About the mass-energy relation

  • Thread starter Thread starter snoopies622
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation
Click For Summary
The discussion explores the mass-energy relation through the equations of momentum and work, leading to the conclusion that the work done, W, can be expressed as W = (γ - 1)mc^2, where γ is the Lorentz factor. The participant questions the assumption that the constant of integration, k, equals zero, suggesting instead that k should be -mc^2, indicating that the work done corresponds to kinetic energy rather than total energy. They seek clarification on whether this constant represents the negative "rest energy" of the object or if there is a more accurate interpretation. The conversation emphasizes the distinction between kinetic energy and total energy in the context of relativistic physics. Understanding this relationship is crucial for accurately interpreting the mass-energy equivalence principle.
snoopies622
Messages
852
Reaction score
29
I see how the premises

<br /> <br /> p = \gamma m v<br /> <br />

<br /> <br /> F = \frac {dp}{dt}<br /> <br />

and

<br /> <br /> <br /> W= \int F dx<br /> <br />

lead to

<br /> <br /> dW = mc^2 d \gamma<br /> <br />

and therefore

<br /> <br /> W = \gamma mc^2 + k<br /> <br />

where m is the rest mass and k is a constant of integration. But why do we conclude that k=0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That constant won't equal 0. (The work done equals the KE, not the total energy.) Assume you start from rest and integrate to speed v.
 
I get

<br /> <br /> W = \gamma mc^2 - mc ^2 = ( \gamma - 1 ) mc^2 <br /> <br /> <br />

so

<br /> <br /> k = -mc^2 \neq 0<br /> <br />

Since W(v=0) = 0 this is indeed the kinetic energy and not the total energy. Thanks, Doc Al.
 
Follow-up: Am I to conclude that the constant of integration here represents the (negative) "rest energy" of the object, or is there a better way to arrive at that relationship?
 
In an inertial frame of reference (IFR), there are two fixed points, A and B, which share an entangled state $$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>_A|1>_B+|1>_A|0>_B) $$ At point A, a measurement is made. The state then collapses to $$ |a>_A|b>_B, \{a,b\}=\{0,1\} $$ We assume that A has the state ##|a>_A## and B has ##|b>_B## simultaneously, i.e., when their synchronized clocks both read time T However, in other inertial frames, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the moment when B has ##|b>_B##...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
854
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K