About the mass-energy relation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter snoopies622
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
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?