About the mass-energy relation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter snoopies622
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mass-energy relation, particularly the derivation and implications of the work-energy theorem in the context of relativistic mechanics. Participants explore the integration of force and momentum to understand the constant of integration in the equation for work done.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Mathematical reasoning, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the derivation of work done, leading to the expression W = γmc² + k, questioning why the constant k is concluded to be zero.
  • Another participant argues that the constant k should not equal zero, stating that work done equals kinetic energy, not total energy, and suggests starting from rest for integration.
  • A third participant calculates W = (γ - 1)mc², concluding that k = -mc², which they assert is consistent with the interpretation of kinetic energy rather than total energy.
  • A follow-up question is posed regarding whether the constant of integration represents the negative "rest energy" of the object, seeking clarification on this relationship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the value of the constant of integration, with some asserting it should be zero while others provide reasoning for it being non-zero. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of the constant.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of energy and the conditions under which the work-energy theorem is applied, particularly in the relativistic context.

snoopies622
Messages
852
Reaction score
29
I see how the premises

[tex] <br /> p = \gamma m v<br /> [/tex]

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

and

[tex] <br /> <br /> W= \int F dx<br /> [/tex]

lead to

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

and therefore

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

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

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

so

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

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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K