Relativistic kinetic energy derivation (from Work expended)

In summary, the relativistic kinetic energy is found by integrating the work done over a radius, taking into account the relativistic factor.
  • #1
freddie_mclair
43
2
Hi,

I'm trying to get the relativistic kinetic energy, ## T ##, from the work expended, ## W ##, (assuming that the body is at rest initially) and I'm doing it like this (in 1D):

\begin{equation}
W = T = \int F ds = m \int \frac{d(\gamma u)}{dt}u dt = m\int u d(\gamma u)
\end{equation}

Where, ## u ## is the speed, and ## \gamma ## the Lorentz factor.
Now, putting some limits on it, and integrating by parts:

\begin{align}
T &= \gamma m u^2 \Big|_{0}^{v} - m \int_0^v \gamma u du \\
&= \gamma m v^2 - m \int_0^v \gamma u du \\
&= \gamma m v^2 - m \int_0^v \frac{u}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2}} du\\
&= \gamma m v^2 + m c^2 \sqrt{1-u^2/c^2} \Big|_0^v\\
&= \gamma m v^2 + m c^2 \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} - mc^2
\end{align}

I can also write it as:

\begin{align}
T &= \gamma m v^2 + \frac{mc^2}{\gamma} - mc^2
\end{align}

But to me it looks like a dead end here...

Well, what I really want to get is the relativistic kinetic energy written like this: ##T = (\gamma - 1)mc^2 ##.
Could you give me some advice if I'm doing this correctly, and if so, how to proceed from here?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
[itex] \gamma m v^2-mc^2+\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}=mc^2(\gamma \frac{v^2}{c^1}-1)+\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}=mc^2 (\gamma (1+1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})-1)+\frac{mc^2}{\gamma} [/itex].
I think you can continue yourself.
 
  • Like
Likes freddie_mclair
  • #3
Just try substituting for ##\gamma## and shuffling that last expression around a bit.
 
  • #4
Shyan said:
[itex] \gamma m v^2-mc^2+\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}=mc^2(\gamma \frac{v^2}{c^1}-1)+\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}=mc^2 (\gamma (1+1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})-1)+\frac{mc^2}{\gamma} [/itex].
I think you can continue yourself.

Oh, cool!
Then from your expression (with a tiny corrections on the exponential factor of ## c^1 ## and a change of sign in the ## 1 + 1 ## trick), it follows:

\begin{align}
\gamma m v^2-mc^2+\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}\\
m c^2 \Big(\gamma \frac{v^2}{c^2}-1 \Big)+\frac{m c^2}{\gamma} \\
m c^2 \Big[\gamma \Big( 1 - 1 + \frac{v^2}{c^2}\Big) - 1 \Big]+\frac{m c^2}{\gamma} \\
m c^2 \Big[\gamma \Big( 1 - \gamma^{-2} \Big) - 1 \Big]+\frac{m c^2}{\gamma}\\
m c^2 \Big( \gamma - \frac{1}{\gamma} -1 \Big)+\frac{m c^2}{\gamma}\\
\gamma m c^2 - \frac{m c^2}{\gamma} - m c^2 +\frac{m c^2}{\gamma}\\
\gamma m c^2 - m c^2 = (\gamma - 1)mc^2
\end{align}

Thanks!
 
  • #5


Hello,

Your approach to deriving the relativistic kinetic energy from the work expended is correct. However, you have reached a point where you need to use the relationship between velocity and the Lorentz factor, ## \gamma ##, to simplify the equation.

Since you are assuming that the body is at rest initially, ## u = 0 ## and ## \gamma = 1 ##. Substituting these values into your equation, we get:

\begin{align}
T &= \gamma m v^2 + m c^2 \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} - mc^2 \\
&= m v^2 + m c^2 \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} - mc^2 \\
&= mc^2 \left(v^2 + \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} - 1 \right)
\end{align}

Now, using the relationship ## v = c\sqrt{1-1/\gamma^2} ##, we can simplify the equation further:

\begin{align}
T &= mc^2 \left(c^2 \left(1-\frac{1}{\gamma^2} \right) + \sqrt{1-c^2 \left(1-\frac{1}{\gamma^2} \right)} - 1 \right) \\
&= mc^2 \left(c^2 \left(1-\frac{1}{\gamma^2} \right) + \frac{1}{\gamma} - 1 \right) \\
&= mc^2 \left(\frac{c^2}{\gamma^2} + \frac{1}{\gamma} - 1 \right) \\
&= mc^2 \left(\frac{1}{\gamma} - 1 \right) \\
&= (\gamma - 1) mc^2
\end{align}

Therefore, the relativistic kinetic energy can be written as ## T = (\gamma - 1) mc^2 ##, as desired.

I hope this helps. Keep up the good work in your studies of relativistic physics!
 

1. What is the equation for calculating relativistic kinetic energy?

The equation for calculating relativistic kinetic energy is E = (γ - 1)mc2, where E is the kinetic energy, γ is the Lorentz factor, m is the mass of the object, and c is the speed of light.

2. How is relativistic kinetic energy derived from work expended?

Relativistic kinetic energy is derived from work expended by integrating the work-energy theorem, which states that the net work done on an object is equal to the change in its kinetic energy. By considering the relativistic definition of momentum and applying the Lorentz factor, the equation for relativistic kinetic energy can be derived.

3. What is the difference between classical and relativistic kinetic energy?

The main difference between classical and relativistic kinetic energy is that the latter takes into account the effects of special relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction, at high speeds. This leads to a different equation for calculating kinetic energy, as well as a different interpretation of the energy of an object in motion.

4. Can relativistic kinetic energy be negative?

Yes, relativistic kinetic energy can be negative. This occurs when an object has a negative velocity, meaning it is moving in the opposite direction of the reference frame. In this case, the Lorentz factor becomes imaginary, resulting in a negative value for kinetic energy.

5. How does relativistic kinetic energy relate to the theory of relativity?

Relativistic kinetic energy is a fundamental concept in the theory of relativity. It helps explain the effects of high speeds on an object's energy and how this energy is related to its mass. It also provides a deeper understanding of the concept of mass-energy equivalence, which is a key principle in the theory of relativity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
528
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
951
Back
Top