Relativistic kinetic energy derivation (from Work expended)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of relativistic kinetic energy from the work expended on a body initially at rest. Participants explore mathematical approaches to express kinetic energy in terms of the Lorentz factor and velocity, focusing on the integration of force over distance.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Technical explanation, Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an integral approach to derive relativistic kinetic energy, starting from the work-energy principle and involving the Lorentz factor.
  • Another participant suggests substituting for the Lorentz factor and rearranging the resulting expressions to simplify the derivation.
  • A later reply builds on previous expressions, manipulating terms to arrive at a form that resembles the desired kinetic energy equation, ##T = (\gamma - 1)mc^2##.
  • Participants engage in back-and-forth corrections and refinements of mathematical expressions without reaching a definitive conclusion on the derivation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation method, with multiple approaches and expressions being proposed and refined. The discussion remains exploratory, with no settled conclusion on the best path to the final expression for relativistic kinetic energy.

Contextual Notes

Some mathematical steps and assumptions are not fully resolved, particularly regarding the manipulation of the Lorentz factor and the integration process. The discussion reflects various interpretations and methods without a clear resolution.

freddie_mclair
Messages
43
Reaction score
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
\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}.
I think you can continue yourself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: freddie_mclair
Just try substituting for ##\gamma## and shuffling that last expression around a bit.
 
Shyan said:
\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}.
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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K