Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [8 Posts]
Author Message
Peter Christensen
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 130

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy)

Bilge skrev:

 Quote: Peter Christensen: Can it be done within SR, or do I have to use GR? I mean, is it possible to describe the force acting on the object with a force 4-vector or something like this? I'm just thinking about a static electric potential, for example. Yes, you can write a four-vector version of the lorentz-force, F = (qE + v x B). It's given in terms of the faraday tensor: dp^u / d\tau = q F^uv U_v where, p^u is the four-momentum, \tau is the proper time, U_v is the four-velocity, and F^uv = d^u A^v - d^v A^u is the faraday tensor. I didn't know that you were familir with four-vectors, so I left out another detail in my previous reply. The electro- magnetic field, A^u, has only two degrees of freedom and so two of the four components are redundant and correspond to the gauge freedom of the field. In order to transform the field properly, you must perform both a lorentz transform _and_ a gauge transform to remove the additional degrees of freedom. Hence, a lorentz transform is not enough.

It's a bit strange (maybe), that I can't use the Lagrangian or the
Hamiltonian, because they are defined by kinetic energy (T) and
potential energy (V):

H = T + V
L = T - V

But I understand, that that's just how it is...

PC
Peter Christensen
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 130

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:51 am    Post subject: Re: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy)

Thanks for the long and thorough reply. I understand, that both the concepts
kinetic energy and potential energy are not very usefull when dealing with
the relativictic model. -The correct one.

I was just trying to study an experiment with a pendulum, in either a
gravitational or an electric field. I assume, that I must just use an
applied force, and not try to define potential and kinetic energies. (I
knew, that 'kinetic energy' isn't used in relativity.)

It turned out to be much more complicated, than I thought.

Rgds,
PC

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
 Quote: "Peter Christensen" wrote in message news:44a91e44$0$15783$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... I tried two different ways to include a potential energy (E_pot) in the total energy: 1) E = gamma*(m_0+E_pot/c^2)*c^2 = gamma*m_0*c^2 + gamma*E_pot 2) E = gamma*m_0*c^2 + E_pot I believe that number one is correct. The additional energy must be included in the mass: m = m_0 + E_pot/c^2. The problem is, that in many cases this will make the mass depend on other parameters, like for example time and position. Is this correct? No, this is not correct under the concept of GR. In the concept of spacetime which GR is just a special case, we have the following spacetime ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j Where q^0 = c dt, q^1 = x, q^2 = y, q^3 = z Dividing both sides by ds^2, the Lagrangian dealing with the geodesics is L = g_ij (dq^i/ds) (dq^j/ds) = 1 For the state variable q^0 (time), the associated Euler-Lagrange Equation is d[2 g_0i (dq^i/ds)]/ds = 0 Perform the very simple integration, you get g_0i (dq^i/ds) = k Where k = the integration constant By multiplying both sides with (ds/dq^0), the above equation becomes ds/dq^0 = g_0i (dq^i/dq^0) / k Now, the spacetime in general of the very first equation can also be arranged as follows after dividing both sides by (g_00 (dq^0)^2). In which, we have (ds/dq^0)^2 / g_00 = (g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) (dq^j/dq^0) Merging the two immediate equations above, we get (g_0i (dq^i/dq^0))^2 / g_00 = k^2 (g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) (dq^j/dq^0) After simple re-arranging the equation above, we get k^2 = ((g_0i (dq^i/dq^0))^2 / g_00) / ((g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) (dq^j/dq^0)) The equation above has i, j go from 0 to 3. Writing them as from 1 to 3, we get k = (g_0i (dq^i/dq^0)) sqrt(g_00 / (1 + 2 (g_0i / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) + (g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) (dq^j/dq^0))) If we have ** k = E / (m c^2) ** g_ij = diagonal metric where g_ij = 1 if i = j, g_ij = 0 if i <> j We get the following energy equation in general. E = m c^2 sqrt(g_00 / (1 + (g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0)^2)) Using Schwarzschild metric which is a special case to GR and GR being a special case to the concept of spacetime in general, we have ** g_00 = 1 - 2 U ** g_11 = 1 / (1 - 2 U) ** g_22 = r^2 cos(F) ** g_33 = r^2 ** q^1 = r = altitude from center of M ** q^2 = H = longitude ** q^3 = F = lattitude ** U = G M / r / c^2 The energy equation becomes E = m c^2 sqrt((1 - 2 U) / (1 - B^2)), where ** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 cos^2(F) (dH/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U) + r^2 (dF/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U) Under very weak graviational field and very low speed, we have ** 1 >> 2 U ** 1 >> B^2 The energy equation becomes E = m c^2 - m U c^2 + m B^2 c^2 / 2 You understand ** m c^2 = energy of rest mass ** m U c^2 = G M m / r = - potential energy ** m B^2 c^2 / 2 = m v^2 / 2 = kinetic energy So, under the concept of GR, there is no such thing as kinetic energy or potential energy. The general case of spacetime also demands the conservation of energy. Since GR is just a special case to the general concept of spacetime, energy must also be conserved. GR has been misinterpreted for almost 100 years. If it can be misinterpreted, how about the foundation that builds up GR? It is faulty right from the very basis. Bilge science forum Guru Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 2816 Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:54 am Post subject: Re: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy) Peter Christensen:  Quote: Can it be done within SR, or do I have to use GR? I mean, is it possible to describe the force acting on the object with a force 4-vector or something like this? I'm just thinking about a static electric potential, for example. Yes, you can write a four-vector version of the lorentz-force, F = (qE + v x B). It's given in terms of the faraday tensor: dp^u / d\tau = q F^uv U_v where, p^u is the four-momentum, \tau is the proper time, U_v is the four-velocity, and F^uv = d^u A^v - d^v A^u is the faraday tensor. I didn't know that you were familir with four-vectors, so I left out another detail in my previous reply. The electro- magnetic field, A^u, has only two degrees of freedom and so two of the four components are redundant and correspond to the gauge freedom of the field. In order to transform the field properly, you must perform both a lorentz transform _and_ a gauge transform to remove the additional degrees of freedom. Hence, a lorentz transform is not enough. Peter Christensen science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 130 Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy) "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> skrev i en meddelelse news:slrnean0eh.7r.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...  Quote: Peter Christensen: I tried two different ways to include a potential energy (E_pot) in the total energy: 1) E = gamma*(m_0+E_pot/c^2)*c^2 = gamma*m_0*c^2 + gamma*E_pot 2) E = gamma*m_0*c^2 + E_pot I believe that number one is correct. Neither is correct. Potential energy is inherently a non-relativistic concept, introduced out of neccessity in newtonian mechanics in order to explain'' forces. In relativity, one must deal directly with the fundamental interactions. In order to utilize a potential energy in relativistic phenomena, one must choose a frame and make a non-relativistic reduction in that frame. The problem is that a potential energy function only contain part of the interaction. For example, the coulomb potential energy is given by e\phi = e^2/r, whereas the fully relativistic coulomb interaction contains the vector potential and electromagnetic current density as well: e\phi + J.A. One can _reduce_ this to a non-relativistic coulomb potential energy provided one accepts certain limitations on the validity of the result. However, simply transforming the potential energy does not give the correct interaction in a different frame. Thanks for the reply. Can it be done within SR, or do I have to use GR? I mean, is it possible to describe the force acting on the object with a force 4-vector or something like this? I'm just thinking about a static electric potential, for example. PC Bilge science forum Guru Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 2816 Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: Re: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy) Peter Christensen:  Quote: I tried two different ways to include a potential energy (E_pot) in the total energy: 1) E = gamma*(m_0+E_pot/c^2)*c^2 = gamma*m_0*c^2 + gamma*E_pot 2) E = gamma*m_0*c^2 + E_pot I believe that number one is correct. Neither is correct. Potential energy is inherently a non-relativistic concept, introduced out of neccessity in newtonian mechanics in order to explain'' forces. In relativity, one must deal directly with the fundamental interactions. In order to utilize a potential energy in relativistic phenomena, one must choose a frame and make a non-relativistic reduction in that frame. The problem is that a potential energy function only contain part of the interaction. For example, the coulomb potential energy is given by e\phi = e^2/r, whereas the fully relativistic coulomb interaction contains the vector potential and electromagnetic current density as well: e\phi + J.A. One can _reduce_ this to a non-relativistic coulomb potential energy provided one accepts certain limitations on the validity of the result. However, simply transforming the potential energy does not give the correct interaction in a different frame. koobee.wublee@gmail.com science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 01 Feb 2006 Posts: 141 Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: Re: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy) "Peter Christensen" <PeCh@MailAPS.org> wrote in message news:44a91e44$0$15783$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
 Quote: I tried two different ways to include a potential energy (E_pot) in the total energy: 1) E = gamma*(m_0+E_pot/c^2)*c^2 = gamma*m_0*c^2 + gamma*E_pot 2) E = gamma*m_0*c^2 + E_pot I believe that number one is correct. The additional energy must be included in the mass: m = m_0 + E_pot/c^2. The problem is, that in many cases this will make the mass depend on other parameters, like for example time and position. Is this correct?

No, this is not correct under the concept of GR. In the concept of
spacetime which GR is just a special case, we have the following
spacetime

ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j

Where q^0 = c dt, q^1 = x, q^2 = y, q^3 = z

Dividing both sides by ds^2, the Lagrangian dealing with the geodesics
is

L = g_ij (dq^i/ds) (dq^j/ds) = 1

For the state variable q^0 (time), the associated Euler-Lagrange
Equation is

d[2 g_0i (dq^i/ds)]/ds = 0

Perform the very simple integration, you get

g_0i (dq^i/ds) = k

Where k = the integration constant

By multiplying both sides with (ds/dq^0), the above equation becomes

ds/dq^0 = g_0i (dq^i/dq^0) / k

Now, the spacetime in general of the very first equation can also be
arranged as follows after dividing both sides by (g_00 (dq^0)^2). In
which,
we have

(ds/dq^0)^2 / g_00 = (g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) (dq^j/dq^0)

Merging the two immediate equations above, we get

(g_0i (dq^i/dq^0))^2 / g_00 = k^2 (g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) (dq^j/dq^0)

After simple re-arranging the equation above, we get

k^2 = ((g_0i (dq^i/dq^0))^2 / g_00) / ((g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0)
(dq^j/dq^0))

The equation above has i, j go from 0 to 3. Writing them as from 1 to
3, we
get

k = (g_0i (dq^i/dq^0)) sqrt(g_00 / (1 + 2 (g_0i / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) +
(g_ij
/ g_00) (dq^i/dq^0) (dq^j/dq^0)))

If we have

** k = E / (m c^2)
** g_ij = diagonal metric where g_ij = 1 if i = j, g_ij = 0 if i <> j

We get the following energy equation in general.

E = m c^2 sqrt(g_00 / (1 + (g_ij / g_00) (dq^i/dq^0)^2))

Using Schwarzschild metric which is a special case to GR and GR being a

special case to the concept of spacetime in general, we have

** g_00 = 1 - 2 U
** g_11 = 1 / (1 - 2 U)
** g_22 = r^2 cos(F)
** g_33 = r^2
** q^1 = r = altitude from center of M
** q^2 = H = longitude
** q^3 = F = lattitude
** U = G M / r / c^2

The energy equation becomes

E = m c^2 sqrt((1 - 2 U) / (1 - B^2)), where

** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 cos^2(F) (dH/dt)^2 / (1 - 2
U) + r^2 (dF/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)

Under very weak graviational field and very low speed, we have

** 1 >> 2 U
** 1 >> B^2

The energy equation becomes

E = m c^2 - m U c^2 + m B^2 c^2 / 2

You understand

** m c^2 = energy of rest mass
** m U c^2 = G M m / r = - potential energy
** m B^2 c^2 / 2 = m v^2 / 2 = kinetic energy

So, under the concept of GR, there is no such thing as kinetic energy
or potential energy. The general case of spacetime also demands the
conservation of energy. Since GR is just a special case to the general
concept of spacetime, energy must also be conserved. GR has been
misinterpreted for almost 100 years. If it can be misinterpreted, how
about the foundation that builds up GR? It is faulty right from the
very basis.
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy)

Peter Christensen wrote:
 Quote: I tried two different ways to include a potential energy (E_pot) in the total energy: 1) E = gamma*(m_0+E_pot/c^2)*c^2 = gamma*m_0*c^2 + gamma*E_pot 2) E = gamma*m_0*c^2 + E_pot I believe that number one is correct. The additional energy must be included in the mass: m = m_0 + E_pot/c^2. The problem is, that in many cases this will make the mass depend on other parameters, like for example time and position. Is this correct?

No. For example potential energy may have nothing to do with mass.
(Electrostatic potential energy, for example.) So there is no reason to
assume that gamma should apply to it.

There are a *bunch* of contributions to energy:
E = rest energy + linear kinetic energy + rotational kinetic energy +
thermal energy + potential energy + ....

PD
Peter Christensen
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 130

 Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:40 pm    Post subject: Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy) I tried two different ways to include a potential energy (E_pot) in the total energy: 1) E = gamma*(m_0+E_pot/c^2)*c^2 = gamma*m_0*c^2 + gamma*E_pot 2) E = gamma*m_0*c^2 + E_pot I believe that number one is correct. The additional energy must be included in the mass: m = m_0 + E_pot/c^2. The problem is, that in many cases this will make the mass depend on other parameters, like for example time and position. Is this correct? PC __________________________________ Worth to remember: ( In your own frame things are greatest (Length Contraction) and fastest (Time Dilation)...

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [8 Posts]
 The time now is Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:28 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Energy (not pollution) and global warming. PETER1929@TISCALI.CO.UK New Theories 3 Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:38 pm How the public could understand dark energy? gb6724 New Theories 10 Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:55 pm derivation of relativistic kinetic energy castertroy14@hotmail.com1 Math 2 Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:22 am derivation of kinetic energy castertroy14@hotmail.com1 Relativity 8 Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:19 am Study of gravity, dark energy and black holes gb7648 New Theories 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:48 pm