Solve E = mc^2 & Time Dilation Equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the equation E = mc² and the time dilation equation in the context of relativity. Participants explore whether these equations can be reconciled or understood in relation to each other, examining their implications and connections within the framework of special relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the meaning of "equal" between the two equations, suggesting that they may be looking for a way to reconcile them instead.
  • Another participant clarifies that the correct form of the energy equation includes the Lorentz factor, stating E = mc²γ, where γ is defined as 1/√(1-v²/c²), which also appears in the time dilation formula.
  • It is noted that the similarity between the energy equation and the time dilation formula arises from their connection in the covariant formulation of relativity.
  • A detailed explanation is provided regarding the definition of four-velocity and four-momentum, emphasizing the role of invariant mass and energy in relativistic physics.
  • Participants discuss how the invariant mass of a composite object can change with temperature, linking this to the energy of the object in its rest frame.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the initial question of whether E = mc² and the time dilation equation can be considered equal or reconciled. There are competing views on the interpretation and relationship between the two equations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion about the compatibility of the equations, indicating that their understanding may depend on specific readings or interpretations of relativity. The discussion highlights the complexity of reconciling different aspects of relativistic physics without resolving the underlying uncertainties.

samuel toco
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
how to equal the equation: E = mc2 and the Time dilation equation

I think that have something lost on it!!!!!
how to equal the equation: E = mc2 and the Time dilation equation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They aren't equal. I'm not even sure what "equal" would mean between two equations. Why would you think they would be?
 
Welcome to the PF. :smile:

Thread prefix changed from "A" = Advanced/Graduate School level to "I" = Intermediate/Undergraduate level.
samuel toco said:
Summary:: how to equal the equation: E = mc2 and the Time dilation equation

I think that have something lost on it!
Instead of "equal", maybe you mean "reconcile"? If so, what do you think is inconsistent between them? Could you please show links to the reading you've been doing about each of those equations, and say why that reading has you confused about their compatibility? Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
I'm also not understanding your question, but note that the correct equation is ##E=m c^2 \gamma##, where ##\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}## is the same Lorentz factor that also enters the time-dilation formula. Indeed if a clock shows ##\Delta t## in its rest frame an observer moving with velocity ##v## relative to the clock will measure ##\Delta t'=\gamma \Delta t##.

The similarity between the equation for energy and the time dilation formula is not a surprise, because it's closely connected. One defines everything in relativity in covariant quantities. Thus having vectors like the time-position four-vector in special relativity and wants to define covariant quantities by time derivatives one uses proper time ##\mathrm{d} \tau = \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} \mathrm{d} t##, because that's a scalar under Lorentz transformations and thus
$$V^{\mu}=\mathrm{d}_{\tau} x^{\mu}$$
is a four-vector, the four-velocity of the particle. In terms of usual velocity (which is NOT a relativistically covariant quantity) this reads
$$(V^{\mu})=\begin{pmatrix} c \mathrm{d}_{\tau} t \\ \mathrm{d}_{\tau} \vec{x} \end{pmatrix},$$
but ##\mathrm{d}_{\tau} = \mathrm{d} t (\mathrm{d}_{\tau} t)=\gamma \mathrm{d} t##. Thus you get
$$V^{\mu}=\begin{pmatrix} \gamma c\\ \gamma \vec{v} \end{pmatrix},$$
where ##\vec{v}=\mathrm{d}_t \vec{x}## is the usual three-velocity measured in the lab frame.

Now four-momentum is defined as
$$p^{\mu} = m V^{\mu},$$
where ##m## is the invariant mass. To understand what the time-component means we note that
$$p^0=m c \gamma =m c \left (1+\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2} +\mathcal{O}(v^4/c^4) \right),$$
and this suggests to define ##p^0=E/c## with ##E## the energy of the particle, because for the reason that ##p^{\mu}## is a four-vector it's convenient to include the rest energy ##E_0=mc^2## in the energy of the particle, and then in the non-relativistic limit ##E=E_0 + mv^2/2##, and ##m v^2/2=E_{\text{kin}}## in Newtonian mechanics, where ##E_0## is simply an additive constant which is not changed in any way by any physical phenomenon.

Note that this is different in relativistic physics! The rest mass of a composite object is related to the energy of this object in its rest frame by ##E_0=m c^2##. E.g., if you have some macroscopic body its invariant mass changes with temperature, because if the body gets hotter the heat-energy gain ##\Delta Q## adds to the rest energy, i.e., the invariant mass of the body changes by the amount ##\Delta m=\Delta Q/c^2##.

Thus, while the invariant mass does not change by any physical processes within Newtonian mechanics (except you add or take away some matter to a composite object of course), relativity shows that this is only approximately right. In other words: The invariant mass is not a conserved quantity for a closed system in relativistic physics. Here only the energy of a closed system is conserved but not invariant mass!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
947
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K