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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the relativistic kinetic energy formula, specifically ##E_k=(\gamma−1)mc^2##. The author expresses confusion over the integration process that leads to this formula, particularly how the rest energy, ##mc^2##, appears as an integration constant. The conversation highlights the simplicity of using Newton's second law, ##F=m\cdot a##, and Lorentz transformations to arrive at this profound result, emphasizing the surprising nature of deriving mass-energy equivalence without additional complex insights.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's second law, ##F=m\cdot a##.
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations in special relativity.
  • Basic knowledge of integration techniques in calculus.
  • Concept of relativistic energy and its components.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Lorentz transformations in detail.
  • Learn about the implications of mass-energy equivalence, specifically ##E=mc^2##.
  • Explore advanced integration techniques relevant to physics problems.
  • Investigate the relationship between kinetic energy and relativistic effects in various reference frames.
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of special relativity and the derivation of relativistic energy formulas.

rupcha
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
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   Reactions: topsquark

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
850
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
17K