Why E=mc^2 is different from E=1/2 mv^2?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between Einstein's energy equation E=mc² and the kinetic energy formula KE=½mv². Einstein's equation accounts for total energy, including rest mass energy, while KE represents energy due to motion. The total energy for a moving object is expressed as E=γmc², where γ is the relativistic factor. For low velocities, the approximation KE=½mv² holds true, demonstrating that this formula is valid only when speeds are significantly less than the speed of light.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with the concept of rest mass
  • Basic knowledge of calculus and approximations
  • Awareness of relativistic factors and their implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the relativistic factor γ in detail
  • Explore the implications of mass-energy equivalence in particle physics
  • Learn about the limitations of classical mechanics at relativistic speeds
  • Investigate advanced topics in kinetic energy and relativistic dynamics
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in the fundamentals of energy equations and their applications in both classical and modern physics.

sush
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Why kinetic energy is ½ m v2? Why it is different from Einstein’s equation for Energy E= m c2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, Einstein's equation is for the total energy, while ##(1/2)mv^2## is the part of the energy just due to motion. Even when something is at rest, its mass is equivalent to energy, and in fact could be converted completely to energy if it came into contact with an equal amount of antimatter.

I prefer the notation and the language that "mass" refers to the invariant "rest mass". So when something is moving, its total energy is written as ##E = \gamma mc^2## where ##\gamma## is the relativistic factor ##1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}## which is 1 when ##v=0## and approaches infinity as v approaches the speed of light.

That means that according to Einstein, the kinetic energy is the difference between total energy when moving and total energy when not moving.
$$KE = \gamma mc^2 - mc^2 = (\gamma - 1)mc^2$$.
It turns out that when v is small, then ##(1/2)mv^2## is a very good approximation to that. I'll post a followup with that proof.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sush
Here's the proof.

##\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} = [1-(v/c)^2]^{-(1/2)}##.

It can be shown with calculus that when ##\epsilon## is a small number, which we write as ##\epsilon \ll 1## or "##\epsilon## is much less than 1" then a good approximation to ##(1 - \epsilon)^n## is ##1 - n \epsilon##.

We have ##\epsilon = (v/c)## and ##n = -0.5##. So when ##(v/c) \ll 1##, ##\gamma## is approximately ##1 - (-0.5)(v/c)^2## or ##1 + 0.5(v/c)^2##, to a very good approximation.

How good? Let's say you're moving at 1/10 of the speed of light, ##(v/c)^2 = 0.01##. Then the exact value of ##\gamma## is 1.0050387... while the approximation gives ##1 + 0.5*0.01 = 1.005##. And the smaller v is, the better the approximation.

So ##(\gamma - 1)## is approximately ##1 + 0.5(v/c)^2 - 1 = 0.5v^2/c^2## and

##KE = (\gamma - 1)mc^2 = (0.5v^2/c^2)* mc^2 = 0.5mv^2##. To "very good approximation", for low velocities.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sush
sush said:
Why kinetic energy is ½ m v2?

It's not! ##\frac{1}{2}mv^2## is approximately equal to the kinetic energy, but that approximation is valid only for speeds that are a small fraction of the speed of light.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
378
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K