In classical physics E=Fd and F=ma so E=mad.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

a=d/t^{2}so E=md^{2}/t^{2}

Measurements of d and t will get complicated by Lorentz transformation, so, is E=Fd still a correct definition of energy, or is it a Newtonian approximation which is not accurate at relativistic velocities?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# What is the relativistic definition of energy?

Loading...

Similar Threads - relativistic definition energy | Date |
---|---|

I A question about the relativistic energy dispersion relation | Feb 20, 2018 |

I Weight of a relativistic particle | Feb 12, 2018 |

I Under 10000-10000m/s^2, is relativistic effect ignorable? | Feb 10, 2018 |

I Any books on relativistic calculus? | Jan 22, 2018 |

Relativistic momentum definition | Apr 29, 2006 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**