I Deriving e=mc^2, how is it possible?

rupcha
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
How does rest energy "magically" emerge in SR?
I was recently very surprised when I had a looked up relativistic kinetic energy.

All sources gave the kinetic energy as the difference between total energy and rest energy, in some or other variant of the formula ##E_k=(\gamma−1)mc^2##.

I didn't really understand at first. It seemed overly "deep" and indirect to me, to start with total energy and introduce rest energy. Surely, it should be possible to just integrate the work done and come up with some relativistic but recognizable variant of ##E_k=\frac 1 2 mv^2##.

So I did the integration and, not surprisingly (but surprising to me then), the result was the very formula ##E_k=(\gamma−1)mc^2##.

But what really blew me away was that the rest energy ##mc^2## was being spat out "for free" as the integration constant.
I still don't quite understand how that's possible. There just seems to be too little information going into the integral for such a result to emerge.

I mean, the only ingredients going into the calculation are Newton's ##F=m\cdot a## and the Lorentz transformations. How the hell can math extract an equivalence of mass and energy from that? I would have expected that you had to add some deep insights into the nature of matter and possible conversions to come to a result like ##E_0=mc^2##.

Still absolutely blown away.

Grateful for anyone who can help me understand.

Edit: formulas got broken, trying to reenter (looked fine in preview)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rupcha said:
I did the integration
How? Please show your work. And please use the PF LaTeX feature to make your equations readable.
 
rupcha said:
I am experimenting with a rather unconventional "reference frame"
Which is personal speculation and is off limits here. And of course explains why you're confusing yourself.

rupcha said:
Hoping of course, that I didn't simply make several mistakes
Your mistake was trying to experiment with personal speculation instead of doing standard SR math.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
124
Views
16K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Back
Top