Understanding Relativistic Kinetic Energy in Modern Physics

In summary, the author is confused about the rule of calculus for kinetic energy. The modern physics book states that relativistic kinetic energy is equal to the integral of the mass over the distance traveled divided by the time it took to travel that distance. However, the author is not sure how to change the limits of integration for a more complicated expression.
  • #1
Carolina Joe
7
0
Hi Everyone,
I'm reading in my modern physics book about relativistic kinetic energy. I'm a little confused about what rule of calculus allows the following statement:
[tex]
KE = \int_{0}^{s} \frac{d(mv)}{dt} ds = \int_{0}^{mv} v d(mv)
[/tex]
I see that they must be saying
[tex]
KE = \int_{0}^{s} \frac{d(mv)}{dt} ds = \int_{0}^{mv} \frac{ds}{dt} d(mv)
[/tex]
since
[tex]
\frac{ds}{dt} = v
[/tex]
But I don't understand how you can treat the differentials that way, and how you would know how to change the limits of integration when you made that change of variables. It seems like I must just be forgetting something basic.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Draw out the mass since it will be constant.

[tex] KE = m\int_0^x a dx = m\int_0^x \frac{dv}{dt} dx [/tex]

and [tex] \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{dv}{dx} \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dv}{dx} v [/tex]

so the integral becomes [tex] m\int_0^x v\frac{dv}{dx} dx = m\int_0^v v dv [/tex]

Startin to get the picture? You need to change the integration limits because of the fact that you changed the variables.

edit: Just noticed we're talking relativistic, in which case m won't be constant, but it goes along the same line if you use momentum instead of just velocity.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Thanks!

Thanks for the reply, Whozum. So you're using the chain rule to rearrange the differentials, with the goal of getting v by itself, and at that point the only differential left standing is d(mv)? I guess I'm wondering what the new limits of integration would be in a more complicated expression. For example, if the upper limit had been something like [itex]sin(s)^2[/itex] or some such crazy thing, what would be the rule for computing the new limit?
 
  • #4
I'm not really sure I understand your question, and am not in a position to answer you completely, but what I can say (unless I'm missing something) is that the limits are dealt with after the integral is solved, so once you solve the integral you would THEN put in the limits at F(b) and F(a).

I would wait for an authority though.
 
  • #5
What I'm asking is, given that we've rearranged the differentials, what rule of calculus is being used to determine the new limits of integration? When we change from
[tex]
\int_{0}^{s} \frac{d(mv)}{dt} ds
[/tex]
to
[tex]
\int_{0}^{mv} v d(mv)
[/tex]
we're changing the limits of integration, which seemed fairly simple, but what if the integral had limits that are more complicated, like
[tex]
\int_{s}^{sin^2(s)} \frac{d(mv)}{dt} ds
[/tex]
Where could I look in a calculus book to see what to do in a case like that? This isn't like straight substitution (or is it?).
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Carolina Joe said:
What I'm asking is, given that we've rearranged the differentials, what rule of calculus is being used to determine the new limits of integration?

You're using the fact that [itex]mv=0[/itex] when [itex]s=0[/itex] (in other words, you are starting from rest) and that [itex]mv=mv[/itex] when [itex]s=s[/itex].
 
  • #7
Okay, I see that we're starting from rest, but just from a calculus standpoint, I have trouble seeing how to treat these limits -- especially if this hadn't been a physics problem, but just a calculus problem.

When s=s, mv=mv seems to be true no matter what!

I sense that I'm just having a conceptual problem here. I'll go sit in a dark room and think about it for a while...

Thanks for replying!
 

1. What is relativistic kinetic energy?

Relativistic kinetic energy is the energy that an object possesses due to its motion, taking into account the effects of special relativity. Unlike classical kinetic energy, which is given by the formula KE = 1/2mv^2, relativistic kinetic energy is given by the formula KE = (mc^2)/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-1), where m is the mass of the object, v is its velocity, and c is the speed of light.

2. How is relativistic kinetic energy different from classical kinetic energy?

Relativistic kinetic energy takes into account the effects of special relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction, which become significant at high velocities near the speed of light. This means that as an object's velocity increases, its relativistic kinetic energy increases at a faster rate than its classical kinetic energy.

3. How does understanding relativistic kinetic energy help us in modern physics?

Understanding relativistic kinetic energy is crucial in modern physics, as it allows us to accurately describe and predict the behavior of objects at high velocities, such as particles in particle accelerators or spacecraft traveling at near-light speeds. It also helps us to understand fundamental concepts like mass-energy equivalence and the relationship between energy and momentum.

4. Can relativistic kinetic energy be negative?

No, relativistic kinetic energy cannot be negative. This is because it is based on the square root of a quantity, and taking the square root of a negative number is not possible in real numbers. In situations where the formula for relativistic kinetic energy gives a negative value, it is an indication that the object has a velocity greater than the speed of light, which is not permitted under special relativity.

5. How does relativistic kinetic energy relate to the principle of conservation of energy?

Relativistic kinetic energy is a form of energy, and therefore it is subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that it cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed into other forms of energy. In situations where relativistic kinetic energy is being considered, it is important to also consider other forms of energy, such as potential energy and rest energy, in order to accurately apply the principle of conservation of energy.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
275
Replies
7
Views
279
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
180
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
273
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
572
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top