1
$\begingroup$

In the relativistic mass equation $$m=\frac{m_0}{(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}},$$ if we put $v\ll c$ we get the rest mass. Likewise, in the equation $$v=\frac{{v_1}-{v_2}}{{{(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2})}}},$$ if we put $v_1\ll c$, we get the classical limit. Same for the relativistic momentum $$p=\frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}},$$ we retain our classical limit.

But when we put $v\ll c$ in the equation $$KE=m_0c^2(\gamma-1)$$ with $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor, $\gamma=1/(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}$, when we put $v<<c$ we get zero.

Furthermore, when I equate $$\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}=m_0c^2(\gamma-1)$$ to see what could be the velocity limit for which the relativistic kinetic energy approaches the classical limit, I get a biquadratic equation in $\beta$ (where $\beta=\frac{v}{c})$.
On solving it, I get no real solution.

Then what is the limit so that the relativistic kinetic energy can tend to the classical kinetic energy? Also, where did I go wrong in my calculations?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think the second equation has a square root. $\endgroup$ – Andrei Geanta Jul 2 '18 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreiGeanta Sorry and Thank you so much for pointing that out! $\endgroup$ – Man_57 Jul 2 '18 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ @AndersSandberg gives a great answer. The issue is that in your work you are (accidentally) taking the limit as $v$ goes to $0$ instead of looking at when $v<<c$. You need the series expansion like in the below answer already provided to look at when $v<<c$ correctly $\endgroup$ – Aaron Stevens Jul 2 '18 at 17:17
3
$\begingroup$

The trick is to use a series expansion. $$\gamma = 1 + (1/2)\beta^2 + (3/8)\beta^4 + (5/16)\beta^6 + \ldots$$ where $\beta=v/c$. So if we use the first two terms:$$K.E=m_0c^2(\gamma -1) \approx m_0 c^2 (1/2) (v/c)^2 = (1/2)m_0v^2.$$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a great, correct answer. To add to what the OP was confused about, looking at when $v<<c$ is not the same thing as taking the limit as $v$ goes to $0$. In some situations we get the same answer either way, but as we can see in this answer it is not always the same. Taking the limit as $v$ goes to $0$ always results in $\gamma$ approaching $1$. However saying $v<<c$ is much different, and depends on how "much less" we want $v$ to be compared to $c$. This is when you use the series expansion above to get $\gamma$ to whatever accuracy you desire in this "limit". $\endgroup$ – Aaron Stevens Jul 2 '18 at 17:15
0
$\begingroup$

In the first cases you took the correct limit $v \ll c$ on the whole expressions. In the last case you took the limit only in the $\gamma$ factor, when you would take the limit on the whole expression $m_0c^2 (\gamma -1)$, because the $c^2$ in the $m_0c^2$ cancels $c^2$ terms in $\gamma$.

Thus, using the series expansion given by Anders Sandberg we obtain

$$KE= \frac{1}{2} m_0 v^2 + \frac{3}{8} m_0 \frac{v^4}{c^2} + \frac{5}{16} m_0 \frac{v^6}{c^4} + \mathcal{O}({v^8}/{c^6})$$

and taking the limit on the whole expression for $KE$ gives the expected answer

$$ \lim_{v \ll c} KE = m_0 (1/2)v^2$$

Also the equation $({1}/{2})mv^{2}=m_0c^2(\gamma-1)$ has a real solution: $v=0$. This is correct because the relativistic and nonrelativistic energies coincide only for objects at rest

enter image description here

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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