Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

Like Tree10Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 13th 2017, 12:54 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 83
E=mc2 gives us potential energy.

E=mc2+1/2 mv2

If we interpret this formula then as we know E= potential energy + kinetic energy. 1/2 mv2 gives us kinetic energy. So mc2 must be potential energy if the formula is correct.

Is this right?
avito009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13th 2017, 02:13 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 684
No, relativistic energy is not potential energy, you need a potential field for that.

look here

Relativistic Energy

Edit

You need to understand that potential energy is not related to the motion (or velocity) of a body.

A body may be moving at constant velocity but its potential energy may be changing (or may not)

Or it may not be moving at constant velocity (ie acelerating), yet its potential energy may or may not be changing.

So the short answer is that any expression energy as a function of velocity will not be potential energy.

Note that it may not (all) be kinetic energy either.

The reference I gave shows that energy due to relativistic motion manifests itself as mass.
topsquark likes this.

Last edited by studiot; Oct 13th 2017 at 05:06 AM.
studiot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22nd 2017, 02:02 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 83
For the layman.

I think I understand now, so this is for the layman:

Observe E=mc2. Here c is the velocity of light. So if it is velocity we know that if an object has kinetic energy it has velocity. So if the equation E=mc2 was potential energy then c2 would not have been a part of the equation.

In a formula of potential energy we would not see velocity since potential energy means object is at rest.
avito009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22nd 2017, 07:02 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 115
In a way 1/2 mc2 could be called potential energy , it's the energy contained in the mass , the mass has the potential/ability/possibility of releasing it ....

I've never understood the form of this E=1/2 m c2 equation .... why does it mimic so closely the kinetic energy equation???... 1/2m v2

Why does the speed of light appear in this equation ....
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22nd 2017, 07:17 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by avito009 View Post
I think I understand now, so this is for the layman:

Observe E=mc2. Here c is the velocity of light. So if it is velocity we know that if an object has kinetic energy it has velocity. So if the equation E=mc2 was potential energy then c2 would not have been a part of the equation.

In a formula of potential energy we would not see velocity since potential energy means object is at rest.
No, as studiot said before, an object may be moving or not moving and have potential energy. An object sitting at the top of a hill, not moving relative to the hill) has more kinetic energy than the same object, sitting at the bottom of the hill, not moving. And an object moving on a horizontal plane, at any speed has the same potential energy at that same object sitting still on that plane.
HallsofIvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22nd 2017, 11:51 AM   #6
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
I've never understood the form of this E=1/2 m c2 equation .... why does it mimic so closely the kinetic energy equation???... 1/2m v2
First off you have written the total energy wrong. The 1/2 is not there.

You might be interested in a thread I just responded to, here.

-Dan
oz93666 likes this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22nd 2017, 07:58 PM   #7
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,181
Originally Posted by avito009 View Post
E=mc2+1/2 mv2
That expression is incorrect since mv^2/2 is not the kinetic energy of a object moving at speeds comparable to the speed of light. The correct expression is

K = m_0 c^2(g - 1) where g = Lorentz factor. The derivation is on my website here: Work-Energy Theorem

Originally Posted by avito009 View Post
If we interpret this formula then as we know E= potential energy + kinetic energy. 1/2 mv2 gives us kinetic energy. So mc2 must be potential energy if the formula is correct.

Is this right?
Not in general. However there are instances when it is correct. E.g. some of the energy that the nucleus of an atom has comes from electrical potential energy. Another example is that of a compressed spring. If you compress a spring then it has more potential energy. There is an increase in that mass of the spring as a result.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22nd 2017, 09:43 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
First off you have written the total energy wrong. The 1/2 is not there.
Silly me ...how could I make such a mistake ....

Thanks for that link , but what I'm looking for is an explanation in simple english .... no formulas ...

Why does the speed of light occur (squared) in the equation equating matter to energy ???
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22nd 2017, 10:01 PM   #9
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Silly me ...how could I make such a mistake ....

Thanks for that link , but what I'm looking for is an explanation in simple english .... no formulas ...

Why does the speed of light occur (squared) in the equation equating matter to energy ???
In SR time is viewed a bit differently than in Classical Physics. As time and distance are fundamentally related to each other we need a way to put time on the same footing as a distance...we need a conversion factor between the two. This factor is the speed of light: c. (ie. ct has units of distance.) Why that conversion factor is c requires some knowledge of the Lorentz transformations. I'm sorry, this tells you very little but I don't know how else to explain it without going into the Math.

If it helps, the system of units that most Relativists and Particle Physicists use sets c = 1 so the equations don't directly use it. (This forces the speed to have the domain $\displaystyle 0 \leq v < 1$.)

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23rd 2017, 09:21 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 115
Energy stored in a capacitor = 1/2 C V squared

Energy stored in an inductor = 1/2 L I squared

Energy stored moving mass = 1/2 m v squared

Energy stored in a stationary mass = m c squared

????
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Tags
emc2, energy, potential



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Potential energy Justusphung Energy and Work 4 May 5th 2016 12:50 AM
about potential energy ohm Energy and Work 9 Apr 8th 2010 03:51 PM
Is the increase in kinetic energy equal to the decrease in potential energy? s3a Energy and Work 1 May 28th 2009 07:02 PM
Electric Potential Energy and electric potential Problem Rainy2Day Advanced Electricity and Magnetism 0 Feb 9th 2009 04:10 PM
potential energy JOHNH Advanced Mechanics 3 Nov 19th 2008 05:16 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed