Relativistic Equation Questions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CAF123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativistic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of relativistic equations, particularly in the context of deducing the de Broglie wavelength of thermal neutrons and understanding the relationships between energy, momentum, and mass in relativistic physics. Participants explore both theoretical and practical aspects of these equations, including their consistency across different frames of reference.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states the relativistic equation \(E^2 = (p^2)(c^2) + (m^2)(c^4)\) applies to all particles and frames of reference but encounters inconsistencies when deducing the de Broglie wavelength of thermal neutrons.
  • Another participant suggests using the non-relativistic momentum equation \(p = mv\) and relates it to kinetic energy, indicating a potential simplification.
  • Clarification is provided on the meaning of \(\beta\) as the ratio \( \beta = \frac{v}{c} \) and the definition of \(\gamma\) in terms of total energy.
  • Participants discuss the implications of using relativistic equations at non-relativistic scales, questioning why total energy includes rest mass energy in those contexts.
  • One participant proposes an alternative method for deriving the relationship between energy and momentum, emphasizing the need for consistent units across calculations.
  • Several participants engage in a separate discussion about calculating the relativistic mass-rest mass ratio for an electron at a specific velocity, with requests for step-by-step solutions.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the calculations and seeks further clarification on the relativistic mass and its ratio to rest mass.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of understanding regarding the consistency of results from different methods. There is no consensus on the reasons for the inconsistencies encountered, and the discussion includes multiple competing views on how to approach the problems presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the importance of ensuring all energy units are consistent and highlight the conditions under which relativistic equations are applicable, particularly in relation to kinetic energy and rest mass energy.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of physics, particularly those exploring relativistic mechanics, energy-momentum relationships, and de Broglie wavelength calculations.

CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87
I understand that the relativistic eqn that applies to all particles in all frames of reference and that works for both massless and massive particles is E^2 = (p^2)(c^2) + (m^2)(c^4).
I then attempted a small question:
Deduce the de Broglie wavelength of thermal neutrons from a nuclear reactor which have k.E ~(3/2)kT.
I have the correct answer and know how to solve the problem (which is why I did not post in homework forum), however, I found the answer by finding k.E by the above formula and then equating this to (1/2)mV^2 and solving for v. After finding v, I found p = mv and therefore the de Broglie wavelength.

My question is: when I instead use the relativistic eqn at the top (which according to my notes works in all frames of references) I yield a negative under the square root. Why is this so? Why aren't things consistent?

For reference, I used E = 6.1 x10^-21 J in both attempted methods.

Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It might be easier to find the non-relativistic p=mv this way
[tex]pc=m_ov \cdot c=m_o \beta c^2 = 2\beta(\frac{1}{2}m_o c^2) = 2\beta \cdot KE[/tex]
[added] The fully relativistic pc is
[tex]pc=mv \cdot c=m\beta c^2 = \beta \gamma \cdot m_o c^2[/tex]
 
Last edited:
What does beta stand for?
I am still not sure, however, why the results would be inconsistent.
 
beta is the ratio [itex]\beta = \frac{v}{c}[/itex] where v is the velocity. γ is the ratio of the total energy (kinetic plus rest mass) divided by the rest mass.
 
Thanks. Have you any ideas why both my methods are giving inconsistent results?
 
[tex](pc)^2=E^2-(m_oc^2)^2=(KE+m_oc^2)^2-(m_oc^2)^2 = KE^2+2KE \cdot m_oc^2 + (m_oc^2)^2 -(m_oc^2)^2[/tex]
[tex](pc)^2= KE^2+2KE \cdot m_oc^2[/tex]
At very low energies the first term can be dropped, yielding
[tex](pc)^2= 2KE \cdot m_oc^2[/tex]
so
[tex]pc=\sqrt{2 \cdot KE \cdot m_oc^2}[/tex]
All energies including pc have to be in same units.
[tex]m_ov \cdot c=\sqrt{2 \cdot KE \cdot m_oc^2}[/tex]
[tex]v=\frac {\sqrt{2 \cdot KE \cdot m_oc^2}}{m_oc} = \frac {c \cdot\sqrt{2 \cdot KE \cdot m_oc^2}}{m_oc^2} = \frac {c \cdot\sqrt{3 kT }}{\sqrt{m_oc^2}}[/tex]
where [itex]KE=\frac{3}{2}kT[/itex]
So v is c times a dimensionless ratio.

[added] For neutrons, moc2 = 939 MeV = 1.50 x 10-10 Joules.
 
Last edited:
Ok, thanks a lot. I now have the correct answer using both methods.
 
There is another way:
[tex](pc)^2=E^2-(m_oc^2)^2=\left(E+m_oc^2\right)\left(E- m_oc^2\right)[/tex]
At non-relativistic energies E - moc2 = KE and E + moc2 = 2moc2 so this becomes
[tex](pc)^2=2\cdot m_oc^2\cdot KE[/tex] etc.
 
I've thought of one question: if we are dealing with non-relativistic scales, why does E = K.E + mc^2 and not simply E= K.E?
Is this a necessary condition that makes the relativistic eqn applicable?
 
  • #10
CAF123 said:
I've thought of one question: if we are dealing with non-relativistic scales, why does E = K.E + mc^2 and not simply E= K.E?
Is this a necessary condition that makes the relativistic eqn applicable?
In relativistic equations, E is always the sum of the kinetic plus rest mass energies, so the non-relativistic approximations (when KE<<moc2) are E - moc2 = KE, and E+moc2 = 2moc2.
 
  • #11
Calculate the relalitivistic mass-rest mass ratio, for an electron whose velocity is 20% of the velocity of light? can anyone answer this for me? thanks
 
  • #12
Just use the relativistic eqn which relates relativistic mass to rest mass.
(the one with rest mass/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) - sorry not proficient with latex.

V = 0.2c.
Substitute with rest mass = 9.11 10 ^-31 kg.
Then calculate ratio: relativistic mass/rest mass.
 
  • #13
CAF123 said:
Just use the relativistic eqn which relates relativistic mass to rest mass.
(the one with rest mass/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) - sorry not proficient with latex.

V = 0.2c.
Substitute with rest mass = 9.11 10 ^-31 kg.
Then calculate ratio: relativistic mass/rest mass.

can you show me how to solve it? and what is the answer?
 
  • #14
Are you familiar with the eqn I transcribed in the text?
If so, just use that formula to find the relativistic mass of the electron.
We know rest mass : ~ 9.11 x 10^-31kg.
We know v: 0.2c , c is speed of light in vacuum (~ 3x 10^8 m/s)
Substitute this into the formula, perhaps calculating the parts under the square root independently so as to not confuse your calculator.
You should get a relativistic mass of ~ 9.30 x 10^-31 kg. This makes sense: it is traveling faster and so by relativity, there should be an increase in its mass and this is what is found.
To find ratio, simply divide relativistic mass by rest mass. Should get about 1.02. Yes?
 
  • #15
CAF123 said:
Are you familiar with the eqn I transcribed in the text?
If so, just use that formula to find the relativistic mass of the electron.
We know rest mass : ~ 9.11 x 10^-31kg.
We know v: 0.2c , c is speed of light in vacuum (~ 3x 10^8 m/s)
Substitute this into the formula, perhaps calculating the parts under the square root independently so as to not confuse your calculator.
You should get a relativistic mass of ~ 9.30 x 10^-31 kg. This makes sense: it is traveling faster and so by relativity, there should be an increase in its mass and this is what is found.
To find ratio, simply divide relativistic mass by rest mass. Should get about 1.02. Yes?

thank you for helping me but... i really don't get it... hehehe..

can you show me step by step solution of the problem? how did you get 1.02? is that the relalitivistic mass-rest mass ratio?
 
  • #16
We don't do people's homework for them. Please re-post your question in one of the "Homework & Coursework Questions" forums ("Introductory Physics" is probably the most appropriate one), and show your work so far, even if you're pretty sure it's wrong. People there will try to identify specific errors and give you hints to proceed further.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
489
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K