Attention
Dallas proves Einstein wrong. Relativity invalid. E=mc2 does not apply to "virtual" particles like the photon, or massless particles in general.
Check out his Nobel prize winning logic here on page 5 of this thread. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=16616&st=60
How can one argue with logic like that.
QUOTE (Aireal+Aug 22 2007, 05:39 AM)
Attention
Dallas proves Einstein wrong. Relativity invalid. E=mc2 does not apply to "virtual" particles like the photon, or massless particles in general.
Check out his Nobel prize winning logic here on page 5 of this thread. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=16616&st=60
How can one argue with logic like that.
Correction : Dallas proves Aireal wrong
Indeed, check out your perseverence in stupidity. I tried to teach you but I failed miserably
The general formula is :
E^2= (mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 (check any college book, like Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler, might be a good idea to invest a few dollars in order to learn a little physics, avoid embarassments)
For massless particles (like the photon) the formula reduces to:
E=pc
Any freshman knows this, you must be homeschooled. The ones that never studied physics....don't.
PS: E=mc^2 is a particular case of the general formula. Does not apply to photons because photons can never be found at rest (p=0)
He , who laughs last, laughs best. Thank you for the entertainment, Charles
Dallas proves Einstein wrong. Relativity invalid. E=mc2 does not apply to "virtual" particles like the photon, or massless particles in general.
Check out his Nobel prize winning logic here on page 5 of this thread. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=16616&st=60
How can one argue with logic like that.
Correction : Dallas proves Aireal wrong
Indeed, check out your perseverence in stupidity. I tried to teach you but I failed miserably
The general formula is :
E^2= (mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 (check any college book, like Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler, might be a good idea to invest a few dollars in order to learn a little physics, avoid embarassments)
For massless particles (like the photon) the formula reduces to:
E=pc
Any freshman knows this, you must be homeschooled. The ones that never studied physics....don't.
PS: E=mc^2 is a particular case of the general formula. Does not apply to photons because photons can never be found at rest (p=0)
He , who laughs last, laughs best. Thank you for the entertainment, Charles
1) You were already in a discussion with Dallas, so you have an unseemly interest in self-promotion to create a new thread.
2) Your interest is not in correcting Dallas, but in attempting ridicule -- if your interest had been pedagogical, you would have quoted the error and explained it.
3) While E = mc² is often quoted by people, it is not the central part of Relativity. It is not a postulate of Special Relativity. It appears nowhere in Einstein's 2 initial 1905 papers which develop Special Relativity. What does exist is a specialized derivation of Δm = ΔE/c² in a specific circumstance.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...icles/e_mc2.pdf
4) From the above equation it's sufficient to to infer from the rest masses of the reactants and products of a nuclear reaction what the energy change is. This may account for the popularity of "E=mc²" -- it's very visual.
5) An earlier 1905 paper of Einstein's had more general statements. Such as W (Kinetic Energy) = mc² ( √(1/(1 - v²/c²)) - 1 )
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
6) And so the total energy of an object is E = (Rest Energy + Kinetic Energy) = mc² / √(1 - v²/c²)
7) This equation generalizes to a relation between E, p, and m: E² = (mc²)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (mvc)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (pc)² , where p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²)
8) While this definition of p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²) is generally recognized as a correction to Newton's definition of "quantity of motion" i.e. momentum in Definition II of Book One, Einstein himself in the paper expressed the pressure exerted by a beam of light as the energy density times 2 times the cosine of the angle of incidence. Since for a particle theory of pressure this generalizes as p = E/c for a light particle. Indeed, in another 1905 paper, Einstein argues that light does consist of particles with E proportional to frequency.
(In this paper, β = Planck's constant / Boltzmann's constant, which is measured today at 4.799237 × 10^-11 Kelvin-seconds -- the values of N, Avogadro's number are subject to similar uncertainties at this time. Since Boltzmann's constant = R, the universal gas constant, divided by N, then the formula E = (R/N)βν = k (h/k) ν = hν in modern notation.)
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/eins_lq.pdf
9) Thus Einstein argues that for photons, p = hν/c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In 1908, Minkowski put all this together, with the invariant interval (Δs)² = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)², and the invariant mass (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² as quantities that any observer would agree on. It is this relation which the practicing physicist uses all the time -- the Pythagorean equation for a non-Euclidean space-time.
(Sorry, can't find a link to this paper, but here's a cheap paperback with it: http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Relativity...s/dp/0486600815 )
Theoretically, m=0 for all photons, because Einstein and Planck trusted Maxwell's equations. Experimentally, any mass would show up in deviations from the predictions based on this theory. We can calculate how Maxwell's equations change if the photon has a mass. So the experiments so far can show (with reasonable confidence) that the mass of the photon, if not zero, is less than 6 × 10^-17 eV/c² (10^-52 kg). Einstein and Planck were probably correct to rely on Maxwell -- it turns out to be an excellent approximation of the truth.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Einstein was slow to warm to the idea, but Minkowski's contribution was to return physics back to geometry, if not the familiar geometry of Euclid. Later, Einstein would use this geometry to solve the problems of Universal Gravitation in relativistic terms.
2) Your interest is not in correcting Dallas, but in attempting ridicule -- if your interest had been pedagogical, you would have quoted the error and explained it.
3) While E = mc² is often quoted by people, it is not the central part of Relativity. It is not a postulate of Special Relativity. It appears nowhere in Einstein's 2 initial 1905 papers which develop Special Relativity. What does exist is a specialized derivation of Δm = ΔE/c² in a specific circumstance.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...icles/e_mc2.pdf
4) From the above equation it's sufficient to to infer from the rest masses of the reactants and products of a nuclear reaction what the energy change is. This may account for the popularity of "E=mc²" -- it's very visual.
5) An earlier 1905 paper of Einstein's had more general statements. Such as W (Kinetic Energy) = mc² ( √(1/(1 - v²/c²)) - 1 )
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
6) And so the total energy of an object is E = (Rest Energy + Kinetic Energy) = mc² / √(1 - v²/c²)
7) This equation generalizes to a relation between E, p, and m: E² = (mc²)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (mvc)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (pc)² , where p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²)
8) While this definition of p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²) is generally recognized as a correction to Newton's definition of "quantity of motion" i.e. momentum in Definition II of Book One, Einstein himself in the paper expressed the pressure exerted by a beam of light as the energy density times 2 times the cosine of the angle of incidence. Since for a particle theory of pressure this generalizes as p = E/c for a light particle. Indeed, in another 1905 paper, Einstein argues that light does consist of particles with E proportional to frequency.
(In this paper, β = Planck's constant / Boltzmann's constant, which is measured today at 4.799237 × 10^-11 Kelvin-seconds -- the values of N, Avogadro's number are subject to similar uncertainties at this time. Since Boltzmann's constant = R, the universal gas constant, divided by N, then the formula E = (R/N)βν = k (h/k) ν = hν in modern notation.)
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/eins_lq.pdf
9) Thus Einstein argues that for photons, p = hν/c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In 1908, Minkowski put all this together, with the invariant interval (Δs)² = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)², and the invariant mass (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² as quantities that any observer would agree on. It is this relation which the practicing physicist uses all the time -- the Pythagorean equation for a non-Euclidean space-time.
(Sorry, can't find a link to this paper, but here's a cheap paperback with it: http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Relativity...s/dp/0486600815 )
Theoretically, m=0 for all photons, because Einstein and Planck trusted Maxwell's equations. Experimentally, any mass would show up in deviations from the predictions based on this theory. We can calculate how Maxwell's equations change if the photon has a mass. So the experiments so far can show (with reasonable confidence) that the mass of the photon, if not zero, is less than 6 × 10^-17 eV/c² (10^-52 kg). Einstein and Planck were probably correct to rely on Maxwell -- it turns out to be an excellent approximation of the truth.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Einstein was slow to warm to the idea, but Minkowski's contribution was to return physics back to geometry, if not the familiar geometry of Euclid. Later, Einstein would use this geometry to solve the problems of Universal Gravitation in relativistic terms.
But sadly he never completed his later efforts to employ the correct geometry.
I'm the only one who reads your stuff, rpenner.
I'm the only one who reads your stuff, rpenner.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 22 2007, 08:08 AM)
1) You were already in a discussion with Dallas, so you have an unseemly interest in self-promotion to create a new thread.
2) Your interest is not in correcting Dallas, but in attempting ridicule -- if your interest had been pedagogical, you would have quoted the error and explained it.
3) While E = mc² is often quoted by people, it is not the central part of Relativity. It is not a postulate of Special Relativity. It appears nowhere in Einstein's 2 initial 1905 papers which develop Special Relativity. What does exist is a specialized derivation of Δm = ΔE/c² in a specific circumstance.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...icles/e_mc2.pdf
4) From the above equation it's sufficient to to infer from the rest masses of the reactants and products of a nuclear reaction what the energy change is. This may account for the popularity of "E=mc²" -- it's very visual.
5) An earlier 1905 paper of Einstein's had more general statements. Such as W (Kinetic Energy) = mc² ( √(1/(1 - v²/c²)) - 1 )
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
6) And so the total energy of an object is E = (Rest Energy + Kinetic Energy) = mc² / √(1 - v²/c²)
7) This equation generalizes to a relation between E, p, and m: E² = (mc²)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (mvc)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (pc)² , where p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²)
8) While this definition of p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²) is generally recognized as a correction to Newton's definition of "quantity of motion" i.e. momentum in Definition II of Book One, Einstein himself in the paper expressed the pressure exerted by a beam of light as the energy density times 2 times the cosine of the angle of incidence. Since for a particle theory of pressure this generalizes as p = E/c for a light particle. Indeed, in another 1905 paper, Einstein argues that light does consist of particles with E proportional to frequency.
(In this paper, β = Planck's constant / Boltzmann's constant, which is measured today at 4.799237 × 10^-11 Kelvin-seconds -- the values of N, Avogadro's number are subject to similar uncertainties at this time. Since Boltzmann's constant = R, the universal gas constant, divided by N, then the formula E = (R/N)βν = k (h/k) ν = hν in modern notation.)
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/eins_lq.pdf
9) Thus Einstein argues that for photons, p = hν/c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In 1908, Minkowski put all this together, with the invariant interval (Δs)² = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)², and the invariant mass (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² as quantities that any observer would agree on. It is this relation which the practicing physicist uses all the time -- the Pythagorean equation for a non-Euclidean space-time.
(Sorry, can't find a link to this paper, but here's a cheap paperback with it: http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Relativity...s/dp/0486600815 )
Theoretically, m=0 for all photons, because Einstein and Planck trusted Maxwell's equations. Experimentally, any mass would show up in deviations from the predictions based on this theory. We can calculate how Maxwell's equations change if the photon has a mass. So the experiments so far can show (with reasonable confidence) that the mass of the photon, if not zero, is less than 6 × 10^-17 eV/c² (10^-52 kg). Einstein and Planck were probably correct to rely on Maxwell -- it turns out to be an excellent approximation of the truth.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Einstein was slow to warm to the idea, but Minkowski's contribution was to return physics back to geometry, if not the familiar geometry of Euclid. Later, Einstein would use this geometry to solve the problems of Universal Gravitation in relativistic terms.
Thank, you :-)
As always, a scholarly, wonderful mini-essay on the subject.
Just a short addition: it was N.Proca who was the first to develop the "what if the photon had a non-zero mass" form of the Maxwell equations. The Proca formalism is extensively used by the experiments that set limits on the mass of the photon.
2) Your interest is not in correcting Dallas, but in attempting ridicule -- if your interest had been pedagogical, you would have quoted the error and explained it.
3) While E = mc² is often quoted by people, it is not the central part of Relativity. It is not a postulate of Special Relativity. It appears nowhere in Einstein's 2 initial 1905 papers which develop Special Relativity. What does exist is a specialized derivation of Δm = ΔE/c² in a specific circumstance.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...icles/e_mc2.pdf
4) From the above equation it's sufficient to to infer from the rest masses of the reactants and products of a nuclear reaction what the energy change is. This may account for the popularity of "E=mc²" -- it's very visual.
5) An earlier 1905 paper of Einstein's had more general statements. Such as W (Kinetic Energy) = mc² ( √(1/(1 - v²/c²)) - 1 )
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/specrel.pdf
6) And so the total energy of an object is E = (Rest Energy + Kinetic Energy) = mc² / √(1 - v²/c²)
7) This equation generalizes to a relation between E, p, and m: E² = (mc²)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (mvc)² / (1 - v²/c²) = (mc²)² + (pc)² , where p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²)
8) While this definition of p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²) is generally recognized as a correction to Newton's definition of "quantity of motion" i.e. momentum in Definition II of Book One, Einstein himself in the paper expressed the pressure exerted by a beam of light as the energy density times 2 times the cosine of the angle of incidence. Since for a particle theory of pressure this generalizes as p = E/c for a light particle. Indeed, in another 1905 paper, Einstein argues that light does consist of particles with E proportional to frequency.
(In this paper, β = Planck's constant / Boltzmann's constant, which is measured today at 4.799237 × 10^-11 Kelvin-seconds -- the values of N, Avogadro's number are subject to similar uncertainties at this time. Since Boltzmann's constant = R, the universal gas constant, divided by N, then the formula E = (R/N)βν = k (h/k) ν = hν in modern notation.)
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/...les/eins_lq.pdf
9) Thus Einstein argues that for photons, p = hν/c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In 1908, Minkowski put all this together, with the invariant interval (Δs)² = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)², and the invariant mass (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² as quantities that any observer would agree on. It is this relation which the practicing physicist uses all the time -- the Pythagorean equation for a non-Euclidean space-time.
(Sorry, can't find a link to this paper, but here's a cheap paperback with it: http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Relativity...s/dp/0486600815 )
Theoretically, m=0 for all photons, because Einstein and Planck trusted Maxwell's equations. Experimentally, any mass would show up in deviations from the predictions based on this theory. We can calculate how Maxwell's equations change if the photon has a mass. So the experiments so far can show (with reasonable confidence) that the mass of the photon, if not zero, is less than 6 × 10^-17 eV/c² (10^-52 kg). Einstein and Planck were probably correct to rely on Maxwell -- it turns out to be an excellent approximation of the truth.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
Einstein was slow to warm to the idea, but Minkowski's contribution was to return physics back to geometry, if not the familiar geometry of Euclid. Later, Einstein would use this geometry to solve the problems of Universal Gravitation in relativistic terms.
Thank, you :-)
As always, a scholarly, wonderful mini-essay on the subject.
Just a short addition: it was N.Proca who was the first to develop the "what if the photon had a non-zero mass" form of the Maxwell equations. The Proca formalism is extensively used by the experiments that set limits on the mass of the photon.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 22 2007, 01:19 PM)
But sadly he never completed his later efforts to employ the correct geometry.
You couldn't resist trying to slide in yet another slurr against Einstein, could you?
But do you understand an iota?Eh?
You couldn't resist trying to slide in yet another slurr against Einstein, could you?
QUOTE
I'm the only one who reads your stuff, rpenner.
But do you understand an iota?Eh?
And you couldn't resist your usual stupid-troll garbage. I'm an Einstein fan. Minkowski introduced the concept of spacetime, not Einstein, and Einstein did not introduce the concept of curved spacetime.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 22 2007, 03:42 PM)
I'm an Einstein fan.
I would have expected an "Einstein fan" to have taken the time out to learn and understand his works.
I would have expected an "Einstein fan" to have taken the time out to learn and understand his works.
QUOTE (Farsight+Aug 22 2007, 02:42 PM)
I'm an Einstein fan.
You are lying again, your pseudoscience speaks louder. With such "fans" both Minkowski and Einstein are turning in their graves.
Back to slurring and lying so we can all see
You are lying again, your pseudoscience speaks louder. With such "fans" both Minkowski and Einstein are turning in their graves.
QUOTE
and Einstein did not introduce the concept of curved spacetime.
Back to slurring and lying so we can all see
Oh boy, what an insane jerk you are, sockpuppet. Doubtless somebody will put you straight via a PM instead of having the honesty to do it publicly.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.