1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min 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!

Derivation of E=mc^2 in Wikipedia

  1. Jan 11, 2009 #1
    Wikipedia derives the kinetic energy of a rigid body at relativistic speed to be

    [tex]E_k = m\gamma c^2 - m c^2[/tex]​

    The continue to say:
    Can anybody explain this reasoning? Just because the zero value of the kinetic energy at zero speed has the representation [itex]x - x[/itex] does not mean that the rest energy must be [itex]x[/itex], right? Or is that the reasoning?

    Thanks,
    Harald.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 11, 2009 #2

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The reasoning is just that the energy required to accelerate a particle from 0 to v is equal to the change in the quantity [itex]\gamma m c^2[/itex], so it makes sense to think of that quantity as representing a kind of energy.

    I think you have to look at conservation of four-momentum to really justify the equivalence between mass and energy.
     
  4. Jan 12, 2009 #3
    There's an important distinction here; Wikipedia calculates the kinetic energy as what you listed above, however, the rest energy is not the kinetic energy, obviously, because the kinetic energy is obviously zero when v = 0.

    So what they mean is that
    [tex]E_t = E_k + E_m = m\gamma c^2 - m c^2 + m c^2 = m\gamma c^2[/tex]

    Or, equivalently,

    [tex]E_r = E_m = E_t - E_k = (m\gamma c^2) - (m\gamma c^2 - m c^2) = m c^2[/tex]


    Where [tex]E_m[/tex] is the mass energy, [tex]E_t[/tex] is the total energy, and [tex]E_r[/tex] is the rest energy.

    Sorry if that was confusing.
     
  5. Jan 12, 2009 #4
    Don't worry, this is not confusing. But it somehow gets me where I started. I was after a simple derivation for E=mc^2, found a link to Wikipedia and now I am back with [itex]E_t=m\gamma c^2[/itex] asking where this comes. Hmm, yes, trivially it is [itex]E_t = E_k + E_m[/itex]:rolleyes: So I need to look closer to other recommendations in this other thread, I am afraid.

    Thanks,
    Harald.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Derivation of E=mc^2 in Wikipedia
  1. How to derive e=mc^2 (Replies: 2)

  2. Derivation of E = mc^2 (Replies: 24)

  3. Derivation of E=mc^2 (Replies: 6)

Loading...