Jump to content

E=mc^2 wrong?


Carl Fischbach

Recommended Posts

Iv'e done some calculations and found a potential error in E=mc^2.

 

 

Lets take an object with the mass of 1 kg and accelerate it to .866% of

c where gamma equals 2, the total energy or mass of this object would now be 2 kg in accordance with relativity.

 

Now assuming that the 1kg mass is moving in a striaght line at .866% of c in the +x direction,at a constant velocity, a constant force in the +y direction

is applied to the 1 kg moving mass.

 

According to E=mc^2 any small change in the velocity in any direction

of the 1 kg mass moving at .866% of c will appear like a mass of 8 kg's to a force acting on the moving mass. Note this force is acting on the the moving mass from a stationary position relative to the moving mass. Also the 1kg moving mass acting like a 8kg mass, is derived from the acceleration rate of the 1 kg mass acted on by a constant force, measured from a stationary position.

 

Iv'e looked up 2 different beam deflection equations at relativistic velocities and rearranged the equations and in both equations, Iv'e found that if the

equations are to work the 1kg mass, moving at .866% of c, would have to

appear like a mass of 2 kg's to a stationary deflecting force, not the 8 kg's that is required by E=mc^2. This would mean that E=mc^2 is wrong, or the beam deflection equations are wrong and could also bring into question the

valitity of shrinkage of space at relativistic velocities. Could someone

double check this work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your saying that if I am at a rest studying 1kg mass at rest and I increase the velocity of the object to a velocity .866% of c, and the object, which I will put a charge on for the sake argument, is meseared ,at a constant velocity of .866 of c ,to have a mass of 2 kg's,when passed through a magnetic field,then your saying that the 1 kg increase in mass of the object does not require me to do the work to the 1 kg mass of 1kg*c^2 to gain a mass of 1 kg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your saying that if I am at a rest studying 1kg mass at rest and I increase the velocity of the object to a velocity .866% of c, and the object, which I will put a charge on for the sake argument, is meseared ,at a constant velocity of .866 of c ,to have a mass of 2 kg's,when passed through a magnetic field,then your saying that the 1 kg increase in mass of the object does not require me to do the work to the 1 kg mass of 1kg*c^2 to gain a mass of 1 kg.

 

No. You still use 1kg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iv'e looked up 2 different beam deflection equations at relativistic velocities and rearranged the equations and in both equations, Iv'e found that if the

equations are to work the 1kg mass, moving at .866% of c, would have to

appear like a mass of 2 kg's to a stationary deflecting force, not the 8 kg's that is required by E=mc^2. This would mean that E=mc^2 is wrong, or the beam deflection equations are wrong and could also bring into question the

valitity of shrinkage of space at relativistic velocities. Could someone

double check this work.

 

What equations did you use? Chances are good that they use the rest mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Why is it that no one understands it's E=γmc^2 where γ= (1 - (v^2/c^2))^1/2. Therefore at rest v = 0 and γ = 1 and you get your famous E=mc^2

 

Because it tends to be easier to use, this also allows for massless particles without the requirement of relativistic mass:

 

E2=m2c4+p2c2

 

Which again simplifies at p=0

 

Momentum, of cause, is not a Lorenz invariant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that no one understands it's E=γmc^2 where γ= (1 - (v^2/c^2))^1/2. Therefore at rest v = 0 and γ = 1 and you get your famous E=mc^2

Because neither of the two sets of words divided by the period form a sentence :P. EDIT: At 2nd though: if you wanted to say that at rest v=0 and v=1 then the 2nd one might be - but that probably wasn't your message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

timo, not really sure what you are trying to say there. my point seemed pretty clear, except for one correction that gamma (γ) is 1/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2

 

And Klaynos, the poster's example was specifically about moving objects, where E=mc^2 does not give accurate results, only E=γmc^2 and p would not equal 0.

 

Edit: nvm, was wondering where the poster got 2 for gamma, but he states it wrong, he should have 86.6% not .866%

Edited by darkenlighten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

timo, not really sure what you are trying to say there. my point seemed pretty clear, except for one correction that gamma (γ) is 1/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2

The Gamov factor did not show up on my screen which made your statement word-salad. I guess you used some non-standard character that did not show up properly in my browser or on my computer (now is magically does). Hint: I've not seen TeX to cause any trouble, yet.

So what I meant: I found it funny that someone said "why is it that no one understands <something that does not make any sense at all>".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.