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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between the kinetic energy formula \(E = \frac{1}{2} mv^2\) and Einstein's energy equation \(E = mc^2\). Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of both equations, their applications, and the conditions under which they are valid, particularly in relation to relativistic effects.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Einstein's equation represents total energy, while \(E = \frac{1}{2} mv^2\) pertains specifically to kinetic energy due to motion.
  • One participant notes that even at rest, mass has an equivalent energy that can be converted to energy in interactions with antimatter.
  • Another participant introduces the relativistic factor \(\gamma\) and explains that total energy for a moving object is given by \(E = \gamma mc^2\), where \(\gamma\) approaches infinity as velocity approaches the speed of light.
  • A proof is provided showing that the kinetic energy can be derived from the difference between total energy at rest and total energy in motion, leading to the conclusion that \(KE = (\gamma - 1)mc^2\).
  • One participant presents a mathematical approximation indicating that for low velocities, \(\frac{1}{2}mv^2\) is a good approximation of kinetic energy.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that \(\frac{1}{2}mv^2\) is the kinetic energy, stating that it is only an approximation valid for speeds that are a small fraction of the speed of light.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and interpretation of the kinetic energy formula in relation to relativistic physics. There is no consensus on whether \(\frac{1}{2}mv^2\) can be considered the kinetic energy in all contexts, as some argue it is only an approximation under specific conditions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the conditions under which the approximations hold, particularly regarding the speed of the object in question and the definitions of mass and energy in relativistic contexts.

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
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
816