Which expression for Relativistic Kinetic Energy is correct?

rhz_prog
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I saw that the Relativistic Kinetic Energy calculation for these two sources, seems to be different :

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
EK = gamma*m*c^2

While here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
see : Relativistic kinetic energy of rigid bodies
EK = gamma*m*c^2 - m*c^2

Which one is right ? Or did I misunderstand something ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't read the first link, but from what I know I'd say that the second definition is the right one. E = \gamma mc^{2} is the total energy, not the kinetic energy. You can Taylor expand the first expression E = \gamma mc^{2} - mc^{2} with respect to the variable v/c. The first term in the expression, \frac{1}{2}mv^{2} represents the Newtonian kinetic energy, which will be the dominant term if v/c is small.
 
Where does the first link say that? All I can see under "conservation of energy" is:

E_final = γmc^2 + E_L

?
 
rhz_prog said:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
EK = gamma*m*c^2

That page does not refer to \gamma m c^2 as kinetic energy, but rather, simply as "energy". In fact, the word "kinetic" does not appear on that page at all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rhz_prog said:
I saw that the Relativistic Kinetic Energy calculation for these two sources, seems to be different :

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
EK = gamma*m*c^2

While here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
see : Relativistic kinetic energy of rigid bodies
EK = gamma*m*c^2 - m*c^2

Which one is right ? Or did I misunderstand something ?

Your expressions are better written as:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
TE = gamma*m*c^2

While here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
see : Relativistic kinetic energy of rigid bodies
KE = gamma*m*c^2 - m*c^2

where TE is Total Energy and KE is Kinetic Energy.
The second expression can also be written as:

KE = TE - RE

where RE is Rest Energy or rest mass energy.

Total Energy can can also be found from this relationship:

TE = \sqrt{(gamma*m*v*c)^2+(m*c^2)^2} = \sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}

which can be written as:

TE = \sqrt{ME^2+RE^2}

where ME is Momentum Energy.

By rearranging this becomes :

RE = \sqrt{TE^2-ME^2}

Since rest energy is usually an invariant, the quantity \sqrt{TE^2-ME^2} is the same when switching from one reference frame to another. In fact, in a perfectly elastic collision, the quantity \sqrt{TE^2-ME^2} is the same for a given particle before and after the collision.

Hope that helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top