Kinetic Energy & Relativity: E=mc^2

  • Thread starter Thread starter abccbaabc014
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
abccbaabc014
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
The wikipedia article on Kinetic Energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"Kinetic energy for single objects is completely frame-dependent (relative). For example, a bullet racing by a non-moving observer has kinetic energy in the reference frame of this observer, but the same bullet has zero kinetic energy in the reference frame which moves with the bullet."

If two people in separate reference frames disagree on the kinetic energy of a bullet, do they also disagree on the mass? (I'm thinking of E=mc^2 here)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, yes, of course. If an object has rest mass m0 (the mass in a frame relative to which it has speed 0), then an observer moving at speed v relative to the object it has mass m_0/\sqrt{1- v^2/c^2}- the faster it moves (relatively, of course) the greater the mass.
 
DrGreg said:
The subject of "mass" in relativity crops up regularly in this forum, and it necessary to point out the word has (at least) two different meanings in relativity
  1. Relativistic mass includes within it the kinetic energy of the object, and so depends on the relative speed of the object to the observer. Different observers can ascribe different values of relativistic mass to the same object at the same time.
  2. Invariant mass, also known as rest mass, excludes kinetic energy, and it a property of the object itself and does not depend on the observer.
Not all authors agree which of these two definitions to use when you say "mass" without further explanation. The modern convention amongst most physicists is to use definition 2, but there are still some people who use definition 1. Neither definition is technically wrong, but one reason 1 is considered unnecessary is because relativistic mass is really just another name for "energy" (via E = mc2). For an object that is stationary relative to the observer, the two definitions give the same answer.
So the answer to your question is "yes" if you mean relativistic mass, but "no" if you mean invariant mass.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
87
Views
5K
Back
Top