Pi, momentum, and kinetic energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the geometric relationship between kinetic energy and momentum, using the mass of an object set to 2π. It presents the equations for momentum (P = 2πv) and kinetic energy (KE = πv²), illustrating that the circumference of a circle represents momentum while the area represents kinetic energy. Participants speculate on the implications of this relationship at relativistic speeds, noting that the properties of the circle may not hold for all velocities. Some contributors express skepticism about the significance of the geometric representation, arguing it may not generalize beyond the specific case presented. Overall, the conversation highlights a mathematical curiosity while questioning its broader relevance in physics.
e2m2a
Messages
354
Reaction score
13
There is a geometric way one can show the relation between kinetic energy and momentum which is a mathematical curiosity in my opinion. Let the mass of an object be equal to 2 PI. Then:

P = 2 pi v

KE = 1/2 (2 pi ) v sq
or
KE = pi v sq

Hence, graphically, if we set v = r, where r is the radius of a circle, we have a circle whose circumference is momentum, 2 pi v, and whose area is the kinetic energy, pi v sq. Thus, for the case where the mass is 2 pi, we see the kinetic energy is geometrically bounded by the momentum of the object. Interesting.
Wonder what would happen to this circle at relativistic velocities?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes A@bhishek
Physics news on Phys.org
ive been thinking about pi and energy lately.

to simplify things here, ur just describing cosx/2. ie graph cosx...d/dt cosx is -sinx. pi rad of -sinx is (-1, +1 or "total ke" until it goes back down to -1 ie pe). relativistically speaking, the extreme case is analogous to an infinite amp, (staying with cos waves.) ie lim v---> c dt----->0, hence large distance(high amp) and no oscillation.
 
e2m2a said:
Wonder what would happen to this circle at relativistic velocities?

Well, momentum in SR can take the form:
d2dec44ba56c41a31b4d334b144b51d6.png
where m0 is the invariant mass and gamma is the lorentz factor:
daa6c3acdd12b843a2f3bf4d9d757a28.png


The relativistic relation between kinetic energy and momentum is given by:

7dbc3a29632b88dcf0645840b1bf5a53.png


I haven't tried turning this relationship into a circle, but you're welcome to try.
 
Radius ---> infinity.
 
joe o'rourke said:
Radius ---> infinity.

Also just to add: the classic example of this in relativity is in the expansion of the universe and why we see "light years away" not a distance away at far distances.
 
joe o'rourke said:
Radius ---> infinity.

joe o'rourke said:
Also just to add: the classic example of this in relativity is in the expansion of the universe and why we see "light years away" not a distance away at far distances.

This has nothing to do with the thread topic.
 
e2m2a said:
There is a geometric way one can show the relation between kinetic energy and momentum which is a mathematical curiosity in my opinion. Let the mass of an object be equal to 2 PI. Then:

P = 2 pi v

KE = 1/2 (2 pi ) v sq
or
KE = pi v sq

Hence, graphically, if we set v = r, where r is the radius of a circle, we have a circle whose circumference is momentum, 2 pi v, and whose area is the kinetic energy, pi v sq. Thus, for the case where the mass is 2 pi, we see the kinetic energy is geometrically bounded by the momentum of the object. Interesting.
Wonder what would happen to this circle at relativistic velocities?

I personally don't think there is any significance here. For the cases where v is not equal to r, the properties of a circle disappear. There is no fundamental property here that can be generalized to all cases of v, and is nothing more than a result of simply choosing the variables to get the desired outcome.
 
Unified28 said:
I personally don't think there is any significance here. For the cases where v is not equal to r, the properties of a circle disappear. There is no fundamental property here that can be generalized to all cases of v, and is nothing more than a result of simply choosing the variables to get the desired outcome.
I'm a little agree with it, for the special case won't exist if the special amount ##\pi## is replaced with any others.
 
Back
Top