Jump to content

Equation mc2 that we do not understand.


spassky stanisl
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please look my short video on Youtube, which I recently put there. I hope, interesting.

“Equation mc2 that we do not understand” .

I want to know your opinion. Thank you.

Stanislav Spassky.

 

 

For those who do not know the physics very well.

Einstein in 1905 found the so-called formula of the equivalence of mass and energy.That is, the body having the mass M has an internal energy E = Mc ^ 2. This is a great energy. In finding the formula Einstein used the Special relativity theory and the derivation was rather complicated and opaque ( difficult in understanding in essence).

And all his life Einstein repeated that this formula is a consequence of the Special relativity theory . And more than 100 years it is considered the highest achievement of physics (and Einstein). I show in the video that this formula can be derived without the Special relativity theory , and in two lines.

 

Use key to search: “Equation mc2 that" or “Formula mc2 that" on Youtube or

youtube.com/watch?v=-adq-J2timw

Edited by spassky stanisl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what most of you don't understand is that [math] mc^2 [/math] is the impulse generated by one photon which derives an equivalent amount of work measured in joules (J) the units of energy!

 

That is very poor wording on my part . . .

 

It is an observed . . .

 

Experiments had shown that light exerted pressure i.e. impulse and this related to the energy of the photon by E=pc and hence E=mc^2 . . . .

Edited by Xittenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hard time understanding what you're saying in the video. Most of "us" aren't physicists, so that's probably why "most of us" don't understand the equation. That doesn't really help narrow down the discussion, though. Do you have a specific objection to it, that you could discuss here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experiments had shown that light exerted pressure i.e. impulse and this related to the energy of the photon by E=pc and hence E=mc^2 . . . .

However, that only holds true if you define m as m := E/c^2 :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, that only holds true if you define m as m := E/c^2 :P

 

I'm OK with that, until someone informs me of a reason that I should not be! I think the real point of the statement though is that these are observations made with respect to natural phenomena and not conjecture that needs to be disseminated. An appropriate response to this model would be to show through observation that the conclusion made is in fact incorrect as opposed to trying to correct through conjecture. As always correct me if I'm saying something that is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm OK with that, until someone informs me of a reason that I should not be! I think the real point of the statement though is that these are observations made with respect to natural phenomena and not conjecture that needs to be disseminated. An appropriate response to this model would be to show through observation that the conclusion made is in fact incorrect as opposed to trying to correct through conjecture. As always correct me if I'm saying something that is wrong.

 

Relativistic mass does cause some consistency issues, and these become more apparent once you delve deeper into the analysis. In using E=pc, you are implying that you are using rest mass, because E=pc comes from E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 and setting m=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Einstein in 1905 found the so-called formula of the equivalence of mass and energy.

It's my understanding that the sole formula e=mc^2 was created by Olinto De Pretto and then developed by Einstein.

Edited by Sato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that the sole formula e=mc^2 was created by Olinto De Pretto and then developed by Einstein.

That's crap put out by crackpots who for one reason or another want to knock Einstein down a notch or ten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's crap put out by crackpots who for one reason or another want to knock Einstein down a notch or ten.

 

Who invented E=mc2? Found an interesting link. Apparently a German scientist named Fritz Hasenöhrl went part of the way. (This is like Lorentz and Poincare, who sent part of the way with other relativity ideas). But only Einstein took the full leap to relativity. See link: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/aug/23/did-einstein-discover-e-mc2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that De Pretto was using it to describe conditions of the light æther and his cousin(who worked with Einstein at the patent office) show Einstein who in turn developed correct theories from it. I'm all for Einstein but some credit is definitely deserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that De Pretto was using it to describe conditions of the light æther and his cousin(who worked with Einstein at the patent office) show Einstein who in turn developed correct theories from it. I'm all for Einstein but some credit is definitely deserved.

If Einstein did see that badly written paper published in an obscure little journal (a very dubious if), the path was from Olinto De Pretto to his brother to one of that brother's co-workers to one of that coworker's nephews to Einstein. That's three dubious degrees of separation. The world of physics was fairly small in the early 1900s. Any two physicists in Europe in 1905 were most likely separated by three degrees or less. Just because a degree of separation connection did exist does not mean that it was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. It seems there may be something to this De Pretto and E=mc2. see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

No, there isn't. That's a wikipedia article on a fringe subject. Those kinds of subjects tend to attract lots of cranks with lots of free time on their hands. Do not trust them. Wikipedia's quality has gone downhill as its popularity has increased. The main source of information from this article comes from Umberto Bartocci, an anti relativity and anti Einstein crank. There are lots of those cranks out there, and many of them have lots of free time on their hands. The premise of this group of nuts is "Relativity is wrong, and even if it isn't, Einstein didn't even come up with it." And that's leaving the ugly antisemitic bits out of their arguments.

 

Given any two physicists in Europe in the early 1900s and it is almost a certainty that a three degrees of separation connection can be found between them. Just because the connection existed does not mean that it has any meaning. It is pure happenstance that Olinto's brother's coworker's nephew worked in the same office as did Einstein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it matter if someone came up with the same combination of letters (and possibly even the same meaning of this letter combination) before? And what would it matter for? I mean, we wouldn't exactly have to stop celebrating the beginning of the new year in either case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there isn't. That's a wikipedia article on a fringe subject. Those kinds of subjects tend to attract lots of cranks with lots of free time on their hands. Do not trust them. Wikipedia's quality has gone downhill as its popularity has increased. The main source of information from this article comes from Umberto Bartocci, an anti relativity and anti Einstein crank. There are lots of those cranks out there, and many of them have lots of free time on their hands. The premise of this group of nuts is "Relativity is wrong, and even if it isn't, Einstein didn't even come up with it." And that's leaving the ugly antisemitic bits out of their arguments.

 

Given any two physicists in Europe in the early 1900s and it is almost a certainty that a three degrees of separation connection can be found between them. Just because the connection existed does not mean that it has any meaning. It is pure happenstance that Olinto's brother's coworker's nephew worked in the same office as did Einstein.

 

Thanks for the info. Wikipedia or for that matter, other sites on the internet are not always reliable. I appreciate the heads up.

 

In any event, it was Einstein and only Einstein who came up with the mass/energy equivalence under the relativity construct. And that is what is most important (and most impressive).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who do not know the physics very well.

Einstein in 1905 found the so-called formula of the equivalence of mass and energy.That is, the body having the mass M has an internal energy E = Mc ^ 2.

 

This is not internal energy, but rest (mechanical) energy. Internal energy U is a different kind of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not internal energy, but rest (mechanical) energy. Internal energy U is a different kind of energy.

Wow! It's as though this this thread was put together by a chain saw!!

 

First off the E in the expression E = mc^2 applies to particles and has the value E = Rest Energy + Kinetic Energy. The expression E = mc^2 appeared in the physics literature before Einstein put it there. But this is not a thread about history so I won't get into it but point you to the physics literature on this point. See the American Journal of Physics

 

Did Einstein really discover "E = mc2"?, W.L. Fadner, Am. J. Phys. 56(2), February 1988

In 1952, Herbert Ives claimed that Einstein's first development of E = mc2 was circular, and that he had not been the first to develop that equation. That allegation has been repeated in several more recent works. Earlier, Planck asserted that one of the postulates that Einstein had used in that development was not exact. Those claims and subsequent papers concerning them are examined herein. The surprisingly long history history of the mass-energy relation is summarized. In the context of this topic, it is argued that circularity is seldom a legitimate critique of scientific proposals. A simple refutation of Planck's claim is also included.

JP wrote

That's crap put out by crackpots who for one reason or another want to knock Einstein down a notch or ten.

That's not true. This debate appears in the peer reviewed physics literature, for exaample see the above journal, i.e. the American Journal of Physics.

 

Regarding what E represents depends on whether the body is moving or not.

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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.