Personal Topic

[Moronium]

Now you've got my attention. Do you have a link to that paper? 

 

I'm pretty sure I posted the link in this thread, but I can't remember where now.  I presume that no one else would know, either, because no one reads my posts.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

I'm pretty sure I posted the link in this thread, but I can't remember where now.  I presume that no one else would know, either, because no one reads my posts.

Well if you can produce it I will read it.

 

My understanding is that mass energy equivalence falls out of SR and this resolved a "paradox" put forward by Poincare, some years before, who had found that Maxwell's equations implied that EM radiation, specifically, had momentum.  

[Moronium]

I don't know if this is the same paper I previously cited, there are probably more than one on the topic

 

Extensive research into the principles of Einstein’s E = mc2 equation led the author to the alternative E = m0c2 + k equation based on Newtonian mechanics laws of physics.  The author’s equation allows for direct comparison with Einstein’s equation as the mass speed v increases toward c and thereby provides insights into the meanings of experimental results relating to the energy equation that were not previously available.  Such insights can be useful in broadening our understanding of the laws of physics that govern the universe and in determining the overall validity of Einstein’s and the author’s energy equations.

 

http://www.mrelativity.net/NewtonianMechanicsSolutionEmc2/Newtonian%20Mechanics%20Solution%20to%20E.htm

 

EDIT:  No, that's not it, although it may help explain things.  The subject of the paper I cited derived MC2, itself, not an "alternative" formulation.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's a somewhat related article from Scientific American:

 

According to scientific folklore, Albert Einstein formulated this equation in 1905 and, in a single blow, explained how energy can be released in stars and nuclear explosions. This is a vast oversimplification. Einstein was neither the first person to consider the equivalence of mass and energy, nor did he actually prove it.   

 

Henri Poincaré stated that if one required that the momentum of any particles present in an electromagnetic field plus the momentum of the field itself be conserved together, then Poynting’s theorem predicted that the field acts as a “fictitious fluid” with mass such that E = mc2...

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/

 

The scope of investigations widened again in 1904 when Fritz Hasenöhrl created a thought experiment involving heat energy in a moving cavity. Largely forgotten today except by Einstein detractors, Hasenöhrl was at the time more famous than the obscure patent clerk. Then one of Austria’s leading physicists, he wrote a prize-winning trilogy of papers, “On the theory of radiation in moving bodies,” the last two of which appeared in the Annalen der Physik in 1904 and early 1905...

 

In considering the mass inherent in heat Hasenöhrl extended the previous deliberations beyond the electromagnetic field of charged objects to a broader thought experiment very similar to Einstein’s own of the following year, which gave birth to E = mc2.

 

One naturally wonders whether Einstein knew of Hasenöhrl’s work. It is difficult to believe that he did not, given that the bulk of the prize-winning trilogy appeared in the most prominent journal of the day.

 

As I recall, the first physicist to claim that E=MC2 did so around 1880, but, again, this was based  on inadequate reasoning.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Here's a somewhat related article from Scientific American:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/

Yes this is an extended history of the Poincare business I was thinking of. Though I had not heard of Hasenöhrl. As so often, various people had elements of the picture, before Einstein came along. The concluding paragraph seems to sum it up:

 

" And so, although Einstein achieved a definite conceptual advance in equating the mass of an object with its total energy content—whether or not it is moving, whether or not it has an electromagnetic field—we can also credit Hasenöhrl for unambiguously recognizing that heat itself possess an equivalent mass, and physicists before him for providing a chain of shoulders on which to stand."

[exchemist]

I don't know if this is the same paper I previously cited, there are probably more than one on the topic

 

 

http://www.mrelativity.net/NewtonianMechanicsSolutionEmc2/Newtonian%20Mechanics%20Solution%20to%20E.htm

 

EDIT:  No, that's not it, although it may help explain things.  The subject of the paper I cited derived MC2, itself, not an "alternative" formulation.

But this takes Newtonian mechanics and in the author's words, "relativises it" by introducing the Lorentz γ factor, which contains c² of course. So it's not surprising he comes out with E=mc². The question that arises is on what basis does he introduce the γ factor, if he is not assuming SR?

[Moronium]

From wiki, which always has something to say about virtually everything:

 

Albert Einstein did not formulate exactly the formula E = mc2 in his 1905 Annus Mirabilis paper "Does the Inertia of an object Depend Upon Its Energy Content?";[3] rather, the paper states that if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2...

 

The correctness of Einstein's 1905 derivation of E = mc2 was criticized by Max Planck (1907), who argued that it is only valid to first approximation. Another criticism was formulated by Herbert Ives (1952) and Max Jammer (1961), asserting that Einstein's derivation is based on begging the question.[4][56] On the other hand, John Stachel and Roberto Torretti (1982) argued that Ives' criticism was wrong...

 

An alternative version of Einstein's thought experiment was proposed by Fritz Rohrlich (1990), who based his reasoning on the Doppler effect.[59] Like Einstein, he considered a body at rest with mass M. If the body is examined in a frame moving with nonrelativistic velocity v, it is no longer at rest and in the moving frame it has momentum P = Mv.

 

Like Poincaré, Einstein concluded in 1906 that the inertia of electromagnetic energy is a necessary condition for the center-of-mass theorem to hold. On this occasion, Einstein referred to Poincaré's 1900 paper and wrote:

 

"Although the merely formal considerations, which we will need for the proof, are already mostly contained in a work by H. Poincaré, for the sake of clarity I will not rely on that work."

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#History

 

It's probably worth noting that Poincare (like Lorentz) never accepted SR as being physically valid.  They conceded that it was just as mathematically valid as their own theories, but they both adopted a framework which presupposed absolute simultaneity and absolute motion as being "physically" correct.

 

As previously noted, their theories, or some slight variation on them, have been confirmed just as often (actually more often than) as SR.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

According to this guy:

 

[Einstein's] derivation of the mass-energy law was not based on the special theory of relativity but on Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory. After World War II and the explosion of atomic bombs, Einstein returned to E=mc2 in two essays. He again claimed that the formula was inherent in pre-relativistic physics, but now Newton’s law of momentum conservation was foremost in Einstein’s mind.

 

 

https://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/GraneauIE61.pdf

[Moronium]

From CERN:

 

‘Today, particle physicists only use the term mass. According to this rational terminology the terms rest mass and relativistic mass are redundant and misleading.  There is only one mass in physics, m, which does not depend on the reference frame...‘As soon as you reject the relativistic mass there is no need to call the other mass rest mass and to mark it with a subscript 0.’

 

 

https://indico.cern.ch/event/318730/attachments/613329/843780/Relativistic_mechanics_and_mass.pdf

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The question that arises is on what basis does he introduce the γ factor, if he is not assuming SR?

 

 

Once again, SR is NOT the L.T. (which Einstein took from Lorentz), although many people seem to think the two are identical.  In particular they think that if the LT have been confirmed, then, ipso facto, SR has been confirmed.

 

The Lorentz factor or Lorentz term is the factor by which time, length, and relativistic mass change for an object while that object is moving. The expression appears in several equations in special relativity, and it arises in derivations of the Lorentz transformations. The name originates from its earlier appearance in Lorentzian electrodynamics – named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz.  Due to its ubiquity, it is generally denoted γ (the Greek lowercase letter gamma).

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

As I just said, they are confirmed by the LT, not SR per se.  And of course that experiment did nothing to "test" how the muon "sees it," i.e, it did nothing to test the hypothesis of "reciprocal time dilation."

I don't agree that anyone has demonstrated that LT is valid for anything at all.  Flying clocks around in planes or imagining you know whats going on with Muons is not empirical evidence.

LT is an error of logic and has no place in Physics in my opinion, its just clouding the issue.

E=Mc2 is also not useful, and does not relate to atomic power.  Its nonsense when you try to understand what Einstein was inferring with this equation. Energy is mass and mass is energy? really? Sure we can get energy from mass, like burning wood, that's energy from mass. But Einstein said that mass, i.e.  matter IS just energy, sort of locked up and seeming like a solid thing. Nothing really exists, just energy.  That's not physics, its a religious belief of the mystic school teaching like in the Kabbala.

 

The Muon experiment is a series of assumptions based on prior beliefs, and the final conclusions are tainted by these assumptions.  Its proof or demonstration of nothing.

[Moronium]

Well, Marco, as I said, I accept the data (just not SR as a valid explanation of it).  I understand that you reject experimental data obtained from the H-K experiment (and many other sources, such as the GPS) out of hand,  on "principle."  But you don't explain how, for example, the GPS could work without assuming the validity of the LT (which it does, and without which it would totally dysfunctional).

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

The real trouble here is that you guys are basing all your understanding of Physics on the assumption that you already have something correct to base your next conclusion on.

You are all looking at the world through rose colored glasses, believing what you see is reality.

 

As I said before, like Cavendish's gravitation constant, Maxwell's equations are not fully reliable. You cant hang a new concept on Maxwell's work as its only approximately correct, not a law of physics.  His equations fail when motion is considered, and it was Lorentz that tried to invent a fudge factor to try to save Maxwell's work. The truth is that we have no idea exactly what factors need to be considered in any equation to make it perfect.  Maybe there are forces and fields that exist only in relation to specific energies, and only under specific circumstances that MUST be included in any maths equation before its perfect. We can't know for sure.

 

No one understand Light.  But our physics and math provides a workable solution that allow us to make optical equipment. We know this is good enough because it works, and gives answers that resemble what we experience.

 

But some cherished principals do not really provide workable results. LT. SR, GR and E=mc2, Gravitational Constant, mass, are all examples of wishful thinking, not real Physics.

All of Particle Physics is pure guesswork.

Most of Cosmology is guesswork that does not even approach reality, it is opposite to reality.

 

All of Physics requires first and most importantly, a sound Philosophy or world view before its going to be anywhere near representative of reality.

And Philosophy of Physics and Science is now shunned by academics as not being relevant.

 

But every law, every principal in use today is based on some underlying Philosophic understanding.

[marcospolo]

Well, Marco, as I said, I accept the data (just not SR as a valid explanation of it).  I understand that you reject experimental data obtained from the H-K experiment (and many other sources, such as the GPS) out of hand,  on "principle."  But you don't explain how, for example, the GPS could work without assuming the validity of the LT (which it does, and without which it would totally dysfunctional).

I'll chase up some info on GPS when I get  chance, moving into a new home now, not on fixed internet for a while.  But as LT is nothing but a fudge to fix an erroneous theory, it cant be real or applicable to anything can it? How can you justify the need for a fudge factor for an error?

[Moronium]

Marco, one can easily take the position that, in essence, all knowledge is impossible.  That position was espoused many centuries ago by the ancient greek branch of philosophy called the skeptics (or skepticism).

 

It is a philosophical stance---one which has never been widely accepted, if for no other reason than that it just renders everyone universally ignorant with no hope of progress from utter "darkness."

 

It certainly is not a "scientific" attitude.

[Moronium]

 But as LT is nothing but a fudge to fix an erroneous theory, it cant be real or applicable to anything can it? How can you justify the need for a fudge factor for an error?

 

 

Well, I basically gave my thoughts on this in this thread a day or two ago.

 

At the time, Lorentz's transforms did certainly appear to be ad hoc, and suspect for that reason.  But, as I've said, we can discern certain seemingly invariable mathematical relationships in the world, without ever understanding "why" they are the way they are.  

 

Many modern theories purport to give a theoretical material explanation for the LT relationship between speed and the distortion of matter (I already gave you one link to a academic paper on that topic).  But, even without that, the mathematical relationship is repeatedly verified, just as the pythagorean theorem is in a plane, so I would accept it on that basis alone.  Same with Newton's Law (not theory) of universal gravitation, for another example.  It got us to the moon and back (with no need for GR).

 

At a certain age, kids will ask "why?"  Then every time you respond, they will ask "why" again.  At some point you end up saying "just because" or "because I said so, ya little twerp., now shut the **** up."

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Marco, one can easily take the position that, in essence, all knowledge is impossible.  That position was espoused many centuries ago by the ancient greek branch of philosophy called the skeptics (or skepticism).

 

It is a philosophical stance---one which has never been widely accepted, if for no other reason than that it just renders everyone universally ignorant with no hope of progress from utter "darkness."

 

It certainly is not a "scientific" attitude.

I never said ALL knowledge is impossible.  Some things we know well enough to be fully workable. In many instances, we don't need to understand everything to be able to be useful.

But the position you take that "renders everyone universally ignorant with no hope of progress from utter "darkness." is taking the issue of incomplete knowledge to a ridiculous extreme.

We need to recognize that if Physics (in this case) is coming up with irrational claims, then that's a sure sign that there could be missing information that is indispensable to a workable understanding of the problem.  Or just as likely, Science has ASSUMED that it CAN know EVERYTHING, (which is an arrogant attitude and also quite impossible) so the problem is Science is depending on its own "perfect knowledge" from prior concepts.  Whats that saying that goes something like, "if you think you know it all, you will never learn anything".

To think that is is possible that Science could ever understand EVERYTHING is a really foolish notion.