Can one explain the relativistic energy transformation formula: E=gamma E′, where the primed frame has a velocity v relative to the unprimed frame, in terms of relativistic time dilation and the quantum relation E=hν?

enmobladatn 2022-07-16 Answered
Can one explain the relativistic energy transformation formula:
E = γ   E ,
where the primed frame has a velocity v relative to the unprimed frame, in terms of relativistic time dilation and the quantum relation E = h ν?
Imagine a pair of observers, A and B, initially at rest, each with an identical quantum system with oscillation period T.
Now A stays at rest whereas B is boosted to velocity 𝑣.
Just as in the "twin paradox" the two observers are no longer identical: B has experienced a boost whereas A has not. Both observers should agree on the fact that B has more energy than A.
From A's perspective B has extra kinetic energy by virtue of his velocity v. Relativistically A should use the energy transformation formula above.
But we should also be able to argue that B has more energy from B's perspective as well.
From B's perspective he is stationary and A has velocity v. Therefore, due to relativistic time dilation, B sees A's oscillation period T increased to γ   T.
Thus B finds that his quantum oscillator will perform a factor of γ   T / T = γ more oscillations in the same period as A's quantum system.
Thus B sees that the frequency of his quantum system has increased by a factor of γ over the frequency of A's system.
As we have the quantum relation, E = h ν, this implies that B observes that the energy of his quantum system is a factor of γ larger than the energy of A's stationary system.
Thus observer B too, using his frame of reference, can confirm that his system has more energy than observer A's system.
Is this reasoning correct?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Bradley Sherman
Answered 2022-07-17 Author has 17 answers
No, your reasoning is not correct. As is indicated by the relativistic transformation of energy, energy is completely relative. There is no absolute measurement of energy, and therefor observers A and B will not agree that B is more energetic. B is only more energetic from the standpoint of A, which is the standpoint you chose to analyse the problem. (You can see this relativity of energy in real live through the relativistic Doppler Effect.) Furthermore, the analogy with the twin paradox fails because the solution to the twin paradox was the deaccaleration of the travelling twin when encountering the distant star, this deacceleration invalidated the reference frame of the travelling twin. In your question, there is no such invalidation, and therefor both observers will be correct, even though they draw diffeerent conclusions. Finally you seem to use time dilation to argue about B from the perspective of B. You cannot do this, since B cannot measure his own velocity or experience his own time dillation. Time dillation can only B used to argue about the observations of others. However, even though your reasoning is partially flawed, it is possible to derive the lorentz transformation for energy using time dilation and E = h ν.
Let's look at this from a different perspective:
Imagine a pair of observers A and B, moving relative to each other with a velocity v, each observing their own oscillation period as T A = T B = T. This must be true because the only thing differentiating observers A and B is their relative velocity, and neither observer can observe his own velocity.
Observer A will now argue that observer B will see time pass more slowly (by a factor γ). Therefor observer B will measure the oscillation period of observer A as T A = T / γ. This will lead him to conclude that E A = h ν A = h 1 T A = h γ T = γ h 1 / ν = γ E. Which is exactly the lorentz transformation for energy. However, it is very important to realize that observer B can use the exact same reasoning to conclude that A must measure a higher energy for B; E B = . . . = γ EIn other words, both observers will measure a higher energy for the other observer, and both will argue that the other observer will measure their own energy to be higher. And all of this is perfectly valid.
Of course, the situation is completely different if you introduce an actualy force that causes B to accelarate. In this case work is being done and B will measure his own period to be different from T.

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-04-07
While the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant (c), the speed at which light propagates in other materials/mediums may be less than c. This is obviously suggested by the fact that different materials (especially in the case of transparent ones) have a particular refractive index.
But surely, matter or even photons can be accelerated beyond this speed in a medium?
asked 2022-05-02
A Newtonian homogeneous density sphere has gravitational binding energy in Joules U = ( 3 / 5 ) ( G M 2 ) / r, G=Newton's constant, M=gravitational mass, r=radius, mks. The fraction of binding energy to gravitational mass equivalent, U / M c 2 , is then (-885.975 meters)(Ms/r), Ms = solar masses of body, c=lightspeed.
This gives ratios that are less than half that quoted for pulsars (neutron stars), presumably for density gradient surface to core and General Relativity effects (e.g., billion surface gees). Please post a more accurate formula acounting for the real world effects.
Examples: 1.74 solar-mass 465.1 Hz pulsar PSR J1903+0327, nominal radius 11,340 meters (AP4 model), calculates as 13.6% and is reported as 27%. A 2 sol neutron star calculates as 16.1% and is reported as 50%. There is an obvious nonlinearity.
asked 2022-05-17
Chosing a reference frame in which the Earth is at rest and doesn't rotate
1) Does anybody know of such a publication?
2) I know that even such speeds of 10 18 m/s are not in contradiction with relativity because a limiting velocity only exists for exchange of information, which apparantly does not occur.
asked 2022-07-13
It is experimentally known that the equation of motion for a charge e moving in a static electric field E is given by:
d d t ( γ m v ) = e E
Is it possible to show this using just Newton's laws of motion for the proper frame of e, symmetry arguments, the Lorentz transformations and other additional principles?
asked 2022-08-18
How to write F μ ν F μ ν in terms of F μ ν F μ ν . How to do it?
asked 2022-08-11
Manipulating an n × n metric where n is often > 4, depending on the model. The 00 component is always τ*constant, as in the Minkowski metric, but the signs on all components might be + or , depending on the model. Can I call this metric a Minkowski metric? Or what should I call it?
asked 2022-07-21
Relativistic Lagrangian transformations, it's   L = m c 2 1 | u | 2 c 2 2 I need to study the translation, boost and rotation symmetry. I say it doesn't depend of the position, so it has translation symmetry and the momentum will conserve. It's rotation invariant because depends only of the modulus of the speed | u | (What is the conserved quantity derived by this symmetry?)

New questions