The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
Is measured energy relative to the observer?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Is measured energy relative to the observer?
2 Replies
4690 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kryptid
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
8082
Activity:
1%
Thanked: 514 times
Is measured energy relative to the observer?
«
on:
19/04/2011 05:24:28 »
For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine that the entire Universe is empty except for two objects: Spaceship A and Spaceship B. Spaceship A (including crew, cargo, etc.) has a mass of 10,000 kilograms. Spaceship B is much heavier, at 1,000,000 kilograms.
The crew on Spaceship A are standing still, relative to their own observations. Then they see Spaceship B fly by at 1,000 meters per second. They then attempt to calculate the total energy content of the Universe.
First, they calculate the kinetic energy of Spaceship B:
KE
Spaceship B
= (1/2)mv
2
KE
Spaceship B
= (1/2)(1,000,000 kg)(1,000 m/s)
2
KE
Spaceship B
= 500,000,000,000 joules
Their own kinetic energy is 0, since they perceive themselves as sitting still.
Then they calculate the energy-mass equivalents of their spaceships:
E
Spaceship A
= MC
2
E
Spaceship A
= (10,000 kg)(299,792,458 m/s)
2
E
Spaceship A
= 898,755,178,736,817,640,000 joules
E
Spaceship B
= MC
2
E
Spaceship B
= (1,000,000 kg)(299,792,458 m/s)
2
E
Spaceship B
= 89,875,517,873,681,764,000,000 joules
The total energy of Spaceship B is it's resting mass plus it's kinetic energy:
500,000,000 J + 89,875,517,873,681,764,000,000 J = 89,875,517,873,682,264,000,000 J
The total energy in the Universe is the addition of Spaceship A and Spaceship B:
89,875,517,873,682,264,000,000 J + 898,755,178,736,817,640,000 J =
90,774,273,052,419,081,640,000 J
.
-----
On Spaceship B, however, they think
they
are the ones who are standing still; they see Spaceship A go by at 1,000 m/s. They calculate Spaceship A's kinetic energy as:
KE
Spaceship A
= (1/2)mv
2
KE
Spaceship A
= (1/2)(10,000 kg)(1,000 m/s)
2
KE
Spaceship A
= 5,000,000,000 joules
Add it to the rest mass of Spaceship A and you get a total of 898,755,178,741,817,640,000 joules. Add this to the rest mass of Spaceship B (which has no kinetic energy from their own point of view) and you get
90,774,273,052,423,581,640,000 J
.
But...90,774,273,052,419,081,640,000 J ≠ 90,774,273,052,423,581,640,000!
Are we to infer that the energy content of a system can be different relative to the observer? Does this not violate the first law of thermodynamics?
«
Last Edit: 19/04/2011 22:10:02 by Supercryptid
»
Logged
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Re: Is measured energy relative to the observer?
«
Reply #1 on:
19/04/2011 08:39:04 »
If A and B are truly the only two objects in the universe they cannot know that they are standing still because there is absolutely nothing to measure their velocity against other than the the other spaceship so the result is the sum of the relative kinetic energies of both ships. That is what relativity really means. This concept has nothing to do with Einstein but goes right back to Galileo.
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Kryptid
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
8082
Activity:
1%
Thanked: 514 times
Re: Is measured energy relative to the observer?
«
Reply #2 on:
19/04/2011 22:07:33 »
Right, but I thought that any reference frame is just as valid as any other reference frame? Which would mean that assuming you are still and everything else is moving past you is just as valid as thinking everything else is standing still and you are moving?
Logged
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...