Class Notes for Modern Physics

Chapter 1 Relativity Chapter 2 Particle and Wave Properties of Particles

1 Special Relativity 2.1 Electromagnetic Waves, Blackbody Radiation And Photoelectric Effect
1. 2 Time Dilation 2.4 What Is Light?, X-Rays And X-Ray Diffraction
1.3 Doppler Effect 2.7 Compton Effect, Pair Production And Photons and Gravity
1.7 Relativistic Momentum 2. 10 De Broglie Waves, Waves of What? And Describing a Wave
1.8 Mass and Energy 2. 13 Phase and Group Velocities, Particle Diffraction and Particle in a Box
1.9 Energy and Momentum 2. 16 Uncertainty Principle I, Uncertainty Principle II And Applying the
Uncertainty Principle
Chapter 3 Atomic Structure Chapter 4 Quantum Mechanics And Quantum Theory of the Hydrogen Atom
3. 1 The Nuclear Atom 4.1 Quantum Mechanics and The Wave Equation
3. 2 Electron Orbits 4. 2 Schrödinger’s Equation: Time-Dependent Form
3. 3 Atomic Spectra 4. 3 Expectation Values and Operators
3. 4 The Bohr Atom 4.4 Schrödinger’s Equation: Steady-State Form
3. 5 Energy Levels and Spectra 4.5 Particle in a Box, Finite Potential Well and Harmonic Oscillator
3. 7 Correspondence Principle 4. 6 Schrödinger’s Equation for the Hydrogen Atom and Separation of Variables
4.8 Nuclear Motion 4.7 Quantum Numbers and Principal Quantum Number
4.8 Orbital Quantum Number and Magnetic Quantum Number
4.9 Electron Probability Density Review
REFERENCES AND LEARNING RESOURCES
Textbook Concepts of Modern Physics Arthur Beiser, McGraw Hill, 6th edition, 2002, ISBN 978-0072448481. Suggested Additional Resources
1. Modern Physics by Hans Ohanian, Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 1995.
2. Modern Physics by Paul Tipler and Ralph Llewellyn, W. H. Freeman, 4th edition, 2002.
3. Modern Physics by Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, and Curt A. Moyer, Thomson Learning, Inc. 3ed edition, 2005.
4. 1000 Solved Problems in Modern Physics by Ahmad Kamal, Springer, 2010.
Useful Web Resources:
(1) https://galileoandeinstein.phys.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Applets/Lightclock/home.html
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NN_m2yKAAk
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFe7HUu7-c8
What is Modern Physics?
The study of Modern Physics is the study of the enormous revolution in our view of the physical universe
At that time, most physicists believed that everything in physics was completely understood. Normal intuition and
all experiments fit into the context of two basic theories:
1. Newtonian Mechanics for massive bodies;
2. Maxwell’s Theory for light (electromagnetic radiation).
However, even a little thought made it clear that there was trouble on the horizon. In a relatively short period of
time, physicists were compelled to adopt:
1. The theory of special relativity based on the idea that there was no propagating medium for light (so that light
traveled with the same speed regardless of the “frame” from which the light was viewed);
2. The theory of quantum mechanics, according to which the precise position and precise momentum of a particle
cannot both be determined simultaneously.
In fact, one must think of particles not as particles, but as waves, much like light.
3. At the same time, experiments made it clear that light comes in little quantum particle-like packets called photons.
4. In short, both particles and light have both a particle-like and wave-like nature.

The ether picture for light propagation

• At the end of the 19th century, light waves were an accepted fact, but all physicists were “certain” that there had
to be a medium in which the light propagated (analogous to water waves, waves on a string, etc.).
• However, the “ether” in which light propagated had to be quite unusual.
The speed of light was known to be very large (the precise value we now know is c = 3.00 × 108 m/s). A medium
that supported this high speed had to be essentially incompressible (i.e. something vastly more incompressible
than water, and even more vastly incompressible than air).
Prepared by: Habtemarium
• And yet, it was clear that light traveled over great distances from the stars, implying that this ether extended
throughout a large section of the universe.
This means that the planets, stars, galaxies. . .etc were traveling through this ether according to Newton’s laws
without feeling any frictional, viscosity, . . . , type of effects.
• Well, for anyone thinking about this nowadays, this is obviously ridiculous.
But, at the end of the 1900’s it was impossible for physicists to accept the fact that there was no ether medium
in which light traveled and it was bizarre to imagine that light could travel through “vacuum”, despite the fact
that Maxwell’s equations were most easily understood in this context.
• We will shortly turn to the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment performed in 1887 in which MM set out to
demonstrate the existence of the ether.
We will learn that they failed. To show how entrenched thinking can become, it should be noted that Michelson
(who was quite a brilliant guy) never believed the result of his experiment and spent the next 20 years trying to
prove his original result was wrong. He failed, but provided ever-increasing accuracy for the precise speed of
light.
• It would be natural to presume that Einstein’s theory of special relativity was a response to this experiment.
But, in fact, he stated that when he developed his theory he was completely unaware of the MM result. He simply
was thinking of Maxwell’s theory of light as a medium independent theory and asking about its consequences.
This is not totally implausible given the fact that the MM experiment was performed in the “back-woods”,
frontier town of Cleveland Ohio (some would say that the MM experiment is still the most important thing, other
than some baseball greats, to come out of Cleveland). And communications were not so hot back in those days.
To understand the ideas behind the MM experiment and to set the stage for how we discuss space and time in an
“inertial” frame, we must consider how to relate one frame to another one moving with constant velocity with respect
to the first frame. The 1900’s view of this relationship is encoded in “Galilean transformations”.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Reading Assignment Galilean transformations and big bang theory
A coordinate system is to be thought of as:
1. a system of “meter” sticks laid down in the x, y, z directions throughout all of space.
2. a single universal clock time that applies throughout all of space (i.e. is the same no matter where in space you are).
An event is thus specified by its location in the (t, x, y, z) space. But, now suppose that there is another person moving
with constant velocity in the original coordinate system in the positive x direction.
His coordinates will be related to (t, x, y, z) by:
𝑥 ′ = 𝑥 − 𝑣𝑡, 𝑦 ′ = 𝑦 𝑍 ′ = 𝑧 and 𝑡 ′ = 𝑡
where the last equation, according to which both observers can use the time, or set of clocks, is particularly crucial.
This relation between frames is illustrated below.

Click to add
title

Fig. 1-2, p. 4
Fig. 1-1, p. 4

Figure 1: The Galilean Transformation.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Of course, if we are tracking an object moving in the x-direction in the two coordinate systems, we may compare
its velocity and acceleration as viewed in the two coordinate systems by taking derivatives of the first equation
above to obtain (using 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑑𝑡 ′ from above)
𝑑𝑥 ′ 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑢′ 𝑑𝑢
𝑢𝑥′ = = − 𝑢 = 𝑢𝑥 − 𝑢 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑥′ = 𝑥 = 𝑥 ≡ 𝑎𝑥 …………………………………………2
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
Note that the accelerations are the same, which is consistent with the idea that the force causing the acceleration
should be the same as viewed by the two different observers (given that forces depend on separations between
objects which will be the same in the two different frames):
𝐹𝑥 = m𝑎𝑥 = m𝑎𝑥′ = 𝑚′ 𝑎𝑥′ = 𝐹𝑥′ , (3)
′ ′ ′
where we assumed m = 𝑚 is frame independent. The fact that Fx = max and 𝐹𝑥 = m𝑎𝑥 have the same form in the
two different reference systems is called covariance of Newton’s 2nd law.
But, there is already a problem with covariance in the case of light. Light cannot be subject to the same covariance
rules without conflicting with the idea of an ether in which it propagates.

In particular, imagine you are at rest in the ether and look at your reflection in the mirror. No problem – it
just takes a very short time for the light to travel to the mirror and back.
However, now suppose you are on a rocket ship moving with velocity v > c with respect to the ether. Then
the light traveling with speed c in the ether never makes it to the mirror!!
• Thus,
1. either we are forced to give up the general concept that motion with constant velocity is indistinguishable
from being at rest (i.e. there must be a preferred rest frame), or
2. the Galilean transform equations eq. (1) are wrong.
It is the latter that is true.
These thoughts led to the Michelson-Morley experiment. They showed that either there is no ether or that
the earth is not moving through the ether (a very geo-centric point of view by then, since it would make much
Prepared by: Habtemarium
more sense if the earth was moving with its orbital velocity through an ether that was a rest with respect to the
galaxy or universe as a whole).
The Michelson Morley Experiment
The experimental arrangement for the MM experiment appears in the diagram below.

Fig. 1-4, p. 8
Figure 2: The Michelson Morley experimental set-up.
In the pictured arrangement, the light (wave) is split by a half-silvered mirror into two components, one
traveling parallel to the earth’s motion, the other traveling perpendicular to the earth’s motion through the
ether. The time of travel for the horizontal light to and back from the mirror will (Galilean assumed) be
𝐿 𝐿
𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 = + (4)
𝐿+𝐶 𝐶−𝑣
The time of travel for the vertical light (which must actually be aimed “up-stream” in order to return to the
splitting mirror) is given by
Prepared by: Habtemarium
 2𝐿
𝑡𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = (5)
√𝐶 2 −𝑉 2
From this, we find (for v = vearth ∼ 3×104 m/s and c ' 3×108 m/s)
𝑣2
∆𝑡 = 𝑡ℎ − 𝑡𝑣 ≅ 𝐿 3 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑣 ≪ 𝐶 𝑜𝑟 ∆𝑑 ≡ 𝐶∆𝑡~𝟏𝟎 − 𝟕 𝑚 for L = 10 m and(𝑣/𝑐)𝟐 ∼ 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟖
𝐶
(6)
Although this is a very small number, an interferometer which measures the interference between the vertical
and horizontal light waves can be sensitive to it.
We now rotate the apparatus by 90◦ so that the roles of the two light paths are interchanged. Since the waves
are sensitive to the wave pattern oscillation

(7)
with t = th or t = tv, one sees a shift (relative to that if th = tv) in the constructive interference fringe
corresponding to an angular amount given by

(factor of 2 from fact that net time shift is twice the time difference between wave arrival times in any one
set-up). This would be noticeable for λ ∼ few × 10−7m in a typical laboratory sized set-up using visible light.
What did they see? No shift in the interference pattern.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Special Relativity
Postulates of special relativity:
1. The Principle of Relativity: All the laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames.
In other words, covariance applies to electromagnetism (there is no ether) as well as to mechanics.
2. The Constancy of the Speed of Light: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value, c = 3.00 × 108 m/s,
in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
In fact, Einstein said he was completely unaware of the MM experiment at the time he proposed his
postulates. He was just thinking about the theory of light as being absolute and frame independent.
These two apparently simple postulates imply dramatic changes in how we must visualize length, time and
simultaneity.
1. The distance between two points and the time interval between two events both depend on the frame of
reference in which they are measured.
2. Events at different locations that occur simultaneously in one frame are not simultaneous in another frame
moving uniformly with respect to the first.
An inertial reference frame is probably only an effective description that is only valid up to the Planck mass
scale.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Click to add
title

Fig. 1-8, p. 13

Figure 3: Picture of an inertial reference frame.

Let’s return to the concept of time.

Example A
Suppose time were uniquely definable and the same in all frames. Consider a (small) plane moving at speed
v (and very close to ground) in the +x direction relative to someone on the ground.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 x’=−D x’=0

The whole (P) plane picture above is moving with velocity v relative to the ground (G).
Figure 4: The frame for a plane moving relative to the earth.
When the plane is at 𝑥 ′ = 0 someone at 𝑥 ′ = −D flashes a light (these are the plane’s coordinates). If time is
universal then both P (plane) and G (ground) agree that the light flashes at a certain time, say t = 𝑡 ′ = 0.
The time at which P thinks the light arrives at x0 = 0 (the plane never moves from 𝑥 ′ = 0 – he is at rest in his
coordinate system) is 𝑡 ′ = D/c (assuming light travels with velocity c).
The time at which G thinks the light arrives at the plane would also be t = 𝑡 ′ = D/c if time is universal.
However, since the plane has moved by an amount

according to G while the light has been traveling, the G observer concludes that the velocity of light is

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Well, this contradicts Einstein’s postulates of relativity. It has to be that the clocks in the G and P frames are
not synchronized in the manner we assumed or that distance scales are not the same in the two frames. In
fact, both apply.
Example B
• Consider 2 observers A and B that pass one another, with, say, B moving with velocity v in the x direction
relative to A who we envision is at rest in “our” frame.
A burst of light is emitted as they pass one another. Each claims that the light travels outward in spherical
waves with velocity c, with the spheres centered on themselves.
A modern day application is that a terrorist dropping a bomb (that immediately detonates) from a fast moving
car might hope to quickly leave behind the destruction and explosion. But, to the extent that electromagnetic
radiation was the only consideration, he would always be at the center of the explosion no matter how fast
he was moving in some other frame.
• This is completely different from what one would conclude if light traveled in a medium like water.
Consider two boats, one (A) at rest in a pond, the other (B) moving rapidly (but without creating any wake)
relative to the first boat.
B drops a rock in the pond as he passes A.
Because A is at rest in the pond, the ripples spread out in concentric circles from his position and B, looking
back, agrees. Indeed, he could even go faster than the ripples, in which case they would never catch up to
him.
Putting Einstein’s visualization into mathematical language, we would say that the expanding spheres of
electromagnetic radiation should obey

Prepared by: Habtemarium

These are the equations defining how each sees the light fronts (in his own frame) emanating from the initial flash.
Demanding that the transformation from the unprime to prime system be a linear transformation 1 with
coefficients determined only by the fundamental constant c and by the relative velocity of the two frames v, and
requiring that x = 0 must correspond to x = vt (see Fig. 1), there is only one solution, the so-called Lorentz
transformation:

where

. (13)
Note that if v/c ≪ 1, then the factor of Lorentz transformation γ → 1 and we get back the Galilean
approximation.
But, if v/c → 1, then 𝛾 ≫1 and there are big changes.
Proof of above Lorentz transformation.
Write (since 𝑦 ′ = y and 𝑧 ′ = z in this situation, I ignore them)
𝑥 ′ = γ(x − vt), 𝑡 ′ = αt + βx, (14)
where α, β, γ are all to be determined and we have inserted in the first equation the requirement that x = vt
gives 𝑥 ′ = 0.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

Now, by symmetry (i.e. who says which frame should be prime and which unprime) it must also be true that
the inverse transformations are obtained by simply interchanging the roles of the prime and unprime
coordinates and changing the sign of v. Thus, we should also have
x = γ(𝑥 ′ + v𝑡 ′ ). (15)
(We will come back to the time relation.)
So, Einstein now says that for a light pulse starting at x = 0, t = 0 along the +x axis we must have x = ct.
However, since we have chosen the prime frame position and clock so that this corresponds to 𝑥 ′ = 0, 𝑡 ′ = 0,
then we must also have 𝑥 ′ = c𝑡 ′ .
So, substitute these two statements into 𝑥 ′ = γ(x − vt) to obtain

Next, substitute these two statements into x = γ(𝑥 ′ + v𝑡 ′ ) to obtain

where the last step employed the equation just above. The left and final right side of the above equation are
equal only if

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Now return to the time equation. Let us take 𝑥 ′ = γ(x − vt) and substitute this into x = γ(𝑥 ′ + v𝑡 ′ ). The result
is

as claimed. In the above, we used the simple algebra that

An important consequence
Using the Lorentz transform equations, we can easily show that x2−c2t2 = 𝑥 ′ 2 − c2𝑡 ′ 2, for any choices of x, t and
the corresponding values of 𝑥 ′ , 𝑡 ′ .
A Note on Four Vectors
We can place the quantities ct, x, y, z into an array called a 4vector: x4 = (ct,x,y,z).
The square of such a 4-vector is defined as x4 · x4 ≡ c2t2 − x2 − y2 − z2. In the prime frame, 𝑥4′ = (c𝑡 ′ , 𝑥 ′ , 𝑦 ′ , 𝑧 ′ )
and

We see that a restatement of the Lorentz transformation equations, equivalently Einstein’s frame-
independent for the velocity of light, is to say that the square of a 4-vector is frame-independent.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Time Dilation
A particular application of the Lorentz equations is time dilation. I will first give a mathematical derivation
and then a more intuitive approach.
Mathematical approach.
Consider an observer 𝑆 ′ moving with velocity v with respect to S. Consider a clock at rest in the 𝑆 ′ rest
frame and located at 𝑥 ′ = 0, corresponding to x = vt. Suppose it ticks at 𝑡 ′ = 0 and 𝑡 ′ = 𝑇 ′ . Now use

to conclude that the 𝑡 ′ = 0 tick occurs at t = 0, while the 𝑡 ′ = 𝑇 ′ tick occurs at t = T = γ 𝑇 ′ . So, the person at
rest in S sees an interval between ticks that is larger than the person who is moving with the clock sees.
This is what we call time dilation. The time interval between ticks seen by observer 𝑆 ′ who is a rest with respect
to the clock is called proper time. Observer S, who sees this clock moving past him swears that it is ticking more
slowly. We could also have derived this result by using the inverse Lorentz transform equations:
in particular the second one above. In this approach, we say that the clock sits at some fixed 𝑡 ′ and ticks at 𝑡 ′ =
𝒕′𝟏 and then at 𝑡 ′ = 𝒕′𝟐 . Using the second equation above, we find

in particular the second one above. In this approach, we say that the clock sits at some fixed 𝑥 ′ and ticks at 𝑡 ′ = 𝒕′𝟏 and
then at 𝑡 ′ = 𝒕′𝟐 . Using the second equation above, we find

Prepared by: Habtemarium

Intuitive Approach

Consider the situation depicted below. An observer sits at rest in a freight car that moves with velocity v
relative to the ground. He sends a light signal to a mirror on the top of the car that bounces back to him. The
time between sending and receipt is defined as the tick of the clock. He concludes that

Figure 5: The “mirror” clock.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

Meanwhile, the observer on the ground sees the freight car move a distance (where T is the full
tick time) between the time the signal is sent and the time the signal hits the top of the car. The geometric picture
then allows us to compute (½)vT as follows. The actual distance traveled by the light for this half of the trip is,
and this must equal the amount of distance cT that light can travel when moving with velocity c: i.e.

And this must equal the amount of distance (½)cT that light can travel when moving with velocity c: i.e.

Note how we employed the fact that the light is moving with velocity c according to both observers.
Now, you might ask if there is any experimental verification of this bizarre result. The answer is many!

Applications
There are many other interesting applications of all this.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Relativistic Doppler shift
This is a particularly important application as it is the Doppler “red”-shift that we use to tell us that the universe
is expanding from something like an initial big bang.
This is because successive waves emitted by a source moving towards you are closer together than normal
because of the advance of the source and since their separation is the wavelength of sound, the corresponding
frequency is higher. The formula in the case of sound is probably something you have derived as follows.

where f0 is the frequency of the sound as measured by the source itself, f is the frequency as measured by the
observer, c is the speed of sound, v is the speed of the observer (+ for motion toward source), and V is the speed
of the source (+ for motion toward the observer).
This classical Doppler Effect evidently varies depending upon whether the source, the observer, or both are
moving.
• This does not violate relativity because sound does travel in a medium — unlike light.
• Since light does not travel in a medium, the light wave Doppler effect will be different.
It can be derived using the concepts of time dilation. My derivation is an alternative approach to that
given in the book. Note, in particular, that the book assumes that the source is moving towards the
observer.
Imagine a light source as a clock that ticks f0 times per second and emits a light wave peak at each tick. The
proper time in the source rest frame between ticks is t0 = 1/f0.
Consider a source at rest and an observer moving away from it with velocity v. The interval between ticks as
seen by this observer is given by time dilation: t = γt0
As viewed by the observer, he travels the distance vt away from the source between ticks.
Thus, each tick takes a time vt/c longer to reach him than the simple time t between ticks.
The total time between the arrival of successive peaks (successive ticks) is then
Prepared by: Habtemarium
 • Since wavelength and frequency are inversely related, fλ = c, the shift in λ obeys the inverse formula.
Example: Determining the speed of recession of the Galaxy Hydra. A certain absorption line that would be at λ0 =
394 nm were Hydra at rest, is shifted to λ = 475 nm according to observations on earth.

Therefore, Hydra is receding from us with a velocity of v = 0.185 c = 5.54 × 107 m/s.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 Lorentz Velocity Transformation
This is obtained by taking derivatives of the Lorentz transform formulae of eq. (12), in close to analogy to what
we briefly described for the Galilean case.
From eq. (12), we have similarly, if the object we are examining has some y direction velocity

(but the relative velocity of the frames is still along the x axis), we have

and the same formula for dt0 as above, from which we obtain

and a similar result for u0z.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

Relativity II: Mass, Energy and Momentum
Velocity transform equations and momentum conservation, suppose we on earth see 2 rocket ships passing one
another.

y
A (before) A (later) A (before) A (later)

B (later) B (before) B
(before and after )

x
Equal but opposite velocity frame B rest frame
Figure 11: Depiction of two rockets passing one another: a) in equal but opposite velocity frame, each having
velocity of magnitude v0; b) in B rest frame, where velocity of A appears to be v.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

Consider first the equal-but-opposite velocity frame (the left-hand picture). Someone on rocket ship A throws
a billiard ball of mass m downwards (in the A rest frame) and someone in B throws an identical billiard ball
upwards (in the B rest frame) with exactly the same vertical velocity, i.e. uyA = −uyB. (We will assume that
these y direction velocities are c in magnitude.) The billiard balls collide elastically and go back to the
respective starting points with exactly reversed y direction velocities. Obviously, we have
∆uyA = −∆uyB, (60)
and after multiplying by m
m∆uyA = −m∆uyB , (61)
or using the usual definition of momentum as m × velocity,
∆pyA = −∆pyB , ⇒ ∆(pA + pB)y = 0. (62)
Momentum is conserved and Newton is happy! Note that we do not care about the exact magnitude of the y
velocity as viewed from the equal-but-opposite rocket ship velocity frame. It will not be the same as the y
velocities discussed below in the B rest frame.
But, if momentum is conserved in one frame then by covariance (i.e. all physical laws the same in all frames),
momentum should also be conserved if we view this same process in the rest frame of rocket ship B (2nd
picture in Fig. 11). In this frame, we choose rocket ship A to carry the prime coordinates and rocket ship B
to carry the unprime coordinates.
The situation described is that
uyA0 = −u, and uyB = u, (63)
which is to say that in their respective frames each thinks he has thrown the ball with velocity of magnitude
u. But, if we look entirely from B’s rest frame (the unprime frame), we have (using time dilation and the fact
that yA = yA0 for relative frame velocity in the x direction)
Hopefully, this discussion is sufficient motivation for the general result that

(44)
where
Prepared by: Habtemarium
 (45),
Newton’s 2nd Law
Given the above definition of the momentum that is conserved in the absence of force, , in
the presence of force it is natural to define force by

(46)
This equation reduces to the non-relativistic Newton’s law when v≪ c so that γ → 1.
Note that because γ(u)m0 increases with the object’s total velocity, u, becoming ∞ at u = c, it is never possible
to accelerate a particle past the speed of light, or even to the speed of light.
Relativistic Energy
We start with (use one-dimensional derivation – force and motion along x axis)

(47)
We can rewrite using

Inserting into eq. (47), we get

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 (48)
where ui and uf are the initial and final velocities at locations x1 and x2. Now,

(49)
Inserting into eq. (48) and assuming ui = 0 gives

(50)
At this point, it is conventional to drop the subscript f and simple write W in terms of the particle velocity u.
The book also drops the subscript 0 on m0 and so m will henceforth denote the intrinsic or proper mass.
We then have,

. (51)
Often, γ(u) is simply written as γ, but you must remember that it is the particle’s velocity in your frame that
goes into this form and not some relative velocity of two different frames.
Interpretation of W
How should we interpret W? In the non-relativistic case, W would be the kinetic energy, K. We can check
this correspondence for small u/c by expanding:

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 (52)
from which we obtain

(53)
Since K is a change in energy, this formula suggests that mc and γ(u)mc should be thought of as the rest
2 2

frame energy and the energy in motion, respectively.

Thus, γ(u)mc2 = rest energy + kinetic energy = total energy ≡ E . (54)

If this is correct then mass is a form of energy. This is dramatically confirmed in many ways, as we shall see.
An example
A proton has kinetic energy equal to half its rest mass energy. (a) What is the proton’s speed? (b) What is its
total energy? (c) Determine the potential difference ∆V through which the proton would have to be accelerated
to attain this speed.

Prepared by: Habtemarium

Classically, much less ∆V would have sufficed (291 MV), but that increasing γ(u) factor implies more and
more is needed as u gets closer to c.
The relationship between energy, momentum and mass
We have E2 = γ2(u)m2c4 and p2c2 = γ2(u)m2c2u2. Using these inputs we find

(52)
Since m is an intrinsic property of the particle, the right-hand side is always the same, no matter what frame
we examine E and p in.
Energy Conservation
To repeat, it is natural that E as defined is the fundamental quantity, as opposed to the kinetic energy, K,
since it is E conservation that is independent of frame. In contrast, K may be conserved in one frame and not
in another frame (or not conserved in any frame).
A really simple example of why we must deal with the total energy E is provided in elementary particle
physics. Experimentally, it is possible to collide an electron and a positron (coming together with equal
magnitude but oppositely directed velocities the center-of-mass frame) to make a proton and an antiproton
at rest:

(54)

Prepared by: Habtemarium

 In the initial state, most of the energy resides in the kinetic energies of the e+ and e−, whereas in the final
state all of the energy is contained in the mass of the p and𝑃̅. Kinetic energy is thus converted to rest mass
(energy). And, the opposite is also true! Think nuclear fission bomb.
Another example is illustrated below.
v v v=0 for both blocks

BEFORE AFTER
Figure 12: Depiction of two blocks of equal mass with spring attached one, colliding to create a single object
with compressed (massless) spring and motionless blocks. (Imagine there are little latches that catch and hold
the blocks together when the spring becomes compressed.)
Where did the kinetic energy go? Obviously, it went into the compression of the spring. Einstein says that
initially Ei = 2mc2+2K. If we view the two boxes plus compressed spring as one total object, with zero kinetic
energy, then kinetic energy is clearly not conserved, but energy would be conserved provided we simply
define
Ef = Mc2, (89)
where M must account for not only the initial block masses, but also the kinetic energy that was converted
to spring compression energy. That is,
M > 2m. In fact,

Prepared by: Habtemarium