Help me find my error in a relativistic kinetic energy calculation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the calculation of relativistic kinetic energy for an asteroid with a mass of 50,000,000 kg moving at 99.99999999999999999999951% of the speed of light (c). The user initially calculated the total kinetic energy to be approximately 1.44 E+36 Joules using a Lorentz factor of 3.2 E+11 but mistakenly applied a different formula to determine the energy required for acceleration, yielding 4.5 E+24 Joules. The consensus is that the Lorentz factor must be included in both calculations, as it is essential for accurately determining kinetic energy at relativistic speeds.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativistic physics concepts, particularly Lorentz transformations
  • Familiarity with kinetic energy equations, specifically KE = M*(c^2) and its relativistic adaptations
  • Knowledge of the speed of light (c) and its significance in relativistic calculations
  • Experience with precision calculations, including the use of online arbitrary precision calculators
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and application of the Lorentz factor in relativistic physics
  • Learn how to accurately calculate relativistic kinetic energy using the formula KE = M*(c^2)*(Lorentz factor - 1)
  • Explore the use of online arbitrary precision calculators for complex calculations
  • Investigate the implications of relativistic speeds on energy requirements in particle physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of advanced physics, and anyone interested in understanding relativistic mechanics and energy calculations.

Serenityseeker22
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone.
Given: an asteroid with the mass of 50,000,000 kg, which is moving with the velocity of oh-my-god particle -- 99.99999999999999999999951% of c.
Due to relativistic effects, its total kinetic energy will be 1.44 E+36 Joules (Lorentz factor = 3.2 E+11).
A hypothetical particle accelerator accelerates bodies 40,000,000 times faster than the most powerful real accelerator.
The energy needed to accelerate such asteroid to this speed is several orders of magnitude lower than the total kinetic energy, or around 4.5 E+24 Joules
I know that there's some mistake, but can't see it yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We can't see your mistake either, unless you show us the details of your calculations. :frown:
 
What I'm trying to say is that the energy needed to accelerate the asteroid is much lesser, than the total kinetic energy this asteroid distributes. It violates some laws of physics, I'm sure of it, but I don't know what exactly and how.

My calculations:

Lorentz factor --
9e74c1f95dd3e0bb0fbb32ae1be1ed4a0c29c6a2

oh-my-god particle's speed -- 99.99999999999999999999951% of light speed
light speed -- 299,792,458 m/s
Relativistic kinetic energy --
rke2.gif

mass -- 50,000,000 kg
Lorentz factor calculation

v2 / c2 = (0.9999999999999999999999951 * 299,792,458)2 / 299,792,458 2 = 0,9999999999999999999999902

Thus, Lorentz factor equals -- 1 / √(1-0,9999999999999999999999902 ) = 319 438 282 499,97

Total kinetic energy equals 50,000,000 * 299,792,4582*(319 438 282 499,97-1), or rougly 1.435 E+36 Joules

To accelerate an asteroid to such speed, I used the same formula sans the Lorentz factor. So, energy needed to accelerate this rock by a hypothetical particle accelerator is 4.5 E+24 Joules
Where's my mistake?
 

Attachments

  • rke2.gif
    rke2.gif
    1.5 KB · Views: 972
Serenityseeker22 said:
I used the same formula sans the Lorentz factor.
What same formula? Show your work. And why ever would you remove the Lorentz factor?
 
Serenityseeker22 said:
To accelerate an asteroid to such speed, I used the same formula sans the Lorentz factor. So, energy needed to accelerate this rock by a hypothetical particle accelerator is 4.5 E+24 Joules
Where did that ##4.5\times{10}^{24}## number come from? How did you calculate it? Show your work.

You can simplify the calculations some by setting ##c=1## to get rid of the factors of 299792458. This is equivalent to choosing to measure distances in units of light-seconds instead of meters (the speed of light is one light-second per second) so doesn't change the physics. You can always convert back to Joules when you're done.

Don't use a hand calculator for problems like this one. You have so many decimal places in some of your numbers that roundoff errors will kill your accuracy. Instead, you can use one of the many online arbitrary precision calculators - google for "online infinite precision calculator".
 
Nugatory said:
Where did that ##4.5\times{10}^{24}## number come from? How did you calculate it? Show your work.

You can simplify the calculations some by setting ##c=1## to get rid of the factors of 299792458. This is equivalent to choosing to measure distances in units of light-seconds instead of meters (the speed of light is one light-second per second) so doesn't change the physics. You can always convert back to Joules when you're done.

Don't use a hand calculator for problems like this one. You have so many decimal places in some of your numbers that roundoff errors will kill your accuracy. Instead, you can use one of the many online arbitrary precision calculators - google for "online infinite precision calculator".
Same formula,KE=M*C2 just without Lorentz factor, because I thought it's only relevant when the body moves with relativistic speeds, not when it gets accelerated. Of course I might be wrong, and I probably am, that's why I'm asking.
 
Serenityseeker22 said:
when the body moves with relativistic speeds, not when it gets accelerated.
As you accelerate to relativistic speed the body moves with relativistic speed. You need the Lorentz factor.
 
Dale said:
As you accelerate to relativistic speed the body moves with relativistic speed. You need the Lorentz factor.
That's what I needed to hear, thank you very much.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Serenityseeker22 said:
KE=M*C2
KE=MC^2 never tells you kinetic energy. It always tells you rest energy.
 
  • #10
Of course, the kinetic energy is equal to the energy it takes to accelerate the mass from rest.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
820
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K