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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the relativistic kinetic energy formula, E_k=(γ−1)mc^2, and the surprising emergence of rest energy, mc^2, as an integration constant. The author initially found the derivation process overly complex and expected a more straightforward approach akin to classical kinetic energy, 1/2 mv^2. Upon performing the integration using Newton's second law and Lorentz transformations, they were astonished to see the rest energy appear without additional insights into mass-energy equivalence. The conversation highlights the challenge of reconciling intuitive understanding with the mathematical framework of special relativity. Ultimately, the thread concludes with a reminder to adhere to standard methods rather than personal speculation.
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 topsquark
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
16K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K