Kinetic Energy & Speed in Inertial Frames: Chris, Bob & Angelica

In summary: I just didn't know how to explain it clearly. Thank you for your help!In summary, the confusion arises from expecting the kinetic energy of Bob to be half of Angelica's when viewed from Chris' perspective. However, this is not the case because the slope of the curve in the kinetic energy vs velocity graph is not a straight line and increases as the velocity increases. This means that for a given change in velocity, the change in kinetic energy is greater for larger velocities. This applies in both the non-relativistic and relativistic domains.
  • #1
Wout Veltman
3
0
From Chris' perspective Bob is traveling with 1.5*108 m/s in direction a. Angelica is also traveling with 2.4*108 m/s in direction a.

From Bob's perspective Chris is traveling with 1.5*108 m/s in direction b (The opposite of x). Angelica is traveling with 1.5*108 m/s in direction a.

They all have a mass of 1

I am pretty sure these numbers are right. I used w = (u+v)/(1+(u*v)/(c2)) To calculate the relative speeds.
I used the calculation in the picture to calculate the Ek of Bob. I also calculated the Ek of Angelica, all from chris' perspective. Now the outcome that I was expecting was that Bob's Ek would be half of Angelica's Ek when looking from Chris' perspective. Because Angelica is also traveling with 1.5*108 m/s when measured from Bob's perspective. Why does this not count up?

I am sorry if a skipped a few vital steps. All of my special relativity knowledge comes from self-studying. We don't get this in school.

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Wout Veltman said:
Now the outcome that I was expecting was that Bob's Ek would be half of Angelica's Ek when looking from Chris' perspective
Why would that be true? Even in the non relativistic domain, it makes no sense.
Suppose you have an observer ##C## at the origin. An object ##B## moves with velocity ##v## in a particular direction. In the same direction, another object ##A## moves with velocity ##v## as seen by ##B##. The velocity of ##A## as seen by ##C## will be ##2v## ( since this is non relativistic, they simply add). The kinetic energy ( as observed by ##C##), of ##A## is not twice that of ##B##, rather it's four times .
Likewise, in the relativistic domain, there is no reason for the results you expected.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I see I made a few unnecessary mistakes there, also in the picture I posted with it. But my confusion is still there, let me try to explain it in another way.

You have an observer ##C## at the origin. An object ##B## is moving with 1.5*108 m/s in a particular direction. Object ##B## has his buddy ##A## moving next to him, with the same velocity and direction as ##B##. Now object ##A## accelerates till he reaches a speed of 1.5*108 m/s, when looking from ##B##'s point of view, and a speed of 2.4*108 m/s viewed from the observers point of view.

The Ek of ##B## viewed from ##C##'s point of view = 1,392*1016 J.
The Ek of ##A## viewed from ##C##'s point of view = 6,00*1016 J.
The Ek of ##A## viewed from ##B##'s point of view = 1,392*1016 J.

Now from ##C##'s point of view, ##A## gained 4,606*1016 J.
And from ##B## point of view, ##A## only gained 1,392*1016 J.

Now my question is, how do you explain this?I used 3*108 m/s as the speed of light to make things easier.
0ef9f8c42e.jpg
 
  • #4
Is your doubt something like this : The change in velocity for both A and B is the same, yet the change in their kinetic energies are different. How?
If so, the answer is simple. The slope of the curve in ##K## vs ##v## graph is not a straight line. It keeps on increasing (the curve has an asymptote at ##v=c##). It means that as the value of ##v## increases, so does the slope. It means for a given ##\Delta v## , ##\Delta K## is greater for larger values of ##v##.
 
  • Like
Likes Wout Veltman
  • #5
The same thing is seen in non relativistic domain also. The change in kinetic energy of a body going from ##100 m/s## to ##101 m/s## is greater than the change in ##K## for a body going from ##0 m/s## to ##1m/s##.
The reason is same here. The slope ##(\Delta K)/(\Delta v)## is not a straight line.
 
  • #6
Aniruddha@94 said:
Is your doubt something like this : The change in velocity for both A and B is the same, yet the change in their kinetic energies are different. How?
If so, the answer is simple. The slope of the curve in ##K## vs ##v## graph is not a straight line. It keeps on increasing (the curve has an asymptote at ##v=c##). It means that as the value of ##v## increases, so does the slope. It means for a given ##\Delta v## , ##\Delta K## is greater for larger values of ##v##.

That does come very close to what I ment, yes, thank you very much.
 

Related to Kinetic Energy & Speed in Inertial Frames: Chris, Bob & Angelica

1. What is kinetic energy?

Kinetic energy is the energy an object possesses due to its motion. It is dependent on the mass and velocity of the object, and is defined as 1/2 times the mass times the square of the velocity.

2. How is kinetic energy related to speed?

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the square of an object's speed. This means that as an object's speed increases, its kinetic energy also increases.

3. What are inertial frames?

Inertial frames are reference frames that are not accelerating and are moving at a constant velocity. This means that objects in an inertial frame will appear to be at rest or moving with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.

4. How does kinetic energy change in different inertial frames?

The value of kinetic energy remains the same in different inertial frames. However, the observed speed of an object may be different in different frames due to the effects of relative motion.

5. Can kinetic energy be negative?

No, kinetic energy cannot be negative. It is always a positive value, as it represents the energy an object possesses due to its motion.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
123
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
66
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
60
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
1K
Back
Top