Open Letter: The Failure of Einstein's E=mc2

[Mage]

@Philia He is trying to confuse us

He is using rest mass and classical theories in relativity, and saying relativity is imaginary. Truth is relativity at times try to contradict classical Newtonian theories.

E=mc² only describes objects that have mass but aren't moving. The full equation, used for bodies in motion, is E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² where that extra 'p' represents the momentum of an object. Besides being important for calculations on everything from celestial mechanics to rocketry, it's also important proof why anything with mass can't travel at the speed of light.

Because of the interchangeability of matter and energy into either form, Mass can be changed into energy or vice versa. Classical theory don't think about this minute change.

Newton thought gravity as a force. Time is exactly equal everywhere. Einstein found gravity equivalent to a continuous acceleration and time is different in different space times.

If we want to take this by numbers. Let's say a locomotive engine needs a certain power to sustain a certain velocity. Newton says pick a 1 MW engine but einstein will say take a 1.000000000000009 MW engine. The difference is dwarfed by the number of decimal places. Meanwhile try to use Newton to estimate the energy of a particle accelerated to 0.9999c (c-speed of light) by measuring the mass of the particle at rest and then using: 0.5*m*v^2 and you'll end up being completely wrong. (by a large factor, not just by a miniscule amount!) The same thing is true for Einsteins theories. If we ever find a set of circumstances where they break down, it's likely to be a set of circumstances way outside the ones our current experiments are performed under.

This won't make Einstein worthless. (if it happens at all!), it will just teach us where the limits to practical application of his theory are.

It seems sects of Physics are like sects of Islam. One can't get along with other. Newtonian Physics doesn't get along with General relativity. General relativity doesn't get along with Quantum mechanics. I don't even know what is special relativity...pout

 

[Chhatrapati]

It seems sects of Physics are like sects of Islam. One can't get along with other. Newtonian Physics doesn't get along with General relativity. General relativity doesn't get along with Quantum mechanics. I don't even know what is special relativity...pout

Then there is the elephant in the room. TIME

Special relativity explain that irrespective of the state of observer, the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

 

[chanrasjid]

Well E is not equal to mc^2. But E is close to mc^2. The fact is the v's we measure is <<<<<c thus E=mc^2 works.

E = mc^2 is a relation between mass and energy in General Relativity. While in Quantum mechanics mass and energy is the same thing. We can convert mass to energy(we do so on nuclear power plants) and we can convert energy to matter in particle colliders. Matters are basically combinations of various particles. And those particles are formed by energy.

Relatively of time has been experimentally proven by time dilation in atomic clocks.

Distance is basically then relation between two points at space. What is space is a tough question though. Matter/Mass is a way energy manifests itself. Time is another tough question. It has some dependency on motion and motion comes from force. Energy is a bigger mystery to me. Energy cannot be created or destroyed can only be transformed from one form to another, then how the hell it came into existence? Strangely the net energy of the universe is 0 and always stays zero. So the law isn't completely gals either.


Most of what I wrote doesn't make sense. Not to me either. Sadly General Relatively and Quantum mechanics doesn't get along nicely.


I missed that part. Will get back to it later. Need to clear some confusion first. But you did get me interested. You have wrote a lot of articles about these issues. Which one I should I go through first?

Also let me know what you think of time dilation and particles moving faster than light.

You are mistaken. The proper formula is:

total energy E=kinetic_energy+ rest_energy;
kinetic_energy=(γ-1)m₀c²; where m₀ = constant rest mass; the gamma factor γ= 1/√(1-v²/c²).
rest_energy = m₀c².​

So finally:​

E= (γ-1)m₀c² + m₀c² = γm₀c² or :​

E=mc² where m=relativistic mass=m₀/√(1-v²/c²).​

If you read some introductory chapters in special relativity; e.g in "Classical Dynamics", Marion& Thornton (a well know undergraduate mechanics textbook), you would understand that special relativity is nothing more, nor less, then the physics founded on the Lorentz transformation:
x' = γ(x-vt);
y' = y;
z' = z;
t' = γ(t - vx/c²);
Time dilation and length contraction of special relativity are directly derived from the above Lorentz transformation.It is mainly about how someone moving, eg. in an airplane, would find his understanding of space and time within his cabin different from space and time as found by a person stationary on the ground (such are x$% to me; the relevant article in my website is "The Lorentz Transformation Cannot Be Physical"). The "length contraction" of special relativity is that a person in an airplane would find (meaning measured) that a rod of 1 meter stationary on the ground is shorter than 1 meter - it is 1 meter only for a person stationary on the ground. By the Holy Spirit! How do you, inside the airplane's cabin "find" - in other words measure - the length of the rod on the ground unless you are aided by the miracle of the Holy Spirit!

No one knows if particles really could or could not go faster than light. What can be said with certainty is that no particles - electrons or protons - could go faster than light speed within the super LHC accelerators. What is "true" within the accelerator may not be true outside the core of the accelerators (see my blog articles). I may jest conjecture than the LHC Large Hadron Collider is "Super Dumb Built By The Dumbest Physicists" - so they "don't even know how to push a minuscule tiny electron pass light speed"

Radioactive beta decay is known since about 1900 and it is found that high speed beta particles (electrons or positrons) are ejected through natural radioactive decay of the nucleus of some unstable heavy elements. Such nuclei may be considered nature's natural nuclear power stations - they are powered by the true nuclear force found only within the nucleus of atoms. Such natural nuclear power stations are real smart and use "cutting edge" technology unlike the Neanderthal type electromagnetic forces used by the Dumb LHC. No physicists until now (after a full hundred years) have directly measured the speed with which the electrons are ejected by the nuclear forces from beta decay - they only know that some are ejected at very high speed. They assume, from the experience of their LHC, that no electrons could go faster than light speed. Assumption is nice.

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

@Philia He is trying to confuse us

He is using rest mass and classical theories in relativity, and saying relativity is imaginary. Truth is relativity at times try to contradict classical Newtonian theories.

E=mc² only describes objects that have mass but aren't moving. The full equation, used for bodies in motion, is E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² where that extra 'p' represents the momentum of an object. Besides being important for calculations on everything from celestial mechanics to rocketry, it's also important proof why anything with mass can't travel at the speed of light.

Because of the interchangeability of matter and energy into either form, Mass can be changed into energy or vice versa. Classical theory don't think about this minute change.

Newton thought gravity as a force. Time is exactly equal everywhere. Einstein found gravity equivalent to a continuous acceleration and time is different in different space times.

If we want to take this by numbers. Let's say a locomotive engine needs a certain power to sustain a certain velocity. Newton says pick a 1 MW engine but einstein will say take a 1.000000000000009 MW engine. The difference is dwarfed by the number of decimal places. Meanwhile try to use Newton to estimate the energy of a particle accelerated to 0.9999c (c-speed of light) by measuring the mass of the particle at rest and then using: 0.5*m*v^2 and you'll end up being completely wrong. (by a large factor, not just by a miniscule amount!) The same thing is true for Einsteins theories. If we ever find a set of circumstances where they break down, it's likely to be a set of circumstances way outside the ones our current experiments are performed under.

This won't make Einstein worthless. (if it happens at all!), it will just teach us where the limits to practical application of his theory are.

You wrote: "Meanwhile try to use Newton to estimate the energy of a particle accelerated to 0.9999c (c-speed of light) by measuring the mass of the particle at rest and then using: 0.5*m*v^2 and you'll end up being completely wrong...."

Exactly that's my point: "using: 0.5*m*v^2" will be the only "exactly right" calculation according to the papers in my website. Special relativity would be wrong and out by a factor of 15,000!
(read my blog posts)

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

 

[Cthulhu]

Open Letter To the World Physics Community:
The Failure of Einstein's E=mc2.
18 May 2017

Dear scientists,

For almost a hundred years, Einstein's formula E=mc² (the famous energy mass equivalent equation) has been the cardinal equation of physics as it introduced the concept of total energy of matter; all dynamics involves energy of particles and matter. The author has discovered very recently (April 2016) that the formula E=mc² is invalid; energy is fictitious in the formula. The proof is simple and involves no high mathematics. Any good high school students taking physics as a subject could easily come to a definite understanding of the analysis and decides for himself whether the author's claim is correct; there is no need to rely on the words of any physics professor to know if the formula is valid or invalid. The author has the relevant paper in his website:
The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails,

The short paragraphs below are sufficient to convince any physics students that the formula E=mc² is invalid.

The formula for kinetic energy in classical Newtonian mechanics is: KE = ½ mv²; this formula is derived from the application of Newton's second law together with the definition of momentum p as: p = mv; where m=mass of particle with velocity v. Energy in classical Newtonian mechanics is based on the definition of: work (energy) = force x distance. Newton's second law is:

Force is proportional to rate of change of momentum.​

It gives force F as: F = d/dt (mv) = m x dv/dt = ma. This is the well known definition of force as mass x acceleration: F=ma. The unit for force in the SI system is the newton (symbol N); with work = force x distance, the unit for energy is the Joule (symbol J).

On the other hand, the formula E=mc² is derived from Einstein's special theory of relativity together with a new relativistic definition of momentum as: p = mv/√(1-v²/c²); where m = rest mass, c=constant speed of light.
With a new definition of momentum, force in special relativity would be different from the classical definition of F=ma; it is now:

F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)} --- (I)​

As any physics students can see, equation (I) is different from the rather simple F=ma. F=ma is the basis of the SI definition of force, the newton N. There is no way equation (I) may be used in any manner to define a unit of force.

The truth is that special relativity has no real unit for force.​

The physics community just assumes that the equation (I), too, evaluates force in the same classical units of Newtonian mechanics - it does not. Only in classical Newtonian mechanics that the unit of force, the newton N, may be used. The relativistic force as defined in equation (I) evaluates only to a real number with no association with any real unit of force. As force does not have a real unit, so does work and energy in special relativity have no real units. Energy in special relativity is only fictitious. As the formula E=mc² is derived directly from equation (I), energy in the formula, too, is fictitious (the only exception may be when a particle is at rest where E=mc² may apply).

E=mc² is only a fictitious formula​

All figures of energy in relativistic physics, including high energy particle physics, is based on the fundamental formula E=mc²; when energy is fictitious, all of particle physics breaks down. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, that operates the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has purportedly accelerated protons to levels of energy as high as 7 TeV (tera electron-volt, 10¹²). As the energy was computed from the formula E=mc², the figure was just a fictitious value. The only kinetic energy formula that computes energy in real units is the simple classical formula: KE =½ mv². With this formula, the proton's energy within the LHC would only be about 470 MeV (10⁶); the CERN's reported figure being overstated by a factor of 15,000.

All of high energy particle physics of CERN and the LHC Large Hadron Collider fails.​

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.

Actually the author of this article is wrong.

 

[Chhatrapati]

@Joe Shearer How's your knowledge in General Relativity and Classical physics?

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer How's your knowledge in General Relativity and Classical physics?

Awful!

I nearly didn't make it to my Senior Cambridge because the Physics teacher didn't want me even to do the pre-qualifying tests.

But if you want me to get educated (superficially, one micron deep), I have a co-brother who is both a Bhatnagar Award and a Nehru Award winner, and a professor emeritus at the Tata Institute. The only trouble is that he might have a nervous breakdown coping with my naivete, so it has to be something very special.

None of his children took to physics, though one became a mathematician.

In case you are trying to get me to read the thread, I'll do that after dinner.

Having read the passage, I feel very sorry.

Some people get obsessed with proving Einstein wrong. The fact is that Einstein has already been developed upon, and current physics is not, as some might think, something that begins with and ends with Einstein.

However, the obsessions lead to serious social consequences for the obsessed. It is a sad situation.

It would take me in my present state of mental disrepair weeks to come to a stage where I can say something meaningful about the recent history of development in physics (no question of entering into the detailed explanations). I don't see this thread lasting that long.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Awful!

I nearly didn't make it to my Senior Cambridge because the Physics teacher didn't want me even to do the pre-qualifying tests.

Aw!! Why not try reading some about General and Special relativity. It's a good read.

Equal to two puffs of Ganja. Oops!

Some people get obsessed with proving Einstein wrong.

Classical mechanics is not valid in quantum mechanics or relativistic mechanics.

Haven't met anyone with interest in such stuffs out here. Even this guy is wrong from the beginning. Comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Aw!! Why not try reading some about General and Special relativity. It's a good read.

Equal to two puffs of Ganja. Oops!


Classical mechanics is not valid in quantum mechanics or relativistic mechanics.

Haven't met anyone with interest in such stuffs out here. Even this guy is wrong from the beginning. Comparing apples with oranges.

I glanced through it; it was so wrong that it takes an expert to pick it apart. Obviously an obsession.

 

[paklix]

you really added the point. but i am not a science student ...