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

[chanrasjid]

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.

 

[Goenitz]

I guess theer are science forums so its diffcicult here who can comment ...

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

Did any one even do a basic dimensional analysis. Mr Chew is wrong.

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.

√(1-v²/c²) is Dimensionless and real for v < c

And rest is dimensionally correct.

So Indeed d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)} is dimensionally force only.

Actually Einstine corrected the effect of relativity wrt speed of light in newtonian laws of motion. At higher speed it takes much much more energy to accelerate a particle further. Much higher than predicted by Newtonian mechanics. The correction is √(1-v²/c²)
Which is a dimensionless quantity. So dimension/unit wise the equations still stand. Thats the basic argument Mr. Chew is making that equation are not Dimension/Unit wise correct and he is wrong.

I think Mr Chew thought C is a dimensionless constant, it is not. It is speed of light in vaccum and has a unit of speed.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Who's the writer and what are his credentials? Anybody can raise any doubts but it's important to know who it is and what are their motives.

If the aliens find our planet and threaten to eliminate our species unless we explain them the Theory of Relativity...

...don't count on me.

 

[chanrasjid]

I guess theer are science forums so its diffcicult here who can comment ...

I am aware many here may not have a degree physics background, but I think there should be quite some people here who have done high school level physics. This is the level of physics found in this open letter.

Just for your information, nearly all mainstream science and physics forums do not accept any debate on the validity of Einstein's relativity theory, E=mc², etc. It is a policy well maintained. I recently tried posting in the Chinese internet world; most active forums there deleted my posts (this open letter) after some replies received. The forums include Tianya, baidu tieba.science, tieba.relativity. Only in some dissident science forums can we post anything that go against Einstein's theories.

Another important point is that the world's government should be informed that we should stop wasting valuable resources building billion dollar setups to verify fictitious physics that will never give human society one more single technological innovation. All our efforts in CERN, ITER thermonuclear fusion experiments have all failed to give us anything after decades of experimentation.

I have been posting to mainly non-science forum to let others know that a lot of mentions of Einstein's physics are only propaganda. There are many qualified physicists around the world who unequivocally dismiss Einstein's relativity theories, but the voice of such physicists are usually not heard by the general public.

Chan Rasjid.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

I am aware many here may not have a degree physics background, but I think there should be quite some people here who have done high school level physics. This is the level of physics found in this open letter.

Just for your information, nearly all mainstream science and physics forums do not accept any debate on the validity of Einstein's relativity theory, E=mc², etc. It is a policy well maintained. I recently tried posting in the Chinese internet world; most active forums there deleted my posts (this open letter) after some replies received. The forums include Tianya, baidu tieba.science, tieba.relativity. Only in some dissident science forums can we post anything that go against Einstein's theories.

Another important point is that the world's government should be informed that we should stop wasting valuable resources building billion dollar setups to verify fictitious physics that will never give human society one more single technological innovation. All our efforts in CERN, ITER thermonuclear fusion experiments have all failed to give us anything after decades of experimentation.

I have been posting to mainly non-science forum to let others know that a lot of mentions of Einstein's physics are only propaganda. There are many qualified physicists around the world who unequivocally dismiss Einstein's relativity theories, but the voice of such physicists are usually not heard by the general public.

Chan Rasjid.

If you are suggesting that Dimensionally (I) does not represent force, then you are wrong. Einstine's equation is not broken atleast Dimensionally.

 

[chanrasjid]

Who's the writer and what are his credentials? Anybody can raise any doubts but it's important to know who it is and what are their motives.

If the aliens find our planet and threaten to eliminate our species unless we explain them the Theory of Relativity...

...don't count on me.

I cannot post any link to my website. You can google "Chan Rasjid Kah Chew E=mc2 fails" and reach my website. All personal details are in found in my website. You can help me and reply with a link to my site.

Chan Rasjid.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

http://www.emc2fails.com/
This is his website.
Most of his articles are wrong.

@chanrasjid

The simplest experiment that established time dilation as predicted by Einstine's theory of special relativity is this :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment

 

[chanrasjid]

Did any one even do a basic dimensional analysis. Mr Chew is wrong.
√(1-v²/c²) is Dimensionless and real for v < c

And rest is dimensionally correct.

So Indeed d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)} is dimensionally force only.

Actually Einstine corrected the effect of relativity wrt speed of light in newtonian laws of motion. At higher speed it takes much much more energy to accelerate a particle further. Much higher than predicted by Newtonian mechanics. The correction is √(1-v²/c²)
Which is a dimensionless quantity. So dimension/unit wise the equations still stand. Thats the basic argument Mr. Chew is making that equation are not Dimension/Unit wise correct and he is wrong.

I think Mr Chew thought C is a dimensionless constant, it is not. It is speed of light in vaccum and has a unit of speed.

There is only one forum (Chinese) that has an active thread that debates this open letter and about your argument based on dimensional analysis. Please google "mitbbs" - the first link of the search.

That E=mc² has the same dimension as energy (Newton.meter) just as ½mv² does not imply that E=mc² will be a valid formula in physics that may be used in physics (but this formula is the only energy formula used by the CERN physicists). A formula is valid only if it passes two basic tests of the scientific method, mainly:
1) logical consistency.
2) experimental verification.
The formula E=mc² has passed neither tests. No experimental test has been performed since 1945.

I will preempt any question about the atomic bomb. Most people associate E=mc² with the atomic bomb and ask "then how come the atomic bomb can explode?" To simplify matter, I will say the formula has two parts: 1) the atomic bomb parts that "works", 2) the fictitious part as used by the CERN physicists.

If dimension alone is sufficient in physics, then I have infinite number of ways to create an infinite number of "relativity theory" to replace Newton's mechanics. I define relativistic momentum as:
p = m₀v/√(1-v^n/c^n); n=2,3,4...

All the momentum formulas (and energy formulas) would be dimensionally correct). Which "E=mc²" do you prefer?

Chan Rasjid.

http://www.emc2fails.com/
This is his website.
Most of his articles are wrong.

@chanrasjid

The simplest experiment that established time dilation as predicted by Einstine's theory of special relativity is this :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment

"This is his website...Most of his articles are wrong".

Thank You very, very much. This "bad press" is the very best press I could think of!

Chan Rasjid.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

There is only one forum (Chinese) that has an active thread that debates this open letter and about your argument based on dimensional analysis. Please google "mitbbs" - the first link of the search.

That E=mc² has the same dimension as energy (Newton.meter) just as ½mv² does not imply that E=mc² will be a valid formula in physics that may be used in physics (but this formula is the only energy formula used by the CERN physicists). A formula is valid only if it passes two basic tests of the scientific method, mainly:
1) logical consistency.
2) experimental verification.
The formula E=mc² has passed neither tests. No experimental test has been performed since 1945.

I will preempt any question about the atomic bomb. Most people associate E=mc² with the atomic bomb and ask "then how come the atomic bomb can explode?" To simplify matter, I will say the formula has two parts: 1) the atomic bomb parts that "works", 2) the fictitious part as used by the CERN physicists.

If dimension alone is sufficient in physics, then I have infinite number of ways to create an infinite number of "relativity theory" to replace Newton's mechanics. I define relativistic momentum as:
p = m₀v/√(1-v^n/c^n); n=2,3,4...

All the momentum formulas (and energy formulas) would be dimensionally correct). Which "E=mc²" do you prefer?

Chan Rasjid.

You are right that a equation which is dimensionally correct is not necessarily correct, but your explanation given in your objection that Equation

F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)}

Cannot represent Force because its units are not that of Force is invalid.
F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)}
Indeed has unit of force.

The statement

"The relativistic force as defined in equation (I) evaluates only to a real number with no association with any real unit of force. "

is wrong.

The equation I indeed evaluates to a unit-ful or dimensional quatity and dimensions of that quantity are indeed of force. Hence my point -- Unlike your claim, Unit one is not dimensionally incorrect. It does have dimensions of Force and not just a real number.

"This is his website...Most of his articles are wrong".

Thank You very, very much. This "bad press" is the very best press I could think of!

Chan Rasjid.

You are welcome! Most of your objections to the predictions of Special Theory of Relativity are essentially beginners doubt usually given in basic introductory text in modern physics. If you are interested, I recommend HC Verma's famous book on Physics Vol 2. It handles the objects about seemingly illogical situation of two clocks moving towards each other and in the frame of reference of each other appears slower. This is a very basic doubt most of the students ask and is well covered in that book.

As far as experimental proofs go, I have linked you to the wiki pedia article which describes a direct experiment.

 

[chanrasjid]

You are right that a equation which is dimensionally correct is not necessarily correct, but your explanation given in your objection that Equation

F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)}

Cannot represent Force because its units are not that of Force is invalid.
F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)}
Indeed has unit of force.

The statement

"The relativistic force as defined in equation (I) evaluates only to a real number with no association with any real unit of force. "

is wrong.

The equation I indeed evaluates to a unit-ful or dimensional quatity and dimensions of that quantity are indeed of force. Hence my point -- Unlike your claim, Unit one is not dimensionally incorrect. It does have dimensions of Force and not just a real number.


You are welcome! Most of your objections to the predictions of Special Theory of Relativity are essentially beginners doubt usually given in basic introductory text in modern physics. If you are interested, I recommend HC Verma's famous book on Physics Vol 2. It handles the objects about seemingly illogical situation of two clocks moving towards each other and in the frame of reference of each other appears slower. This is a very basic doubt most of the students ask and is well covered in that book.

As far as experimental proofs go, I have linked you to the wiki pedia article which describes a direct experiment.

Say there is a 1 kg mass with a constant force acting on it giving it an acceleration of 1 m/s² for a distance of 1 meter.
Assume we have two situations:
1) the mass starts with initial velocity v=0.
2) the mass starts with initial velocity v=0.5c (half light speed).

I)For Newtonian mechanics using ½mv², the increase in energy in 1) and 2) are the same: 1 Joule in SI units. This is based on F=ma and the definition of the energy unit Joule in the SI unit must rely on this formula and no others.

II)In relativistic mechanics, the increase are different in 1) and 2). Do you still use the Joule SI unit that is based on F=ma?

Chan Rasjid.

At present, there is only one active thread (Chinese) that has a debate on the E=mc2 physics of my open letter.

Please goggle "mitbbs physics forum".

Chan Rasjid.

http://www.emc2fails.com/
This is his website.
Most of his articles are wrong.

@chanrasjid

The simplest experiment that established time dilation as predicted by Einstine's theory of special relativity is this :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment

Sorry to say, but I categorically dismiss all of the proofs that the mainstream physics world have given regarding experimental verification of special relativity. I have some internet links to a full hundred different experimental proofs - I reject them all! Of course, it seems "extremist" to reject a hundred experimental proofs! But what can I do when I have examined special relativity fully - in the manner of a physicists - and found that Einstein's special relativity, as well as E=mc², have to be rejected. To be a true scientists the first qualification is not a physics Ph.D - but honesty.

My seven physics papers in my website is a total and absolute repudiation of Einstein's special relativity. With it, all of the physics of CERN and the LHC are also invalidated. So China should not be the next to spend billions of dollars to build a useless super collider.

Chan Rasjid.

 

[Mage]

Well we don't know what is energy and from where it comes from. So I guess we can't say for sure that an equation dealing with energy is completely true.

E =mc^2 is actually an approximation. The full equation is E^2= m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

P=mv thus for objects at rest p=0 and p^2c^2=0. Thus the generalized equation is E=mc^2. However nothing can completely be at rest. So who knows?

 

[chanrasjid]

Well we don't know what is energy and from where it comes from. So I guess we can't say for sure that an equation dealing with energy is completely true.

E =mc^2 is actually an approximation. The full equation is E^2= m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

P=mv thus for objects at rest p=0 and p^2c^2=0. Thus the generalized equation is E=mc^2. However nothing can completely be at rest. So who knows?

The equation: E² = p²c² + m₀⁴c⁴ is the central equation of high energy physics as with CERN. It is not: p=mv, but :p=m₀v/√(1-v²/c²). This central equation is directly from E=mc² and p=m₀v/√(1-v²/c²).

We know "exactly" what energy is in the same manner we know what mass, distance, time are.

Mass, distance and time starts off as concept of physics. Such concepts begins with the rumination of man about reality together with man's endowed mental faculty. So Euclid described his Euclidean Geometry and we have the concept of the straight line and distance is separation between two points along a straight line. It is the relativists who make the straight line "curved" and we have "curved space".

We first know what force is "exactly" - "exactly" as defined in Newton's Principia. In our modern form: force = invariant mass x acceleration. In the SI unit it is the newton N. Again, in Newtonian mechanics, energy=work=force x distance. It is this which gives us the "physical unit of energy as defined in the SI system" (not just the dimension) as the Joule or newton.meter. So we know "exactly" what energy is from the mass, space and time.

But the newton N and Joule J are only physical units defined in classical Newtonian mechanics and they are at odds with special relativistic mechanics as they wanted a new fashion with p=m₀v/√(1-v²/c²). So, Newtonian mechanics knows "exactly" what energy is. But energy is not known at all with the relativistic mechanics of E=mc².

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

 

[Mage]

The equation: E² = p²c² + m₀⁴c⁴ is the central equation of high energy physics as with CERN. It is not: p=mv, but :p=m₀v/√(1-v²/c²). This central equation is directly from E=mc² and p=m₀v/√(1-v²/c²).

We know "exactly" what energy is in the same manner we know what mass, distance, time are.

Mass, distance and time starts off as concept of physics. Such concepts begins with the rumination of man about reality together with man's endowed mental faculty. So Euclid described his Euclidean Geometry and we have the concept of the straight line and distance is separation between two points along a straight line. It is the relativists who make the straight line "curved" and we have "curved space".

We first know what force is "exactly" - "exactly" as defined in Newton's Principia. In our modern form: force = invariant mass x acceleration. In the SI unit it is the newton N. Again, in Newtonian mechanics, energy=work=force x distance. It is this which gives us the "physical unit of energy as defined in the SI system" (not just the dimension) as the Joule or newton.meter. So we know "exactly" what energy is from the mass, space and time.

But the newton N and Joule J are only physical units defined in classical Newtonian mechanics and they are at odds with special relativistic mechanics as they wanted a new fashion with p=m₀v/√(1-v²/c²). So, Newtonian mechanics knows "exactly" what energy is. But energy is not known at all with the relativistic mechanics of E=mc².

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

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.

We know "exactly" what energy is in the same manner we know what mass, distance, time are.

Mass, distance and time starts off as concept of physics. Such concepts begins with the rumination of man about reality together with man's endowed mental faculty. So Euclid described his Euclidean Geometry and we have the concept of the straight line and distance is separation between two points along a straight line. It is the relativists who make the straight line "curved" and we have "curved space".

We first know what force is "exactly" - "exactly" as defined in Newton's Principia. In our modern form: force = invariant mass x acceleration. In the SI unit it is the newton N. Again, in Newtonian mechanics, energy=work=force x distance. It is this which gives us the "physical unit of energy as defined in the SI system" (not just the dimension) as the Joule or newton.meter. So we know "exactly" what energy is from the mass, space and time.

But the newton N and Joule J are only physical units defined in classical Newtonian mechanics and they are at odds with special relativistic mechanics as they wanted a new fashion with p=m₀v/√(1-v²/c²). So, Newtonian mechanics knows "exactly" what energy is. But energy is not known at all with the relativistic mechanics of E=mc².

Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.

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.

 

[Chhatrapati]

@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.