Energy to accelerate an 1kg object to 0.9965c?

In summary: Funny thing is, if you replace the speed of light, from 3e8 m/s with 1, and take the difference of the two answers, you come up with a "funny" answer of 2.15e22 J. So the two methods are actually equivalent.
  • #1
Robert23
3
1

Homework Statement


How much energy does it take to accelerate an object of mass 20,000 kg from rest to 0.9965c?
m = 20,000 kg
v0 = 0 m/s
vf = 0.9965c

Homework Equations


##
E^{2} = \sqrt{(pc)^{2}+(mc^{2})^2} \\
E_{KE} = (\gamma - 1)mc^{2} \\
\gamma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{1-(v/c)^{2}}} \\
p = \gamma mv
##

The Attempt at a Solution


I was unsure if I should use an initial energy and a final energy then take their difference or simply evaluate the relativistic kinetic energy. In doing so I would use the first equation listed for an initial case of v0 = 0 so it's just the objects rest mass energy. The final energy would have vf instead. Then the difference I found was 1.968*10^(22) Joules. However I thought it would also make sense that I can just say the energy to accelerate it from rest is simply the relativistic kinetic energy. Now I evaluated this and found an energy of 2.15*10^(22) Joules. What I don't understand is why these methods do not both work. Is it simply sig-figs or am I missing something? Please let me know if there are any mistakes and which equation is appropriate and why. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Robert23 said:

Homework Statement


How much energy does it take to accelerate an object of mass 20,000 kg from rest to 0.9965c?
m = 20,000 kg
v0 = 0 m/s
vf = 0.9965c

Homework Equations


##
E^{2} = \sqrt{(pc)^{2}+(mc^{2})^2}##
##E_{KE} = (\gamma - 1)mc^{2}##
##\gamma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{1-(v/c)^{2}}}##
##p = \gamma mv
##

The Attempt at a Solution


I was unsure if I should use an initial energy and a final energy then take their difference or simply evaluate the relativistic kinetic energy. In doing so I would use the first equation listed for an initial case of v0 = 0 so it's just the objects rest mass energy. The final energy would have vf instead. Then the difference I found was 1.968*10^(22) Joules. However I thought it would also make sense that I can just say the energy to accelerate it from rest is simply the relativistic kinetic energy. Now I evaluated this and found an energy of 2.15*10^(22) Joules. What I don't understand is why these methods do not both work. Is it simply sig-figs or am I missing something? Please let me know if there are any mistakes and which equation is appropriate and why. Thanks!
Your first equation should be be
##
E = \sqrt{(pc)^{2}+(mc^{2})^2}## and it is identical to ##E=\gamma m c^2##.
It is simpler and equally good to use the equation for the KE ##E_{KE} = (\gamma - 1)mc^{2}## to get the work. To calculate the energy with the first equation is cumbersome and leads to rounding errors.
Show your work in detail. What did you get for γ?
 
  • #3
ehild said:
Your first equation should be be
##
E = \sqrt{(pc)^{2}+(mc^{2})^2}## and it is identical to ##E=\gamma m c^2##.
It is simpler and equally good to use the equation for the KE ##E_{KE} = (\gamma - 1)mc^{2}## to get the work. To calculate the energy with the first equation is cumbersome and leads to rounding errors.
Show your work in detail. What did you get for γ?

Thanks for the reply. So for the first case I start by solving for gamma:
## \gamma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{1-(.9965)^2}} = 11.96 ##
Now I can find the kinetic energy:
##KE = (11.96-1)(20,000kg)(c)^2 , c = 3*10^{8} m/s##
KE = 2.138*10^{22} J

Now for the other method using total energies, I first find the momentum:
## p = 11.96(20,000 kg)(0.9965c) = 7.146*10^{13} kg*m/s ##
So now I can solve for ##E_{final}##:
## E_{final} = \sqrt{(pc)^{2}+(mc^{2})^2}##
## E_{final} = \sqrt{(7.146*10^{13} kg*m/s * 3*10^{8} m/s)^2 + (20,000kg*(3*10^8 m/s)^2)^2}##
##E_{final} = 2.151*10^{22} J##
and to find ##E_{initial}##:
##E_{initial} = (20,000kg)(3*10^8 m/s)^2##
##E_{initial} = 1.80*10^{21} J##
therefore ##\Delta E = 1.971*10^{22} J##

So are these just rounding errors? They're 0.167 apart which feels rather large to me.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #4
Robert23 said:
Thanks for the reply. So for the first case I start by solving for gamma:
## \gamma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{1-(.9965)^2}} = 11.96 ##
Now I can find the kinetic energy:
##KE = (11.96-1)(20,000kg)(c)^2 , c = 3*10^{8} m/s##
KE = 2.138*10^{22} J

Now for the other method using total energies, I first find the momentum:
## p = 11.96(20,000 kg)(0.9965c) = 7.146*10^{13} kg*m/s ##
So now I can solve for ##E_{final}##:
## E_{final} = \sqrt{(pc)^{2}+(mc^{2})^2}##
## E_{final} = \sqrt{(7.146*10^{13} kg*m/s * 3*10^{8} m/s)^2 + (20,000kg*(3*10^8 m/s)^2)^2}##
##E_{final} = 2.151*10^{22} J##
and to find ##E_{initial}##:
##E_{initial} = (20,000kg)(3*10^8 m/s)^2##
##E_{initial} = 1.80*10^{21} J##
therefore ##\Delta E = 1.971*10^{22} J##

So are these just rounding errors? They're 0.167 apart which feels rather large to me.
It must be rounding error as the two formulas for the total energy are identical in principle. The speed is given for four significant digits. Use at least 5 digits in the calculations.
 
  • #5
Robert23 said:
...
So are these just rounding errors? ...
Nope. I just plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet, and came up with a similar error.

Funny thing is, if you replace the speed of light, from 3e8 m/s with 1, and take the difference of the two answers, you come up with a "funny" number: 20,000.

hmmmm...

I don't have relativistic equations memorized, so I will have to figure out why [√((pc)^2+(mc^2)^2)] - [(γ-1)*mc^2] = m
 
  • #6
##E^2 = p^2c^2+ m^2c^4 = \gamma^2 m^2v^2c^2+m^2c^4 = \gamma^2m^2c^2(v^2+\frac{c^2}{\gamma^2}) = \gamma^2m^2c^2(c^2)##
 
  • #7
OmCheeto said:
I don't have relativistic equations memorized, so I will have to figure out why [√((pc)^2+(mc^2)^2)] - [(γ-1)*mc^2] = m

The first term is total energy, the second is kinetic energy. They differ by ##mc^2##.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #8
Robert23 said:
Now I can find the kinetic energy:
##KE = (11.96-1)(20,000kg)(c)^2 , c = 3*10^{8} m/s##
KE = 2.138*10^{22} J
You simply forgot to subtract 1 from gamma.
##KE = (11.96-1)(20,000kg)(c)^2 =1.9728\cdot 10^{22}##
 
  • Like
Likes Robert23
  • #9
ehild said:
You simply forgot to subtract 1 from gamma.
##KE = (11.96-1)(20,000kg)(c)^2 =1.9728\cdot 10^{22}##
AHHHH thank you!
 

1. How much energy is needed to accelerate a 1kg object to 0.9965c?

The amount of energy needed to accelerate an object to a specific speed can be calculated using Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2. In this case, the mass (m) is 1kg and the speed of light (c) is 299,792,458 meters per second. Plugging these values into the equation gives us an energy requirement of approximately 8.98 x 10^17 joules.

2. Can any type of energy be used to accelerate an object to 0.9965c?

In theory, yes. However, the amount of energy required to accelerate an object to such a high speed is immense and may not be feasible with all types of energy. For example, traditional fuels like gasoline or diesel would not be capable of providing enough energy to accelerate an object to 0.9965c. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, may have the potential to generate enough energy for such a task.

3. How long would it take to accelerate a 1kg object to 0.9965c?

The amount of time it would take to accelerate an object to 0.9965c depends on the amount of energy being used and the method of acceleration. For example, using a constant force, it would take approximately 0.004 seconds to reach this speed. However, if the object is being gradually accelerated, it could take much longer.

4. Is it possible for an object to reach a speed higher than 0.9965c?

No, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and requires an infinite amount of energy to continue accelerating. Therefore, it is not possible for an object to reach a speed higher than 0.9965c.

5. What would happen to the 1kg object once it reaches 0.9965c?

At such a high speed, the 1kg object would experience significant time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by the theory of relativity. It would also have a tremendous amount of kinetic energy and could potentially cause significant damage upon impact with another object. Additionally, the object would also emit a significant amount of radiation due to its high speed.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
44
Views
333
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
514
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
720
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
340
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
28
Views
786
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
29
Views
908
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top