The simplest equation expressing mass–energy equivalence is the famous $E=mc^2$ where $c$ represents the speed of light. Compare this with $E_K = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$.

Since $E=mc^2$ can be applied to rest mass ($m_0$) and rest energy ($E_0$) to show their proportionality as $E_0=m_0c^2$, I ask whether this resemblance is just a coincidence created by the need of any equation to be homogeneous for units, or are the two equations fundamentally related?

I know about Mass-Energy Equivalency but I could not find the answer I'm looking for there.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know $E=mv^2$. There is only $E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$. $\endgroup$ – peterh May 12 '14 at 11:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ why is $E=mc^2$ infamous? $\endgroup$ – Antonio Ragagnin May 12 '14 at 12:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AntonioRagagnin $E=mc^2$ is infamous because laypeople believe $E=mc^2$ made the nuclear bomb possible. Even when one knows their physics, a connection between the two can't be denied... $\endgroup$ – hb20007 May 12 '14 at 12:40

In short, no, it is not a coincidence, they are related. Namely, you may derive the kinetic energy as the first order approximation to the relativistic energy.

We have,

$$ E_0 = mc^2 $$

as you say correctly. Then

$$ E = \gamma m c^2 = \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} m c^2 $$

or using a binomial expansion

$$ E \simeq \left( 1 + \frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2} + \dots \right) m c^2 \simeq mc^2 + \frac{1}{2} mv^2 $$

So subtacting the rest energy $E_0$ we get

$$ E_k = E - E_0 \simeq \left( mc^2 + \frac{1}{2} mv^2 \right) - \left( mc^2 \right) = \frac{1}{2} m v^2$$

Note that we can of course only use this expansion when $v \ll c$. This makes sense, because that is exactly the case in Newtonian mechanics, which is where we use the more familiar kinetic energy formula.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Two simultaneous identical answers in two days, @Flint72! But this time it was I who included a link! +1 anyway :-) $\endgroup$ – rob May 12 '14 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ @rob: Ya, I was meaning to link to this page on the derivation in wikipedia, though it's a little messy. $\endgroup$ – Flint72 May 12 '14 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, you are the same 2 guys from physics.stackexchange.com/q/112028 $\endgroup$ – hb20007 May 12 '14 at 12:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ahh... two great answer posted in the exact same minute:S. I'm picking this one as 'best answer' because the derivation is a bit more straightforward. $\endgroup$ – hb20007 May 12 '14 at 12:54

Every relationship between mass and energy will contain two factors of velocity, for dimensional consistency.

In special relativity we have the more exact relationship $$ E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4 $$ where the momentum $p$ is $$ p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}. $$ You can do a little algebra to show that the total energy is always $$ E = \frac{ mc^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}. $$

In mathematics we have a tool called the "binomial theorem," which tells us that $$ (1+\epsilon)^n = 1 + n\epsilon + \frac{n(n-1)}{2!}\epsilon^2 + \cdots $$ This expression turns out to hold even if the power $n$ is not a positive integer! If $\epsilon\ll1$, we also have the luxury of being able to throw away the higher powers. For small speeds, then, the Einstein equation becomes $$ E = \frac{ mc^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} = mc^2 + mc^2 \cdot \frac{-1}{2}\frac{-v^2}{c^2} + mc^2 \cdot\mathcal O\left( (v/c)^4 \right) $$ which is clearly the rest energy, the classical kinetic energy, and a relativistic correction that becomes large when $v\approx c$.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Great minds, eh? $\endgroup$ – Flint72 May 12 '14 at 12:06

protected by Qmechanic Aug 9 '14 at 17:41

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.