Einstein's energy equation and kinetic energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between classical kinetic energy, represented by the equation E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2, and Einstein's energy equation, E=mc^2. Participants explore the implications of these equations within the context of classical and relativistic physics.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that kinetic energy and rest mass energy are fundamentally different concepts, with kinetic energy relating to motion and rest mass energy being inherent to the mass itself.
  • One participant notes that the relativistic energy of a particle can be expressed as E_{rel}=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^{2}}}\approx{m}c^{2}+\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} in the low-speed limit, suggesting a relationship between the two forms of energy.
  • Another participant emphasizes that kinetic energy can change with speed, while the energy associated with mass (E=mc^2) remains constant unless the mass itself changes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that kinetic energy and rest mass energy are not the same; however, there is ongoing discussion regarding the relationship between classical and relativistic energy, indicating some unresolved nuances.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference different contexts for energy equations, highlighting the classical versus relativistic frameworks without resolving the complexities involved in transitioning between these concepts.

dirtydog
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Why is the kinetic energy given by [tex]E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/tex]
yet Einstein's energy equation is [tex]E=mc^2[/tex]?
Why is there a different constant (ie [tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex] and [tex]1[/tex])?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dirtydog said:
Why is the kinetic energy given by [tex]E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/tex]
yet Einstein's energy equation is [tex]E=mc^2[/tex]?
Why is there a different constant (ie [tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex] and [tex]1[/tex])?

Er... because they are NOT the same beast, so why should they be identical? One is the energy of motion, the other is the REST mass energy.

Zz.
 
You are confusing relativistic energy with classical kinetic energy.
If I remember correctly, the relativistic energy of a particle with rest mass m is given by:
[tex]E_{rel}=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^{2}}}\approx{m}c^{2}+\frac{1}{2}mv^{2},v<<c[/tex]
(where v is the measured velocity of the particle)

In the low speed limit, we see that the relativistic energy can be written as the sum of the rest mass energy ([tex]mc^{2}[/tex]) and the classical kinetic energy.
 
Last edited:
hi dirtydog,
as zapperz says, thery are not the same thing. kinetic energy (KE) is a form of energy that a body has due to its motion, while the other eqn describes the total amt of inherent energy that a body has due to its mass.

therefore for the KE, a body's KE can be increased by increasing its speed. a drop in speed would therefore cause the KE to drop. an obj at rest would then have 0 KE.

as for E = mc^2, no matter the body is moving or not, the E here remains the same if the body's mass does not change. u can onli vary this E by varying the mass of that body. therefore this eqn gives u the total amt of energy that is 'associated' with a certain mass.

hope that helps to clarify things.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K