This is probably just a coincidence, but

  • #1
[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]
energy kinetic = mass times velocity squared

So... Isn't one way to interpret time dilation that everything moves through time and space with a sum velocity of c (somehow), and that as velocity in space increases velocity in time therefore decreases? I've read this in several places, anyway.

If this is the case, then the permanent space-time velocity of all objects is c... Which means that their kinetic energy would be:

[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]

[tex]EK = mc^2[/tex]

So er... [tex]E=mc^2[/tex]
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
142
0
Trepidation said:
[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]
energy kinetic = mass times velocity squared
So... Isn't one way to interpret time dilation that everything moves through time and space with a sum velocity of c (somehow), and that as velocity in space increases velocity in time therefore decreases? I've read this in several places, anyway.
If this is the case, then the permanent space-time velocity of all objects is c... Which means that their kinetic energy would be:
[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]
[tex]EK = mc^2[/tex]
So er... [tex]E=mc^2[/tex]
The equation [itex]E=mc^2[/itex] only applies when [itex]v=0[/itex]. The general equation for any [itex]v[/itex] is
[tex]E=\sqrt{(mc^2)^2+c^2p^2}[/tex]
where [itex]p[/itex] is momentum.
So indeed just a coincidence.
 
  • #3
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,664
Trepidation said:
[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]
energy kinetic = mass times velocity squared
So... Isn't one way to interpret time dilation that everything moves through time and space with a sum velocity of c (somehow), and that as velocity in space increases velocity in time therefore decreases? I've read this in several places, anyway.
If this is the case, then the permanent space-time velocity of all objects is c... Which means that their kinetic energy would be:
[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]
[tex]EK = mc^2[/tex]
So er... [tex]E=mc^2[/tex]
1. Since when is kinetic energy equal to mv^2? What happened to the 1/2?

2. What exactly are "velocity in space" and "velocity in time"?

3. What is "space-time velocity"?

4. This statement is puzzling: "..... Isn't one way to interpret time dilation that everything moves through time and space with a sum velocity of c (somehow),... " Everything does NOT move with a "sum velocity of c (somehow)".

Zz.
 
  • #4
142
0
ZapperZ said:
1. Since when is kinetic energy equal to mv^2? What happened to the 1/2?
Of course. I completeley overlooked this most obvious argument!
 
  • #5
1,414
5
Trepidation said:
[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]
energy kinetic = mass times velocity squared
No, its [tex] E_K = \frac{1}{2} m v^2[/tex]


If this is the case, then the permanent space-time velocity of all objects is c... Which means that their kinetic energy would be:
[tex]EK = mv^2[/tex]
[tex]EK = mc^2[/tex]
So er... [tex]E=mc^2[/tex]
[tex]E=mc^2[/tex] only applies to a an object when [tex] v= 0[/tex] as another pointed out. It has nothing to do with kinetic energy.
 
  • #6
932
0
ZapperZ said:
Everything does NOT move with a "sum velocity of c (somehow)".
The length of the velocity four-vector of any particle is 1 in geometric units, which corresponds to c in SI units. A particle in it's rest frame is moving through time at a second a second. To compare lengths with times, we multiply by c, to find that it is moving c metres a second.
 
  • #7
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,664
masudr said:
The length of the velocity four-vector of any particle is 1 in geometric units, which corresponds to c in SI units. A particle in it's rest frame is moving through time at a second a second. To compare lengths with times, we multiply by c, to find that it is moving c metres a second.
But really, do you honestly think the OP knew about this and that this is what he/she is describing by making that erroneous statement? I highly doubt it.

Zz.
 
  • #8
932
0
ZapperZ said:
But really, do you honestly think the OP knew about this and that this is what he/she is describing by making that erroneous statement? I highly doubt it.
Zz.
I believe one of Greene's recent popular science texts (with some grandiose title) expresses this idea (and I assume this is where the OP got the idea from); whether or not the OP fully understood it or not is, of course, another matter.
 
  • #9
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,664
masudr said:
I believe one of Greene's recent popular science texts (with some grandiose title) expresses this idea (and I assume this is where the OP got the idea from); whether or not the OP fully understood it or not is, of course, another matter.
I'm not so sure... Greene cannot make a silly mistake of equating KE with mv^2 and missing out that 1/2, which is the OP starting premise.

Zz.
 
  • #10
I comprehend the idea, but the important thing is that I apparently don't comprehend simple Newtonian physics. Forgive me for the incorrect formula and the idiotic post... I just saw something that sort-of corresponded and then decided to post it, and consequently wound up with a bunch of gibberish.

Again, sorry. I don't know what I thought when I was writing EK=mv^2. Thanks for replying to this, anyway.
 
  • #11
932
0
ZapperZ said:
I'm not so sure... Greene cannot make a silly mistake of equating KE with mv^2 and missing out that 1/2, which is the OP starting premise.
Zz.
Sorry, I meant the notion of having a velocity of c at all times, as opposed to the definition of non-relativistic classical kinetic energy.
 

Related Threads on This is probably just a coincidence, but

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
409
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
41
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
751
Top