Which expression for Relativistic Kinetic Energy is correct?

rhz_prog
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I saw that the Relativistic Kinetic Energy calculation for these two sources, seems to be different :

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
EK = gamma*m*c^2

While here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
see : Relativistic kinetic energy of rigid bodies
EK = gamma*m*c^2 - m*c^2

Which one is right ? Or did I misunderstand something ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't read the first link, but from what I know I'd say that the second definition is the right one. E = \gamma mc^{2} is the total energy, not the kinetic energy. You can Taylor expand the first expression E = \gamma mc^{2} - mc^{2} with respect to the variable v/c. The first term in the expression, \frac{1}{2}mv^{2} represents the Newtonian kinetic energy, which will be the dominant term if v/c is small.
 
Where does the first link say that? All I can see under "conservation of energy" is:

E_final = γmc^2 + E_L

?
 
rhz_prog said:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
EK = gamma*m*c^2

That page does not refer to \gamma m c^2 as kinetic energy, but rather, simply as "energy". In fact, the word "kinetic" does not appear on that page at all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rhz_prog said:
I saw that the Relativistic Kinetic Energy calculation for these two sources, seems to be different :

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
EK = gamma*m*c^2

While here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
see : Relativistic kinetic energy of rigid bodies
EK = gamma*m*c^2 - m*c^2

Which one is right ? Or did I misunderstand something ?

Your expressions are better written as:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
see : Conservation of Energy
TE = gamma*m*c^2

While here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
see : Relativistic kinetic energy of rigid bodies
KE = gamma*m*c^2 - m*c^2

where TE is Total Energy and KE is Kinetic Energy.
The second expression can also be written as:

KE = TE - RE

where RE is Rest Energy or rest mass energy.

Total Energy can can also be found from this relationship:

TE = \sqrt{(gamma*m*v*c)^2+(m*c^2)^2} = \sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}

which can be written as:

TE = \sqrt{ME^2+RE^2}

where ME is Momentum Energy.

By rearranging this becomes :

RE = \sqrt{TE^2-ME^2}

Since rest energy is usually an invariant, the quantity \sqrt{TE^2-ME^2} is the same when switching from one reference frame to another. In fact, in a perfectly elastic collision, the quantity \sqrt{TE^2-ME^2} is the same for a given particle before and after the collision.

Hope that helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top