Relativistic Energy: Change of Consts. of Integration

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of relativistic kinetic energy, specifically focusing on the change of constants of integration during the transition from integrating with respect to position (dx) to velocity (dv). Participants are exploring the implications of this change and questioning the correctness of the derivation presented in a video.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the change of constants of integration from 0 to pv, seeking clarification on its origin.
  • Another participant suggests that the change to pv appears to be a mistake and argues that it should be v, referencing a correction noted in the video at a later time.
  • A third participant provides an alternative derivation involving hyperbolic functions and integrals related to relativistic momentum and energy, detailing the steps taken in the derivation.
  • A later reply acknowledges the potential mistake regarding the constants of integration and expresses gratitude for the alternative derivation provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the constants of integration, with some suggesting it is a mistake while others provide alternative derivations without resolving the initial question.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved assumptions about the derivation steps and the definitions of terms used, particularly regarding the constants of integration and their implications in the context of relativistic energy.

SamRoss
Gold Member
Messages
256
Reaction score
36
In this super short video of the derivation of the relativistic kinetic energy, , I'm just stuck on one thing. Around 1:00 minute in, the constants of integration change from 0 to pv when the integration changes from dx to dv. Where does the pv come from? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SamRoss said:
In this super short video of the derivation of the relativistic kinetic energy, , I'm just stuck on one thing. Around 1:00 minute in, the constants of integration change from 0 to pv when the integration changes from dx to dv. Where does the pv come from? Thanks!


Looks like a mistake to me. Should be v (he annotates a correction to that effect at the 3:00 mark, but as far as I can tell it should come sooner).
 
Also, try this derivation out for size. Note: an overdot indicates a derivative taken with respect to ##ct## (not ##t##).

##\vec{\beta} = \vec v / c##
##\gamma = (1 - \beta^2)^{-1/2}##
##\phi = \tanh^{-1}{\beta}## (giving ##\cosh{\phi} = \gamma## and ##\sinh{\phi} = \gamma \beta## by hyperbolic identities)
##\vec p = \gamma m \vec v##
##\vec f = \dot{\vec p} c = \dfrac{d\vec p c}{d(ct)} = mc^2 \dfrac{d}{d(ct)} (\gamma \vec{\beta}) = mc^2 \dfrac{d}{d(ct)} (\hat{\beta} \sinh{\phi})##.

Now do the work–energy thing:

##\begin{split}
\int^{\vec r_f}_{\vec r_i} \vec f \cdot d \vec r &= mc^2 \int^{\vec r_f}_{\vec r_i} \dfrac{d}{d(ct)} (\hat{\beta} \sinh{\phi}) \cdot d \vec r \\[3pt]
&= mc^2 \int^{\vec r_f}_{\vec r_i} \left( \hat{\beta} \dot{\phi} \cosh{\phi} + \dot{\hat{\beta}} \sinh{\phi} \right) \cdot d \vec r \\[3pt]
&= mc^2 \int^{\vec r_f}_{\vec r_i} \left( \hat{\beta} \cdot d \vec r \right) \cosh{\phi} \, \dfrac{d \phi}{d (ct)}
\end{split}##

(because ##d \vec r## and ##\dot{\hat{\beta}}## are orthogonal). Then change variable using ##d \vec r / d(ct) = \vec \beta = \hat{\beta} \tanh{\phi}##:

##\begin{split}
\int^{\vec r_f}_{\vec r_i} \vec f \cdot d \vec r &= mc^2 \int^{\phi_f}_{\phi_i} \left( \hat{\beta} \cdot \hat{\beta} \right) \tanh{\phi} \, \cosh{\phi} \; d \phi \\[3pt]
&=mc^2 \int^{\phi_f}_{\phi_i} \sinh{\phi} \; d \phi \\[3pt]
&= mc^2 \, \Delta \cosh{\phi} \\[3pt]
&= mc^2 \Delta \gamma ,
\end{split}##

etc.
 
SiennaTheGr8 said:
Looks like a mistake to me. Should be v (he annotates a correction to that effect at the 3:00 mark, but as far as I can tell it should come sooner).
Thanks. That's a load off my mind. And thanks for the alternate derivation as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
7K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
398
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K