Quantized Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Objects

jrvinayak
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I want to know if energy added to moving objects is quantized. Kinetic energy of an moving object is given as KE = (γ - 1) mc2 , where γ is 1/√(1-v2/c2).

And quantum theory talks about any energy always being quantized. So can the KE in moving objects be quantized?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi jrvinayak, welcome to PF!
jrvinayak said:
And quantum theory talks about any energy always being quantized.
This is a very common misconception. Even in quantum mechanics there are some systems where energy is quantized and other systems where the energy is not quantized. One very interesting and simple system is the so-called finite potential well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_potential_well

This system includes both bound states which are quantized and free states which are not quantized.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
I agree with DaleSpam's response. I'd just add that less formally, the "potential well" problem is known as a "particle in a box". You might google for this term. The particle in a box has quantized momentum and energy, but the details depends on the size of the box. Formally, we'd describe this dependence by saying "it depends on the boundary conditions". The free particle that's not confined to a box doesn't have quantized momentum or energy levels. The best forum to ask for further details would be the quantum mechanics forum, it's not really within the scope of GR.
 
Be, however, warned that "particle in a box" often means the only apparently simpler problem of an infinitely high potential well. However, this is a particularly difficult case, if done mathematically correctly, because for this problem no proper momentum observable exists anymore, but that's a topic belonging more to the quantum-theory forum. The finite-potential well is only a bit more work but has the advantage of having a well-defined realization of the Heisenberg algebra in terms of the wave-mechanics formulation.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
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...
Back
Top