Does Relativistic Kinetic Energy Increase with Velocity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter accountkiller
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativistic
accountkiller
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
So, there is a sentence in my book, along with a graph, stating that "relativistic kinetic energy becomes infinite as v approaches c."

But then in a concept problem, it says "A proton is accelerated from rest by a constant force that always points in the direction of the particle's motion. Compared to the amount of kinetic energy that the proton gains during the first meter of its travel, how much kinetic energy does it gain during one meter of travel while it's moving at 99% of the speed of light"

The answer is the same, it says, because there is no change in kinetic energy since there is constant force. But I thought since the first statement above said that kinetic energy --> infinity as v -- c... means that as v increases, KE increases, right? But that is not so in the problem.

Could someone explain why this is so?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are three variables, x, v, and K (kinetic energy). There is a linear relationship between x and K (by the work-kinetic energy theorem). There is a nonlinear relationship between these variables and v.
 
mbradar2 said:
The answer is the same, it says, because there is no change in kinetic energy since there is constant force. But I thought since the first statement above said that kinetic energy --> infinity as v -- c... means that as v increases, KE increases, right? But that is not so in the problem.
The phrase "the answer is the same" doesn't say that the energy never increases, only that it increases by the same amount in both scenarios. (I haven't thought about the actual problem yet, so I'm just commenting on what seems to be a misinterpretation of what you read).
 
mbradar2 said:
So, there is a sentence in my book, along with a graph, stating that "relativistic kinetic energy becomes infinite as v approaches c."

But then in a concept problem, it says "A proton is accelerated from rest by a constant force that always points in the direction of the particle's motion. Compared to the amount of kinetic energy that the proton gains during the first meter of its travel, how much kinetic energy does it gain during one meter of travel while it's moving at 99% of the speed of light"

The answer is the same, it says, because there is no change in kinetic energy since there is constant force. But I thought since the first statement above said that kinetic energy --> infinity as v -- c... means that as v increases, KE increases, right? But that is not so in the problem.

Could someone explain why this is so?
Thanks!

You can find the answer to your problem https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1928 . The answer is :

\Delta W =m_0c^2(\gamma(v)-1) which also happens to be (by definition) the variation of the kinetic energy of the particle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mbradar2 said:
"A proton is accelerated from rest by a constant force that always points in the direction of the particle's motion. Compared to the amount of kinetic energy that the proton gains during the first meter of its travel, how much kinetic energy does it gain during one meter of travel while it's moving at 99% of the speed of light"
Work equals force times distance, so if the force is the same then the energy/distance is the same.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top