Conversion of Mass to kinetic energy.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conversion of mass to kinetic energy, specifically involving a 2.0 kg lump of uranium where half of its mass is converted into kinetic energy. The correct speed of the remaining half after conversion is determined to be 0.87c, corresponding to option c. The relevant equations include the Lorentz factor (gamma) and kinetic energy equations, which are essential for solving relativistic mass-energy problems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativistic physics concepts, particularly mass-energy equivalence.
  • Familiarity with the Lorentz factor (gamma) and its calculation.
  • Knowledge of kinetic energy equations in the context of special relativity.
  • Basic algebra skills for manipulating equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and application of the Lorentz factor (gamma) in relativistic physics.
  • Explore the implications of mass-energy equivalence using Einstein's equation E=mc².
  • Learn how to solve relativistic kinetic energy problems in detail.
  • Review algebraic techniques for solving equations involving multiple variables.
USEFUL FOR

Students preparing for physics exams, educators teaching relativistic concepts, and anyone interested in the practical applications of mass-energy conversion in physics.

theshanthan
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A lump of uranium has a mass of 2.0 kg, and begins at rest. Half of the lump’s mass is going to be totally converted into kinetic energy of the other half. After this is done, how fast is the remaining half going?

a. 0.60 c
b. 0.80 c
c. 0.87 c
d. 1.0c

Homework Equations



gamma = 1/ sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)
KE = (gamma - 1)mc^2
(KE + mc^2)initial = (KE + mc^2)final

The Attempt at a Solution



0 + 2c^2 = C^2 + KE
KE = C^2

(gamma - 1)mc^2 = c^2
gamma = 3/2

V = 0.745

But according to the answer I am wrong. I have a final and I am trying to study for it, but this is not making any sense. as I posted above the answer is C. Any help would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Solving (γ-1)m1c2 = m2c2 with m1 = m2 does not give γ = 3/2.
 
Thank you! Thanks a lot! I feel smart and dumb at the same time. Smart because I figured out the way to solve it all by myself and dumb because I just can't do super simple algebra!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K