Transforming Kinetic Energy: A Geometric Approach

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of kinetic energy, particularly from a geometric perspective within the framework of relativistic physics. Participants explore the relationship between kinetic energy and total energy, as well as the implications of these transformations in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests references for the transformation of kinetic energy.
  • Another participant suggests that since kinetic energy is derived from total energy minus rest energy, any reference that details total energy transformation should suffice.
  • A concern is raised regarding the definition of "proper value" for kinetic energy, noting that it is not defined in the same way as total energy.
  • A humorous remark is made about the "proper kinetic energy" being zero in an object's rest frame.
  • One participant proposes that kinetic energy should be calculated in each frame after transforming total energy, emphasizing that kinetic energy is not a component of a 4-tensor.
  • A geometric interpretation is introduced, describing relativistic kinetic energy as the difference between projections of two 4-momenta related by a boost.
  • A detailed derivation of kinetic energy transformation is presented, including specific cases and conditions, while seeking feedback on the correctness of the approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition and treatment of kinetic energy in relation to total energy, with no consensus reached on the proper approach to its transformation or the validity of the presented derivation.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of kinetic energy and total energy, as well as the mathematical steps involved in the transformation process, which remain unresolved.

bernhard.rothenstein
Messages
988
Reaction score
1
Please let me know a reference where the transformation of the kinetic energy is performed.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since the kinetic energy is the total energy minus the rest energy, and since the rest energy is invariant, won't any reference suffice that gives the transformation of total energy? That is, K = E - mc^2, m is invariant, and E transforms in the usual way.
 
kinetic energy

country boy said:
Since the kinetic energy is the total energy minus the rest energy, and since the rest energy is invariant, won't any reference suffice that gives the transformation of total energy? That is, K = E - mc^2, m is invariant, and E transforms in the usual way.
Thanks. There is a poblem. K is a physical quantity for which we do not define a proper value whereas for E we do.
 
If by "proper" you mean the value in an object's own rest frame, then the "proper kinetic energy" of any object is zero! :biggrin:
 
bernhard.rothenstein said:
Thanks. There is a poblem. K is a physical quantity for which we do not define a proper value whereas for E we do.

I suggest that you will need to calculate K in each frame after transforming E. Kinetic energy is not a component of a 4-tensor, since it is just the additional energy imparted by motion. However, it can be written

K = mc^2 [(1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2))-1]
 
Geometrically, the relativistic kinetic energy is difference between the projections of two 4-momenta-related-by-a-boost onto one of those 4-momenta.
 
robphy said:
Geometrically, the relativistic kinetic energy is difference between the projections of two 4-momenta-related-by-a-boost onto one of those 4-momenta.
Thanks. For a less sophisticated audience I would present the problem as:
Start with the expression of the kinetic energy in I
K=mcc[(1/g(u))-1] (1)
where g(u) stands for gamma as a function of the speed of the bullet in I,
Express the right side of (1) as a function of u' the speed of the bullet in I' via the composition law of parallel speeds in order to obtain
K=mcc[(1+u'V/cc)/g(V)g(u'))-1] (2)
The transformation equation (2) leads to the following consequences
a. For u'=0
K=mcc[(1/g(V))-1)
b.For V=0 (u'=u)
K=mcc[(1/g(u))-1]
whereas for u'=0 and V=0
K=0
all in good accordance with phyhsical reality!
Is there some thing wrong in my derivation?
Use please soft words and hard arguments:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K