Jump to content

- - - - -

Analysis Of Einstein's 1905 Paper About Mass-Energy

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 10 June 2019 - 11:26 AM

I'm using here a 1923 English translation of his original 1905 paper: "Ist die Tragheit eines Korpers von seinem Energieinhalt

abhanging? (13, 639, Annalen der Physik)."


To explain it briefly: There are two reference frames E(x,y,z) and H(x',y',z'). There is a point-like mass located at E(0,0,0) which is

at rest relative to the frame H, which is moving at constant velocity "v" towards the positive side of the x' axis.


There are two virtual observers: Observer 1 at E(x,y,z), who isn't moving with reference to E(0,0,0), and Observer 2 at H(x',y',z')

who also doesn't move with reference to H(0,0,0). A third virtual observer (Einstein) collects information about what both observers

perceive with respect to energies at E and its perception at H.


There is an initial state, ZERO, at which energy values from E and H are collected.

At a given instant, and without any further explanation about the technology used, the mass at the frame E (at rest), emits two

opposite beams of light (to cancel momentum), each one with energy L/2.

The light beams form an angle PHI with the x axis, which is arbitrary. Due to this fact, and to simplify, I selected PHI = 0.

The effect of the angles are cancelled inmediately, anyways.


This instantaneous emission of light (unexplained) creates a new state, called ONE.


The trick is to calculate the energies perceived by both observers: E0, E1 and H0, H1 and CALCULATE the total difference in

energies BEFORE and AFTER the light is turned ON.

Edited by rhertz, 18 June 2019 - 07:51 PM.

#2 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 03:37 AM

You could have saved yourself and everyone a lot of trouble by simply drawing attention to the Wiki link on mass-energy equivalence, here:https://en.wikipedia...rgy_equivalence


All the history is gone over at length here and the contributions by those that came before Einstein are clearly acknowledged, with no hint at all of suppression. There is also an article on  Hasenöhrl , here: https://en.wikipedia...drich_Hasenöhrl



Both articles are perfectly frank in setting out the discussion there has been over the years about where E=mc² really originated. Qualitatively, the idea of mass and light being interconvertible goes back to Newton, even. Subsequent to that in the c.19th, the concept of "electromagnetic mass" arose, as a consequence of the better understanding of the nature of EM radiation.


It is also clear, even from the very title of Einstein's paper, which, please note, is phrased as a question, that his derivation of the very same E=mc² from Special Relativity was a conjecture rather than a definitive assertion of a ground-breaking discovery.


But that was the persuasive power of Einstein's insight: this tantalising relationship, which others before him had come up with, could be seen to arise quite naturally from his own new theory of Special Relativity. 


The first Wiki article, by the way, goes on to explain how the formula was eventually put to the test by calorimetric measurements on radioactive decay processes (i.e. the mass defect issue I drew your attention to previously.)


It also dissects at length the false public perception that E=mc² somehow was the key to designing the atom bomb. I know you have a bee in your bonnet about that, too. 


So let's drop this paranoid notion that somehow the work of all these others has been "suppressed" by the hated "MSM" [boo, hiss]. The history is all there for anyone to see.


The most that can be said is that the media do indeed persist in their simple-minded fixation with Einstein's equation, it being just about the only piece of algebra you ever see in a newspaper or on TV! I agree with you that is annoying, but then journalists are forever simplifying and misrepresenting scientific ideas - nearly all of them, at least in the English speaking press (in France it is a lot better) have an arts background.   

Edited by exchemist, 11 June 2019 - 03:54 AM.

#3 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 07:14 AM

exchemist, if you keep using Wikipedia as a "source" of information, I'll start to doubt any assertion you make using it.


You are grown enough to know already (and if not, you should) that Wikipedia is highly manipulated. It's the BATTLEFIELD between

those having one view, those who have another view and those who are fuc***ng shills and trolls, which purpose is to disinformate.


I NEVER EVER use Wikipedia (since its creation) as a reliable source of information.


Now, I'll be very short here: The main OBJECTIVE of this thread and my OP is to mathematically demonstrate (I'm good at it) that

Einstein's 1905 paper about E=mc2 is stupid, childish and utterly wrong.


I'm using stablished science to do so (mathematics and logic).


So, if your attitude is just to use words to criticize me, instead of the languages of mathematics and logic,

please CEASE TO DO SO.


If you want to be at the same level of my OP, just use the same tools I did to make refutations. Prove to me that you

are a true physic chemist with an universitary degree, please. Stop talking and do the math (remember that?)!

You are failing to take in what I am saying to you in my responses.


The point I am making is, just as I warned you it would be, that your assertions that all these issues are somehow suppressed, by a conspiracy of some kind, are baseless hogwash. There is no conspiracy and your supposed revelations are nothing of the kind. 


Unlike you, I have no interest is futzing around obsessively with Einstein's maths, because it does not matter a damn to modern physics whether his conjecture was solid logic at the time or not. The empirical fact is that subsequent observation has borne out what he suggested: nature behaves as if E=mc² is true, so far as we can tell.  

  • sanctus likes this

#4 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 08:12 AM

You are proving being a person without a scientific mind here.


Any person with the correct attitude would study in detail the mathematics and logical thinking of any historical theory.


I did it with Kirchoff, Maxwell, Planck, Boltzmann, Einstein, Schrodinger, Rayleigh and many others (I even wrote a blog over it).


As you and I are talking in different languages (math+logic versus quoting references), I don't see any value keep

interacting at this post.


Sorry, but MATHEMATICS IS MY FAVORITE LANGUAGE. I relied on it my whole life, and it did well for me.


Any time you want to analyze my OP with mathematics and logic, you are wellcome. If not, then that's it.


It's not about Einstein: It's about REASON versus SOPHISM.

If that is so, why do you keep making these allegations of suppression of supposed facts, and imaginary conspiracies by the "mainstream media", as you call them?


None of that has anything to do with reason or mathematics, and that is the content of your posts I object to.  

#5 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 08:54 AM

I wrote the OP at this thread to analyze with ALL my strength at mathematics and logic this specific 1905 paper. No place for conspiracies here.

I wrote two other threads about E=mc2 where you can post what you like.


Please, don't derail this thread. If you want to contribute, use only math and logic, not references and focus on the original paper, which I called

vicious and fallacious. I give the proper explanation of how Einstein manipulated ELEMENTARY ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS to hide the fact that he

is preparing his ground to assign energy L to a mass defect, which is fallacious end-to-end, as he hides the observed KE of the mass.


Then, without any proof or mathematical connection, and using a fallacious mathematical identity A = A, he changes the meaning of this identity

to call it  A' = A, where now A' is NOT A but a energy difference between energy differences (do you see the cascade of terms here?).


Then, while he had the identity     L (Y-1) = L (Y-1), he changed the meaning of the left side (a fallacy) by calling the left side Delta Energy.


Once he did commit such a fallacy (a stupid move, which hasn't been criticized by everyone. WHY?), he passes from:


L (Y-1) = L (Y-1) to Delta Energy = L(Y-1), which ends into the approximation Delta Energy = 1/2 (L/c2)v2


Even doing so (the right side is correct up to v/c < 0.2) he still fails connecting this Delta Energy to the mass m0, which

he suppresed at any part of his paper. There is no previous or posterior proof that mass m0 has changed.


What happens at time of Ambient 1, when both light beams appear, is the magical generation of light, which makes no physical sense.


But even so, and with Hasenhorl as his inspiration, he makes a very wrong statement:


- He stated that the point-like mass (has to be point-like or it would invade y and z spaces) produces SPHERICAL WAVES of

  HEMISPHERICAL LIGHT. How did he do so? Which technology did he used two produce two exactly equal but opposite and

  instantaneously generated hemispherical waves of light?


- Even worse. He continues by stating that YOU HAVE TO ASSUME that such hemispherical waves of light instantaneously and

  in an arbitrarily small amount of distance ARE TRANSFORMED INTO PLANAR WAVES.


  He need to to that, otherwise he wouldn't be able to apply the projected energy of radiation by multiplying total energy L/2 by

  cos(PHI), in order to obtain the energy in the direction of the longitudinal axis.


Now, how many things were forgiven to Einstein at his 1905 paper? I count no less than FIVE HUGE WRONGDOINGS!


And, as a final stroke, his extrapolation of L/c2 to the entire mass m0, but only if v/c < 0.2 (more or less).


But we read about an incredible amount of examples with v/c almost equal to 1 (infinite error at his approximation), like

in particle accelerator's outcomes, cosmic muon's energies, etc.


Now, tell me that THIS PHYSICS is not a f***ing JOKE!



It is not a joke.


It has been amply confirmed, by observation, that this relationship does indeed hold. Whether you like it or not. 


And you continue, in this thread, to spread falsehoods about "suppression" of some truth that you imagine you are revealing.  


When you manage to write a thread that refrains from baseless accusations of conspiracy, I will refrain from objecting. 

Edited by exchemist, 11 June 2019 - 08:56 AM.

#6 sanctus


    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4255 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 08:56 AM

As Exchemist pointed out, it is not a joke because so far it has been observed to be true. That is good enough for applications, now whether there are errors in logic/derivation etc in the 1905 paper is more relevant for historians...

  • Dubbelosix likes this

#7 VictorMedvil


    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2849 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 09:07 AM

This is my view on this entire conversation.






Edited by VictorMedvil, 11 June 2019 - 09:13 AM.

#8 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 09:42 AM

sanctus, I'm not questioning the widespread use of the convention E=mc2. A linear equivalence between energy and mass has been suspected and written in scientific documents since Newton's time.


I'm working here on the history of physics, which I like very much. What I question is that such a relationship be attributed to Einstein undeservedly.


He didn't prove that, not even close, and was criticized for his approximation and his mistakes by Planck himself since 1906.


I consider that Hasenhorl (1904-1905) expression E = 3/4 mc2 has a true scientific value. Please, read his derivation, of which I posted a link to a translation in English some posts ago.


One thing more: As an electronic engineer, specialized in telecommunications and having working in telcos most of my life, I understand the value of standards crystal clear. I lived surrounded by CCITT and CCIR standards (later ITU-T and ITU-R), which are international and by regional standards like those from ECM, ANSI, etc. Standards are key to progress, even if they are wrong!


My favourite example is the formula to generate an artificial "voice spectrum" to create instruments to tests telephone channels worldwide. It's arbitrary and wrong, but an entire industry was built around it.


Or the reference (standard) about the isotropic gain of a monopole as being 3 dbi. It's arbitrary, but settled discussions about antennae design, and allowed smooth development of antenna's technology for decades.


In the case of using MeV as a measure of energy or MeV/c2 as a measure of mass (with c=1, by consensus), this STANDARD allowed the development of specific branches of physics for decades, allowing scientists to exchange NORMALIZED information about their works.


But here, and innocuously, I believe that I can challenge the validity of this simple formula for different enviroments. I can say that, at sub-atomic levels, there are MANY things which are not completely understood yet. The use of different types of energies (supported by E=mc2) is a temporal solution that, very likely, will change in 50 years.


I give an example and I'll finish: gluonic energy, which is used to put in there every bit of differences in energy calculations at sub-atomic levels. I accept it as a TEMPORAL standard (standard evolve with time, by the way). So, it's not even close that everything is known at physics, and this equation serves well for his purpose.


That's how I understand his universal adoption since the end of WWII.

You do not have the freedom to "consider" that Hasenöhrl's E= 4/3 mc² is correct.


We know that it is wrong because, as I keep telling you we have measured the values (see my posts on mass defect and binding energy )and we know the correct version is E=mc². We have measured the energy from nuclear reactions. And we have measured the mass change. And the ratio of them is as given by E=mc².


You never did respond to my explanation of the 200MeV question that you posed, which you said E=mc² failed to explain. Too embarrassing? 


It is thus nothing short of deranged for you to speak of this formula as if it is a mere "convention" in physics nomenclature.


It is objectively i.e. physically, right, so far as experimental physics to date can tell. 

#9 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 10:56 AM

Now you went too far!


You are NOBODY to tell me what degree of freedom I'm granted to have!


Who do you believe you are? Did you lost your mind?


Rephrase that or we are done.

What I mean is that no scientific person has the freedom to believe something that is directly contradicted by experimental evidence.


If you persist in believing things that are contradicted by experiment, you are being - to say the least - unscientific. You can do that and be a lot of things: a crank, a crackpot, mentally unhinged, or a religious nut.


So, if you choose to "consider" that E=4/3mc², in spite of the evidence, you are in effect declaring yourself to be one of those - or possibly a linear combination of several of them at once. I will not speculate publicly as to which may apply.  :winknudge:    

Edited by exchemist, 11 June 2019 - 10:57 AM.

#10 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 01:44 PM

Obviously, you know nothing about what standards are!


I could declare E = 153.4 mc2 and recalibrate everything (from standards to instrument to any kind of documents) to fit accordly.


That's what happened, for instance, with the change of electrostatic system of units (cgs) to SI system (MKS).


I have to redefine what a 1eV equals to and similar things, and that's it.


For being such a profound sustainer of relativity, you have forgot that our world has been constructed around RELATIVITIES!


Shame on you!


Learn something about the highest authority in the world on this matter:


BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Measures)




If I take the SI MKS system, and I redefine what 1Kg, 1mt and 1 second are, then every other

derived unit of measure should follow suit this change.


Your time is relative to what BIPM states, according to a selected source for its definition.

Your weight is relative to what BIPM states, according to a selected source for its definition.

Your height is relative to what BIPM states, according to a selected source for its definition.


If I, invested with supranatural powers and having a childish nature, decide that since now:


- A new 1Kg patron is 79% of the former patron.

- A new 1mt patron is 154% higher than the former patron.

- A new second is  15% of the former patron.


I could do so, and the world wouldn't suffer these changes, because every instrument is recalibrated,

every written document is modified and the standard model of units of measurements is coherently

reformulated. Do you follow me? Everything is relative to something else.


We have been changing our system of measures for centuries, and society followed it without any crisis.


For instance, right now cosmologists are struggling to get cosmic distance redefined from light years to

"proper" light years, in order to explain radius of the "observable" universe being the standard, instead

of the radius of the "visible" Hubble's universe, without any physical law being violated (even when it

imply, TODAY, that we can observe things so far that, with current STANDARDS, we see things which

moves away at "supraluminal" speeds. And this is ONE current example.


Or think: Why was accepted in physics the 1/2 factor in Kinetic Energy (vis viva)? Was it in order to make

space for the OTHER vis viva (momentum)? Or something else? Standarization really works, see?


Try to express the charge of the electron in electrostatic units, and tell it to anyone TODAY. They'll laugh at you,

because it's non sensical by our CURRENT standards. But it was a serious stuff in Einstein's times.

This is moronic. The kg, the metre and the second, and thus the Joule (=kg.m²/s²), which has a fixed relation to other energy units such as the electron-volt, were already defined before E=mc² came along. 


So no, you are not able to redefine the units to fit arbitrary constants in this formula, in the way you suggest. You would have to define a new unit. 

Edited by exchemist, 11 June 2019 - 01:46 PM.

#11 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2916 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 03:25 AM

By completely different reasons than the one described at the OP, which was to show the wrongdoings in Einstein's short paper, I have

one idea based on the original framework, but using only two photons emitted in opposite directions by a magical reason, with frequency f.


As it's a "thought experiment", I can redesign the original scenario by using only two photons which, curiously, were emitted by two different

atoms exactly at the same time and frequency, and exactly in opposite directions along the x axis (to cancel momentum).


Then, at the lowest energy level possible (as per Planck), the final equation for dE (Delta Energy) would have been:


                                                  Delta E = 2.hf.(Y-1)


and, as v << c, then  (Y-1) = 1/2 v2/c2. Then, the total energy change would be:


                                                  Delta E = 1/2 (2hf/c2).v2  , which has the form of KE = 1/2 mx.v2


what would be the meaning of such a strange mass mx = 2hf/c2 ?


It's not mass lacking from the rest mass m0, because no mass was lost when both photons were emitted.


Could it be some kind of electromagnetic mass for the two photons, having each one an EM mass mp = hf/c2?


Because it contains the relationship E = hf = mpc2, given as an approximation for v << c.


Any opinion?

What is v? And what is Y?

#12 Dubbelosix



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3625 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 01:16 PM

Ah but you see, you are in no position to criticize what you clearly don't understand. I am not defending my work, I am defending relativity. It is you who clearly has no clue what you are on about - if you had an ounce of capacity to be able to criticize my work, you'd do so in a rigorous manner, but since you can't disprove relativity, disproving my work is pointless.