1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

1/2m*v^2 and E=mc^2 ?

  1. Dec 10, 2015 #1
    The kinetic energy equ. is 1/2m*v^2 but why just 1/2m and why v^2? I understand why m*v but the rest of it not make sense for me.
    There is the well known E=mc^2 where c is v.light but the mass is not half here. Why?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 10, 2015 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    One way of seeing it is that the energy that goes into accelerating an object is given by the work done on that object. Work = force times distance:

    E = Fd
    If you accelerate an object up to a velocity of v with a constant force then it will have a constant acceleration. Its average velocity during the acceleration will be half of its maximum velocity [right there is your factor of two]. The distance it will cover during the process of accelerating to a velocity of v over a time t will be equal to elapsed time times average velocity:

    d = vt/2.​

    The acceleration required to reach velocity v in time t is:

    a = v/t​

    The force required to achieve that (F=ma) is:

    F = mv/t​

    Put it together and you have

    E = Fd = vt/2 * mv/t = mv2/2​
  4. Dec 10, 2015 #3
    If you understand m*v then let's start with it. In classical mechanics (and that's what we are talking about here) momentum is defined as

    [itex]p: = m \cdot v[/itex]

    force is defined as the change of momentum with time:

    [itex]F: = \frac{{dp}}{{dt}} = m \cdot \frac{{dv}}{{dt}}[/itex]

    and mechanical work is defined as the product of force and displacement:

    [itex]dW: = F \cdot ds = m \cdot v \cdot dv[/itex]

    Integration of the work gives the change of kinetic energy:

    [itex]E_{kin} = \int {m \cdot v \cdot dv} = {\textstyle{1 \over 2}}m \cdot v^2[/itex]

    That's where 1/2 and v^2 come from.

    That's something completely different because
    1. It's not classical mechanics but relativity.
    2. It's not kinetic energy but rest energy.
  5. Dec 10, 2015 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

  6. Dec 10, 2015 #5
    Thanks Dave, I understand now! The well known equ. is not correct, not the mass is half actually.
  7. Dec 10, 2015 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    ##E_0=mc^2## is correct. But it is the formula for rest energy, not for kinetic energy. It is the energy equivalent of an object's mass when the object is just sitting there.

    ##E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2## is a generalization that gives total energy E in terms of mass m and momentum p.

    ##E = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}## is a generalization that gives total energy E in terms of mass m and velocity v.

    If you extract kinetic energy KE = Total energy - Rest energy = ##\frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} - mc^2## then you get something for which ##KE=\frac{1}{2}mv^2## is a very good approximation.

    So the two formulas are not in conflict. They are, in fact, compatible.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook