Can anyone explain or correct this?

  • Thread starter leolee5633
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Explain
In summary, the conversation was about a video discussing the concept of E=mc2 using the idea of Doppler effect. While the basic idea is fine, there were concerns about the accuracy of the calculations and the use of classical kinetic energy to derive the formula. The speaker also mentioned the need for a more careful integration over all emitted photons and space directions. Overall, there were some issues raised but the concept was still considered valid.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think there would be other ways to fix energy conservation and you have to be more careful with the Doppler effect (needs an integration over the solid angle), but the basic idea is fine: The kinetic energy of the cat somehow depends on the energy content of the cat. Otherwise, "radiating+getting speed afterwards" would need the same energy as "getting speed + radiating" - but the light energy would be different.
 
  • #3
mfb said:
I think there would be other ways to fix energy conservation and you have to be more careful with the Doppler effect (needs an integration over the solid angle), but the basic idea is fine: The kinetic energy of the cat somehow depends on the energy content of the cat. Otherwise, "radiating+getting speed afterwards" would need the same energy as "getting speed + radiating" - but the light energy would be different.

Thank you, but is that guy correct in calculating the Doppler energy gain to be (1+v^2/2c^2) not (1-v^2/2c^2)?
Also he is using classical kinetic energy to derive the formula, is that appropriate?
 
  • #4
but is that guy correct in calculating the Doppler energy gain to be (1+v^2/2c^2) not (1-v^2/2c^2)?
That is a bit sloppy, he should integrate over all emitted photons / space directions.

Also he is using classical kinetic energy to derive the formula, is that appropriate?
That is another problem - you can derive that the classical formula does not work, but it is problematic to derive a new formula, based on the (wrong) old one. The result happens to fit, but that could be just by chance.
 
  • #5
mfb said:
That is a bit sloppy, he should integrate over all emitted photons / space directions.


That is another problem - you can derive that the classical formula does not work, but it is problematic to derive a new formula, based on the (wrong) old one. The result happens to fit, but that could be just by chance.

I see, thank you very much for you help.
 

1. Can you explain this concept in simpler terms?

As a scientist, part of our job is to communicate complex ideas and concepts in a way that is understandable to a wider audience. I will do my best to break down the information and provide examples to help clarify any confusion.

2. Is this information accurate and up-to-date?

As a scientist, it is important to constantly stay updated on the latest research and findings in our field. I will make sure to provide accurate and current information to the best of my knowledge.

3. Can you provide sources or evidence to support this information?

As a scientist, we are trained to back up our claims with evidence and data. I will provide credible sources and references to support the information I am sharing.

4. Are there any common misconceptions about this topic?

Misconceptions can often lead to misunderstandings, so as a scientist, I will address any common misconceptions about the topic and provide accurate information to clarify any confusion.

5. Can you correct any errors or mistakes in this information?

As scientists, we are constantly learning and evolving. If there are any errors or mistakes in the information I have shared, I am open to correction and will make sure to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
565
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
161
Views
11K
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
146
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
837
Back
Top