Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

History Of Physics: A Bomb Without Einstein E=Mc2?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 07:40 AM

    E=mc2 is an approximation derived by Einstein, concerning the transformation of light energy between

    two inertial frames of references:

 

      - The first, at rest relative to the second, and which contain a point-like mass which emits two opposite beams

         of light, each one with energy L/2.

 

      - The second, on a platform (traing) departing from the first at a constant velocity "v"


Edited by rhertz, 18 June 2019 - 07:44 PM.


#2 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1354 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 08:40 AM

Now this is actually true that the Equation for E=MC had nothing to do with nuclear power/weapons, this was more the brain child of Oppenheimer and the US Government, Einstein had nothing to do with this and actually opposed the creation of the first nuclear bomb being a devout pacifist despite once writing a letter giving his approval about the Atomic Bombs but physically he had nothing to do with the Manhattan project and thus should not be credited with Nuclear Power nor Nuclear Weapons.  

 

 

The discoveries of other scientists in this area vastly trump Einstein's involvement in Nuclear Power/Nuclear Weapon such as Fermi and Oppenheimer, thus the world in the part of warfare and energy production was changed forever by these other scientists.

 

North-Korea-nuclear-war-635556.jpg

 

thorium-1.jpg

 

Now nuclear power produces 11% of the energy supply globally with 30% of the low carbon energy with 450 nuclear reactors in operation, thanks to not Einstein in this case.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 08 June 2019 - 09:50 AM.


#3 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 09:50 AM

I wanted to open a new thread, as my last post on this thread deserves so:

 

http://www.sciencefo...è-not-einstein/

 

I invite you to read my post #6: How the history is re-written.

 

 

 

And, to be short, I want to complement the post #6 with the article of the authoritative Alex Wellerstein, at his blog:

 

http://blog.nuclears...thout-einstein/

 

where he clearly deny any relationship between E=mc2 and nuclear physics.

 

Somehow, and for unknown reasons, there is a persistence at MSM and high-school (even colleges) to perpetuate

this false myth about ANY relationship between E=mc2 and nuclear power.

 

To simplify:

 

1) E=mc2 is an approximation derived by Einstein, concerning the transformation of light energy between

    two inertial frames of references:

 

      - The first, at rest relative to the second, and which contain a point-like mass which emits two opposite beams

         of light, each one with energy L/2.

 

      - The second, on a platform (traing) departing from the first at a constant velocity "v"

 

2) By 1905, when Einstein published this paper, the following things were unknown:

 

       - The atom, of which it only existed the "Thomsom Pudding Model", with electrons embedded

          into a mass of positive charges.

       - The molecular size, at which Einstein dedicated several papers, failing with one after another.

       - The existance of the proton (even when the great Wien had noticed it by 1901), discovered by 1912.

       - The existance of the neutron, which discovery had to wait until 1933.

       - The concept of binding energy within atoms sub-particles.

       - The concept of chemical binding energy.

       - The existance of isotopes.

       - The mechanisms by wich atoms (hertzian resonators) absorpted and emitted "photons" under excitation.

       - The radiative power (and existance) of gamma rays in the atomic world, even when predicted by Planck.

 

I let the rest for you to debate, if you want.

 

If not, let be so.

 

Thanks!

Wallerstein does not say what you claim. Far from denying that the equation has anything to do with nuclear physics, he says it tells you why atomic bombs work, but not how. Which is obviously true. 

 

The mass defect is apparent in the atomic masses in the Periodic Table and is explained, by E=mc², as being due to differences in "binding energy". These differences in binding energy explain why changing one element to another can release energy. Which is the basis of both nuclear power and both fission and fusion bombs. The concepts of mass defect and binding energy are clearly fundamental to nuclear physics, just as chemical bond energies are in chemistry.

 

What the equation does not do is tell you anything about how to make the relevant reactions occur. Obviously you need to know that, too, in order to make use of the energy source that E=mc² tells you is present.


Edited by exchemist, 08 June 2019 - 09:51 AM.


#4 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:00 AM

What I'm wondering is whether human intelligence began to degrade with Wikipedia or was Wikipedia the final nail in the coffin of human intelligence. Discuss amongst yourselves or maybe just post some wiki articles on coffins doesn't matter which.



#5 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:24 AM

I don't know what text you were reading. You enjoy contradicting me, don't you?

By the way, are you somehow related to Einstein? Like a grand grand nephew or something?

I quote some relevant parts from the article:

 

Quote 1:

The way I like to put it is this: E=mc² tells you about as much about an atomic bomb as Newton’s
laws do about ballistic missiles
.



Quote 2:

What about the rest of Einstein’s main theoretical work, both Special and General Relativity
Theory? They are pretty irrelevant to bomb-making.
The physical processes that take place inside
atomic bombs are what physicists call “non-relativistic.” Relativity theory generally only shows
its hand when you are talking about great speeds (e.g. large fractions of the speed of light) or
great masses (e.g. gravitational fields), and neither of those come into play with fission bombs.
You can neglect relativity when doing the math to make a bomb.


Quote 3:

Did any of the relativity work lead, though, down the path that eventually arrived at the discovery
of fission in 1939? I don’t think so.

But you are talking now about bomb-making.

 

Before you were talking about nuclear physics. There is a great more to nuclear physics than making an atom bomb, you know. 



#6 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:33 AM

"Reply to this topic." rhertz, I suspect you're never going to get this topic off the ground because of the general state of illiteracy here and on every science forum frankly. They can't read or understand what this topic is. I agree, E=mcis just another one of Einstein's frauds. I do not understand how a person so mistaken about everything but somehow  stumbled into correct answers without knowing what they meant, managed to amass such a large population of mind eating zombies to follow him.

#7 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 02:44 PM

Certainly I know.

 

I just obtained the 1939 Meitner's article, and believe it was interesting to talk about disinformation.

I'm aware I was digressing, but I couldn't resist to talk about the role of MSM on this matter.

 

Nuclear physics aside.

Right. So E=mc² is relevant to nuclear physics, even though it does not help you build an atom bomb. Agreed? 


Edited by exchemist, 08 June 2019 - 02:44 PM.


#8 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 05:46 PM

Sorry, in what sub-part of nuclear physics E=mc2 relevant?  It's not relevant to the conversion of matter to energy. I know, if you add energy to matter it becomes more energetic. That applies outside of nuclear physics. Where specifically does it apply to nuclear physics? Did you really mention annihilation because that's another formula.



#9 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 09 June 2019 - 08:01 AM

What exchemist is talking about is the Nuclear Binding Energy in Nucleii, which is related to the

Defect Mass registered as a difference between the "measured mass" of a nucleus and the sum of its nucleons.

 

Such a Nuclear Binding Energy is the value required per nucleon, to break the nucleus into its component.

 

exchemist is saying that this Defect Mass is related to E=mc2. I don't know about it, so I accept what he says.

 

Here is an example for an Helium nucleus (Alpha particle).

 

The data was obtained from the US NIST, at this link:

https://physics.nist...ch_for=atomnuc!

 

 

Neutron Mass:  1.674 927 498 04 x 10-27 kg ; 939.565 420 52 MeV  ; 1.008 664 915 95 u

Proton Mass: 1.672 621 923 69 x 10-27 kg ; 938.272 088 16 MeV ; 1.007 276 466 621 u

Alpha Particle: 6,64465675E-27Kg ; 3727,37924 MeV; 4,001506179125 u

2P + 2N: 6,69509884346E-27Kg ; 3755,67501736 MeV; 4,031882765142 u

Mass Defect: 5,04420934600004E-29Kg ; 28,2957773599996 MeV; 0,0303765860169998 u

Mass Defect per nucleon: 1,26105233650001E-29Kg ; 7,07394433999991 MeV; 0,00759414650424994 u
 

exchemist says that the Mass Defect phenomena is related to E = mc2.

 

Maybe he want to explain why. I don't know about this subject.

Yes that's what I was referring to. 

 

Here is a graph of so-called "binding energy" against atomic mass:

 


bcurv.gif
 
The "binding energy" is the energy released when each nucleus forms from free protons and neutrons. (Or, to put it the other way round, the "binding energy" is the energy you need to put in to overcome the Strong Force and pull the nucleus apart into its constituents.)  You can see the maximum energy release occurs for the formation of Fe, iron. 
 
For all lighter elements (i.e. to the left), the curve tells you energy is released by forming heavier ones from lighter ones. This is the basis of nuclear fusion of hydrogen.
For all heavier elements (i.e. to the right), the curve tells you energy is released by splitting them into lighter elements. This is the basis of nuclear fission of uranium.
 
How do we obtain this curve? By measuring the mass of the nuclei (using mass spectrometry usually, I think) and comparing it with the mass in the free state of the protons, neutrons and electrons that make it up. What we find is the mass of the nucleus is always less than the mass of the free components. One measures this and tabulates the differences in mass from free components, for all the elements. The mass reduction for each corresponds to the binding energy and is simply calculated by applying E=mc² to the mass difference. That is how the graph is compiled.
 
So this graph predicts the energy change in any nuclear reaction. It is based entirely on E=mc². 


#10 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 09 June 2019 - 10:15 AM

A word of caution: adopting a binding energy of 7MeV/nucleon, this is the aditional energy released when

any at any atom A SINGLE NUCLEON is liberated due to a given experiment (1 neutron, for instance). You

have to add the mass of the neutron expressen in MeV, which is above 900 MeV.

 

If you completely destroy an U-235 atom. freeing its nucleons completely apart, the total binding energy

released is above 1,500 MeV per atom (plus the masses of the released nucleons).

 

And this is unrelated to the famous 200 MeV predicted (and "calculated") at U-235 elementary fission,

being more than 70% of that Kinetic Energy, as it can be seen in the table I posted.

 

At this process, E=mc2 doesn't apply. I told you so yesterday. Then, E = mc2 is unrelated to the A-bomb.

 

Otherwise, Einstein invented the A-bomb without knowing what an atom was, when he was using a candle

to write at night and just by using a train, a point-like mass, two beams of L/2 energy each and differences

in energy between two arbitrary reference frames. If so, this theory could have been developed by Kirchoff

in 1859, using the radiating energy of light (even before Maxwell) or any other scientist 100 years before

Kirchoff himself.

 

The basis of relativity is an abstract transform from one reference frame to the other (Gamma factor), the

undulatory notion of light and its speed (known by mid XVIII century), an extension of Galilei relativity, plus

accepting that there was an upper limit of speed of radiation (given by c).

 

You didn't need Maxwell or electrons to develop energy transformation between frames, nor length contraction

or time dilation. It only would need a gifted scientist to challenge Newton's action at a distance, by thinking that

time couldn't be universal and that visual information takes a time to reach an observer.

 

I HOPE that you may understand that such primitive but enlightened concepts could have been developed any

time sooner than 1900, and I'm talking 200 years before that year.

I think you have this upside down - unless it's a language issue.

 

No energy is released when a U 235 nucleus is split. As I have explained, you have to put energy in to do that.

 

The point about it is that the energy released by formation of the reaction products is greater than this input energy. So you get back more than you put in and end up with a net release of energy.

 

That is what the graph implies: you can get a release of energy by converting one heavy nucleus into smaller ones.

 

So what you have to do is work out what reaction products you get (generally a couple of chunks, plus a handful of free neutrons) and do the energy balance, just as you do when calculating the enthalpy change in a chemical reaction. 

 

I do not understand what you mean by E=mc² "not applying". The full equation, E² = (mc²)² + p²c², always applies, to anything. It certainly applies to U 235 fission. The yield from typical fission reactions is even shown schematically on the graph. 


Edited by exchemist, 09 June 2019 - 10:28 AM.


#11 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 09 June 2019 - 11:51 AM

I can answer the subject remarked in red color.

 

Since Thomsom times, when he "discovered" the electron (other scientists were working on the same field before), he

only could measure with a relative degree of accuracy, the mass/charge ratio of the electron under magnetic fields, after

electrical acceleration of cathode rays.

 

This is something I researched recently. Thomson's calculation about the mass of the electron (in electrostatic units, in the

cgs system) had a 10:1 difference with values found by 1920.

 

It was Planck who, by using his h constant and the Faraday constant, who calculated the electron's charge with a 3% of

difference with modern values. Meanwhile, Thomsom's mass had a value 10 times lower that the current one.

 

It was very common to use IONS of different elements and study the mass/charge ratio under strong magnetic fields. Then,

the mass was calculated by knowing the charge of the ion. I think that this was a very popular method for decades, to find

the total mass of different elements.

 

Just an anecdote. You can fact check it.

Yes that's right. I wrote up the e/m experiment in my physics A-level exam in 1971 and it helped me get a grade A. :)  which helped me get into Oxford to read chemistry the following year :) I was lucky: I chose that topic to revise on the Underground on the way to school to sit the exam ...and it came up on the paper, so I dashed it off in 20 mins. One of those strokes of luck that can change one's life.  But I digress.......

 

The mass-spec uses the same general principle, on ions of the elements, and then from the mass/charge ratio you have immediately the mass of the ion.

 

But the point is that nuclear physics uses the mass of the nuclei to determine their binding energy, which predicts what energy will be released in nuclear reactions. All based on E=mc².


Edited by exchemist, 09 June 2019 - 11:51 AM.


#12 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 10 June 2019 - 08:35 AM

The more I research about your last paragraph, the more convinced I'm that it's wrong for no less than 50% of people (scientists) involved into this matter.

 

I'll read more about it and post about it later. There are many suspicious stances.

 

And, by the way, I assume that you DO REALIZE that this subject is still CLASSIFIED, don't you?

 

Also, I don't known if you're familiar with basic techniques of counter-intelligence and dis-information. It's not only used by the military and

gubernamental bodies, but also widely used in the high end of the spectrum of corporations doing science and technology.

 

I know about this by first hand (ME, working in special facilities in the '70s).

Don't be ridiculous. This subject is taught in the physics depts of just about every university across the world.

 

On the other thread I've posted you a link in which you can look up the binding energy per nucleon of every known isotope of every element in the Periodic Table, all worked out from mass measurements and application of E=mc². 

 

From these you can work out the energy change for any given nuclear reaction. It's a bit like the tables of enthalpies of formation we use in my discipline, to work out the enthalpy changes in chemical reactions. 

 

So it's all publicly available.



#13 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 12 June 2019 - 02:05 AM

I just read this answer, one day after.

 

It's one more proof that we shouldn't be discussing with each other anymore.

 

I'm not going to use "ad hominem" or "straw-man" arguments, and I never do.

 

But your affirmation that the knowledge to make nuclear bombs is publicly available, and that

is taught in the physics depts of just about every university across the world just is beyond

reason,

 

I can't believe that you think that way, but you are free to think as you want.

 

So, from now on, keep doing your stuff and I'll do mine. We can't interact.

You seem to be having difficulties in reading comprehension.

 

What I said is publicly available (which you had absurdly claimed was "classified") is that:-

 

"......nuclear physics uses the mass of the nuclei to determine their binding energy, which predicts what energy will be released in nuclear reactions All based on E=mc²   

 

Post 20, in which I made this statement, was not talking about nuclear bombs, nor was your post to which I was replying.



#14 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 12 June 2019 - 03:09 AM

I'm not sure if this is useful to you guys (and you may already know it all) but, as I understand it, Leo Szilard's letter to Roosevelt had to be signed by Einstein for it to get to Roosevelt for the Los Alomos project to go ahead. Einstein didn't believe that a bomb was possible at that time but Szilard convinced him otherwise. I wonder if that is the settling argument you are looking for.

Szilard was working with Fermi and was worried that the Germans (from whom he had defected) could make the bomb. The disagreement was about U235 and U238 - Fermi argued 238 was responsible for fission. And there was something about an extra neutron which Einstein hadn't thought about. 

So from that history story, Einstein was politically vital but you will have to find details of their discussion for the science..

Fortunately for the allies and perhaps the world, Hittler came the rescue and shut down the project. Sending many ot the German scientists to the gas chambers as they were Jewish.

Leo Szillard was a hero.



#15 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 12 June 2019 - 05:08 AM

I'm not sure if this is useful to you guys (and you may already know it all) but, as I understand it, Leo Szilard's letter to Roosevelt had to be signed by Einstein for it to get to Roosevelt for the Los Alomos project to go ahead. Einstein didn't believe that a bomb was possible at that time but Szilard convinced him otherwise. I wonder if that is the settling argument you are looking for.

Szilard was working with Fermi and was worried that the Germans (from whom he had defected) could make the bomb. The disagreement was about U235 and U238 - Fermi argued 238 was responsible for fission. And there was something about an extra neutron which Einstein hadn't thought about. 

So from that history story, Einstein was politically vital but you will have to find details of their discussion for the science..

Fortunately for the allies and perhaps the world, Hittler came the rescue and shut down the project. Sending many ot the German scientists to the gas chambers as they were Jewish.

Leo Szillard was a hero.

Thanks that's interesting. I was aware of the Szilard petition to Truman but not this earlier letter to Roosevelt. 



#16 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 01:36 AM

Read the new thread, which has complete and final information on this matter of nuclear fission and its absolute

disconnexion with Einstein's 1905 "conjecture" about E=mc2.

 

http://www.sciencefo...elated-to-emc2/

The only connection, indeed, is that E=mc² predicts the energy release, from the observed difference in mass defect between the reactants and products. 



#17 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 11:16 AM

Following Robert Serber's 5 lectures in April 1943 to every physicist that went into Los Alamos,

whom had to attend Serber's Los Alamos Primer (the name of the lecture), this is HOW the

amount of 170 MeV was released as Kinetic Energy at the fission of one U-235 atom.

 

Each one of the more than 100 physicists (and chemists) who worked at the Manhattan Project

received also a mimeographed copy of the lecture.

 

The origin of the energy released at the fission of a U-235 atom is of electrostatic nature, and

follows the Coulomb's Law: The force between two electrostatic charges q1 and q2, separated by

a distance r is:

 

F = ke.q1.q2/r2

 

The energy content prior to any repulsive movement between charges of equal sign is:

 

E = F.r = ke.q1.q2/r

 

Now is when what was taught by Server is presented, as a summary:

 

1) The U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons (146 for the common U-238).

2) It's assumed that the U-235 atom split in halves of equal size, aproximately. It gives 2 x 46 protons to

    exert a repulsive electrostatic force (Coulomb).

3) At the moment of the fission, there is an electrostatic energy E, given by Coulomb's Law.

4) When a U-235 atom split in halves (1943 estimation), the total electrostatic energy split in three parts.

5) Each of the two fragments fly away with 1/3 of the energy each.

6) Two aditional fast neutrons are produced, besides the original one which caused the fission.

    To get a critical chain reaction, it's needed approximately 80 fissions per original neutron to produce 280

    neutrons "rain" within the critical mass. This occurs in approximately 1 microsecond, so there is an explosive

    generation of energy, which can produce 20 Kilotons of energy by fissioning 1 Kg of U-235.

 

7) The third part of the energy is released into the air as Kinetic Energy of electrostatic origin.

 

    There is not the slightest relationship between this energy per nucleus with Einstein's 1905 E=mc2 paper.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of explanations and calculations are done in the thread that I specifically opened, with details at my OP.

 

http://www.sciencefo...elated-to-emc2/

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Due to the relevance of Robert Serber at the Manhattan Project, and his role afterwards, any attempt to contradict

HIS WORDS, as written with a compilation of documents, photos and explanations, is a product of a sheer ignorance

and disrespect to this physicist and to Robert Oppenheimer, who instructed him how to lecture the other participants.

 

If anyone dares to do so, then should go to the University of California Press (founded in 1893) and present his/her claims there.

Or can go to the University to do so. They can be sued also, if anyone felt that is affected by this publication.

 

In order to help, this is the link to the publishing house: https://www.ucpress.edu/

None of which contradicts the fact that the energy release is the difference in binding energy between reactants and products, which is correctly predicted from their measured nuclear masses by E=mc².

 

(The stuff about people being sued is ridiculous, needless to say, as is the idea that a person should "present claims" to a book publisher.)  


Edited by exchemist, 13 June 2019 - 11:19 AM.

  • Dubbelosix likes this