0
$\begingroup$

Should not the energy conservation physics equation be

$$ E= - mc^2 \text{ instead of } E= m c^2 $$

because energy appears simultaneously with mass disappearance in splitting as

$$ |\Delta E|= - |\Delta m| c^2? $$

Also what in Einstein's derivation dispenses with the factor $\frac12$ from the usual kinetic energy

$$ KE= \frac12 m v^2 ?$$

Sorry about the elementary question, it remained with me for longtime.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

About your first question:

$E= mc^2$ is not an equation that expresses energy conservation. It is an equation that relates the energy content of a physical object to its gravitating/inert mass. So for example, the equation says that, if you have a box filled with say some springs and a cold cup of tea and you open it, compress the springs and heat up the tea, adding some amount of energy $\Delta E$ to the system before closing the box again, then the mass of the box will increase by $\Delta E / c^2$ .

Concerning your second question:

The classical kinetic energy term arises from the relativistic energy as the leading term in the Taylor approximation that is valid for small momentum/velocity. The factor of 1/2 has its origin in the Taylor expansion of the square root. There are two ways to approach the problem. My preferred view is that the $m$ in your equation is the rest mass and the full relativistic energy momentum equation should be:

$$ E =\sqrt{m ^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2}$$

where $p$ is momentum.

There are also some heretical texts that introduce a so called "relativistic mass" $m$ which is $m = \gamma m_0$ where $m_0$ is the rest mass. In this sacrilegious notation, $E = m c^2$ is also valid outside of the rest frame of the object that you are studying and the kinetic energy term arises from a Taylor expansion of the $\gamma$ factor.

$\endgroup$

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.