D space and this object has any particular significance outside potentially being easy to work with
oh wait

>>9164046
lmao, do you even know what a vector is? (you don't need to reply to this because the answer is obvious anyway)

>>9164016
"Things get heavier with more energy" is something you can intuit before college.

Nobody did the compressed spring demonstration?

are fractional dimensions possible?
like a 3.1th dimension

>>9164065
By intellectuals I mean relative for /sci/ since most people here are dumb.

Don't be offended. You all know it's true. I picture the average /sci/user as someone in highschool who thinks they are a smartass and likes to look up wikipedia articles to "learn things" so they can feel intellectually superior to their highschool peers.

File: 1357739927290.gif (2MB, 248x184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 248x184px

>>9164016
>A lorentz invariant changes after a lorentz transformation

>>9164076
While I agree that there is a gigantic fraction of idiots in the userbase here, I still believe /sci/ to be one of the highest-IQ (mean average) boards on 4chan.

Threads specifically about IQ, threads about politics, and threads about seeing into new dimension are made by retards, obviously. But I'm nonetheless continuously humbled whenever I see one of those "good math books" threads. Some people here have done serious things with their lives.

>>9164059
that actually wasn't so polite, but it's alright, I expect nothing more from brainlets

>>9164065
only in one axis desu

>>9164016
pretty weak bait desu

>>9164267 what do you mean "bait"?

>>9164854
I suspect one means 'introduction to discourse'.