5 ms·
Yeah there is a mass change here, E=mc^2. It's not a lot of mass for your Tesla.
by greesil 3y ago
Yeah there is a mass change here, E=mc^2. It's not a lot of mass for your Tesla.
- gpm 3y ago"not a lot" - the internet tells me a few micrograms https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/emc2 https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/emc2. Re GP: It's a closed system, with a constant number of neutrons, protons, and electrons (electrons flow in and out, but protons don't, so the number of electrons has to stay the same). The mass being added and removed is the mass created and destroyed when you destroy/create a chemical bond. Bonds store energy, and that energy is converted to mass following e=mc^2.
- nayuki 3y agoThe claim that bonds store energy is a frequent misconception. Bonds are the result of lost energy compared to free, unbound atoms. If bonds don't store energy, how does breaking hydrocarbon bonds release energy? It doesn't - it's just that the new bonds formed in CO2 and H2O release more energy than it took to break the hydrocarbon bonds.
- hgsgm 3y agoIt's a distinction without a difference. Energy is not not a substance. Is a meaure of an entire configuration of states. Forms of energy is an "interpretation", a metpahor. C02 + H20 has less energy than CH3 + O2, because C02 + H20 are more stable (= lower energy) bonds. You can say the energy is in the electron, released as it falls into a lower energy state (bond). If I walk up a hill to a cliff, am I then in a more energetic state? No, because it takes energy to push me off the cliff, the ground is a more stable position than the top of the ledge and the appparent energy released by me turning a windmill I hit on the way down is because more energy is released by freefalling off a cliff than by sitting down on top of the ledge? or Yes, for exactly the same reason?