Work & Kinetic Energy: Exploring E=mc^2

  • B
  • Thread starter learning_physica
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the relationship between work, kinetic energy, and Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2. It is explained that the equation does not equate work and kinetic energy, but rather the object's rest energy or total energy. The distinction between rest mass and total mass is also mentioned, with the former being the more accepted definition.
  • #1
learning_physica
6
0
Hey Everyone!

I hope all of y’all are having a great day so far! I take AP Physics 1 and I was just wondering (not homework related at all) why isn’t work also equal to Einstein’s famous equation? I know that that W=change in kinetic energy, but why can’t that also equal mc^2? I would really appreciate a response... this is my first time being here!

From,

Learning_physica
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you want to find the mass of a system, you have to take its total energy at rest (and vice versa). All types of energy inside the system contribute.
 
  • Like
Likes learning_physica
  • #3
mfb said:
If you want to find the mass of a system, you have to take its total energy at rest (and vice versa). All types of energy inside the system contribute.

Could you please explain that a little further if you don’t mind?
 
  • #4
If you do work on a system and increase its energy (e.g. heat it up) its mass does increase because E has increased so m must also. The effect is so tiny (1J gives around 10-17kg) that you can usually ignore it.
 
  • Like
Likes learning_physica
  • #5
Because of the title, I think it is worth noting that purely boosting the entire system does not change its mass. However, giving different oarts of the system kinetic energy while maintaining the overall momentum constant (in other words, heating - as stated in #4) will increase the mass.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #6
Orodruin said:
I think it is worth noting that purely boosting the entire system does not change its mass.
@learning_physica - you will find sources (mostly older ones, and pop sci sources that focus on "cool" over "helpful") disagreeing with this, saying that "relativistic mass" increases with velocity. Relativistic mass is a concept that has largely been dropped because it's enormously confusing. Both Orodruin and I are using mass in the modern sense, meaning what is sometimes called "rest mass" or "invariant mass".
 
Last edited:
  • #7
In relativity, total energy (rest energy plus kinetic energy) for a moving object is given by $$E=mc^2\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$
[Thank you, @Orodruin for the correction]

Where m is the object's mass. In modern treatments the term "mass" is used to refer to an objects's invariant mass, also known as its rest mass.

If you turn this formula into an Taylor series in v2, the first two terms are: ##mc^2## and ##\frac{1}{2}mv^2##

The object's rest energy is ##mc^2##.
The object's kinetic energy is ##\frac{1}{2}mv^2## plus other trailing terms that are negligible as long as v is small compared to the speed of light.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
jbriggs444 said:
$$E=mc^2\ \frac{1}{1-\sqrt{\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$
Correction
$$E=mc^2\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #9
learning_physica said:
I was just wondering (not homework related at all) why isn’t work also equal to Einstein’s famous equation? I know that that W=change in kinetic energy, but why can’t that also equal mc^2?

Because ##mc^2## is not equal to the change in kinetic energy.

Do you want ##mc^2## to equal the rest energy, which is the true expression of the Einstein mass-energy equivalence, or do you want it to equal the total energy? The former is the more acceptable choice, but the latter is also prevalent in some older books and in some popular science books. Either way, though, ##mc^2## is not equal to the change in kinetic energy.
 

1. What is the relationship between work and kinetic energy?

The relationship between work and kinetic energy is described by the work-energy theorem, which states that the net work done on an object is equal to the change in kinetic energy of that object.

2. How is kinetic energy calculated?

Kinetic energy (KE) is calculated using the formula KE = 1/2 * m * v^2, where m is the mass of the object and v is its velocity. This formula comes from the kinetic energy equation, E=mc^2, where c is the speed of light and m is the mass of the object.

3. What is the significance of the equation E=mc^2?

The equation E=mc^2 is significant because it shows the relationship between mass and energy. It states that mass and energy are equivalent, and can be converted into each other. This equation is a fundamental concept in the theory of relativity and has been proven through various experiments.

4. How does E=mc^2 relate to nuclear energy?

E=mc^2 plays a crucial role in understanding nuclear energy. It shows that a small amount of mass can release a large amount of energy. In nuclear reactions, a small fraction of the mass of an atom is converted into energy, which is why nuclear reactions release a tremendous amount of energy.

5. Can the equation E=mc^2 be applied to everyday situations?

Yes, the equation E=mc^2 can be applied to everyday situations. For example, the energy released by the sun is a result of mass being converted into energy according to this equation. It also explains the energy released from nuclear power plants and the energy consumption of our bodies. However, the effects of this equation may not be noticeable in daily life due to the large value of the speed of light (c).

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
124
Views
13K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
125
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
799
Back
Top