Solve E = mc^2 & Time Dilation Equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the relationship between the equations E = mc² and the time dilation formula in the context of special relativity. The correct form of the energy equation is E = mc²γ, where γ (gamma) is the Lorentz factor defined as γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²). This connection illustrates that while the equations are not equal, they are reconciled through the concept of four-vectors and proper time, highlighting the interdependence of energy and time in relativistic physics. The invariant mass changes with energy variations, such as temperature, emphasizing that energy conservation differs from invariant mass conservation in relativistic systems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity concepts
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations
  • Knowledge of four-vectors and proper time
  • Basic grasp of energy-mass equivalence
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Lorentz factor γ in special relativity
  • Explore the implications of four-momentum in relativistic physics
  • Learn about the conservation of energy and invariant mass in relativistic systems
  • Investigate the relationship between temperature and invariant mass changes
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in the principles of special relativity and the interconnections between energy and time dilation.

samuel toco
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
how to equal the equation: E = mc2 and the Time dilation equation

I think that have something lost on it!!!!!
how to equal the equation: E = mc2 and the Time dilation equation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They aren't equal. I'm not even sure what "equal" would mean between two equations. Why would you think they would be?
 
Welcome to the PF. :smile:

Thread prefix changed from "A" = Advanced/Graduate School level to "I" = Intermediate/Undergraduate level.
samuel toco said:
Summary:: how to equal the equation: E = mc2 and the Time dilation equation

I think that have something lost on it!
Instead of "equal", maybe you mean "reconcile"? If so, what do you think is inconsistent between them? Could you please show links to the reading you've been doing about each of those equations, and say why that reading has you confused about their compatibility? Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
I'm also not understanding your question, but note that the correct equation is ##E=m c^2 \gamma##, where ##\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}## is the same Lorentz factor that also enters the time-dilation formula. Indeed if a clock shows ##\Delta t## in its rest frame an observer moving with velocity ##v## relative to the clock will measure ##\Delta t'=\gamma \Delta t##.

The similarity between the equation for energy and the time dilation formula is not a surprise, because it's closely connected. One defines everything in relativity in covariant quantities. Thus having vectors like the time-position four-vector in special relativity and wants to define covariant quantities by time derivatives one uses proper time ##\mathrm{d} \tau = \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} \mathrm{d} t##, because that's a scalar under Lorentz transformations and thus
$$V^{\mu}=\mathrm{d}_{\tau} x^{\mu}$$
is a four-vector, the four-velocity of the particle. In terms of usual velocity (which is NOT a relativistically covariant quantity) this reads
$$(V^{\mu})=\begin{pmatrix} c \mathrm{d}_{\tau} t \\ \mathrm{d}_{\tau} \vec{x} \end{pmatrix},$$
but ##\mathrm{d}_{\tau} = \mathrm{d} t (\mathrm{d}_{\tau} t)=\gamma \mathrm{d} t##. Thus you get
$$V^{\mu}=\begin{pmatrix} \gamma c\\ \gamma \vec{v} \end{pmatrix},$$
where ##\vec{v}=\mathrm{d}_t \vec{x}## is the usual three-velocity measured in the lab frame.

Now four-momentum is defined as
$$p^{\mu} = m V^{\mu},$$
where ##m## is the invariant mass. To understand what the time-component means we note that
$$p^0=m c \gamma =m c \left (1+\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2} +\mathcal{O}(v^4/c^4) \right),$$
and this suggests to define ##p^0=E/c## with ##E## the energy of the particle, because for the reason that ##p^{\mu}## is a four-vector it's convenient to include the rest energy ##E_0=mc^2## in the energy of the particle, and then in the non-relativistic limit ##E=E_0 + mv^2/2##, and ##m v^2/2=E_{\text{kin}}## in Newtonian mechanics, where ##E_0## is simply an additive constant which is not changed in any way by any physical phenomenon.

Note that this is different in relativistic physics! The rest mass of a composite object is related to the energy of this object in its rest frame by ##E_0=m c^2##. E.g., if you have some macroscopic body its invariant mass changes with temperature, because if the body gets hotter the heat-energy gain ##\Delta Q## adds to the rest energy, i.e., the invariant mass of the body changes by the amount ##\Delta m=\Delta Q/c^2##.

Thus, while the invariant mass does not change by any physical processes within Newtonian mechanics (except you add or take away some matter to a composite object of course), relativity shows that this is only approximately right. In other words: The invariant mass is not a conserved quantity for a closed system in relativistic physics. Here only the energy of a closed system is conserved but not invariant mass!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K