Thread: The formula E = mc^2 never have been proven?

1. The formula estimated as one of the top ten of most beautiful formulae at any epoch, but the its demonstration at firth contained mistake by just Great Einstein! The lack of logical fundamental of the Einstein had advised by Aivs in Journal of the Optical Society Of America, 42, 540  543. 1952. After that, nobody take author demonstration no more, but use dependent of inertial mass from velocity of a body:  .γ (1)
together with the Newtons 2 law: (2)
for calculation that formula. But, the new mistake appear and, perhaps, in this situation, not could be recovered!!!
First, the itself formula (1) had estimated for only moving uniform straight-line body with the constant velocity in an inertial reference frame (IRF) and having the inertial mass in reference frame in which it is at rest. That mind:
+ If a body moving with the velocity , then we have: 1;
+ If a body moving with the velocity , then we have: 2;
.....
+ If a body moving with the velocity , then we have: n;
....
where are value of unchanging velocity in a time interval, corresponding to uniform straight-line move of a body, but not value of an instantaneous velocity; similar to that, the are value of corresponding inertial mass calculated in IFOR1, IRF2, ... IRFn correspondingly, but not value of mass as function of velocity with usual understanding above a function: , in which is a variable, because any upheaval of a velocity lead condition of a IRF is broke  Lorenzs transformation no longer effective  and then how can we have the formula (1)? That right, replace Eq. (1) in to Eq. (2) is unpossible for derivation, because dont change, so must be dont change too. And this derivation must be equal to zero!!! That the formula never have been proven ???  2.

3. Originally Posted by huytoan
The formula E = mc^2 estimated as one of the top ten of most beautiful formulae at any epoch, but the its demonstration at firth contained mistake by just Great Einstein! The lack of logical fundamental of the Einstein had advised by Aivs in Journal of the Optical Society Of America, 42, 540  543. 1952. After that, nobody take author demonstration no more, but use dependent of inertial mass from velocity of a body:
m = mo(1-(V/c)^2)^-1/2 = mo (1)
together with the Newtons 2 law:
F = d(mV)/dt (2)
for calculation that formula. But, the new mistake appear and, perhaps, in this situation, not could be recovered!!!
First, the itself formula (1) had estimated for only moving uniform straight-line body with the constant velocity V in an inertial reference frame (IRF) and having the inertial mass mo in reference frame in which it is at rest. That mind:
+ If a body moving with the velocity V1, then we have: m1 = mo1;
+ If a body moving with the velocity V2, then we have: m2 = mo2;
.....
+ If a body moving with the velocity Vn, then we have: mn = mon;
....
where V1, V2, ... Vn are value of unchanging velocity in a time interval, corresponding to uniform straight-line move of a body, but not value of an instantaneous velocity; similar to that, the m1, m2...mn are value of corresponding inertial mass calculated in IFOR1, IRF2, ... IRFn correspondingly, but not value of mass m as function of velocity with usual understanding above a function: m = m(V), in which V is a variable, because any upheaval of a velocity V lead condition of a IRF is broke  Lorenzs transformation no longer effective  and then how can we have the formula (1)? That right, replace Eq. (1) in to Eq. (2) is unpossible for derivation, because V dont change, so m must be dont change too. And this derivation must be equal to zero!!! That the formula E = mc^2 never have been proved ???
I am having a hard time following the details of your presentation. However, I can tell you that there is a large body of experimental data that shows that is valid. That equation is used in and supported by particle physics experiments daily.

Here is a translation of the paper by Einstein in which he derived the famous equation. I have not checked the proof. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf  4. Originally Posted by DrRocket
I am having a hard time following the details of your presentation. However, I can tell you that there is a large body of experimental data that shows that is valid.
I dont look at this information such optimistic, because to prove that we need the inertial reference frame (where potential force field is absent absolutely oneself from), but in practical of atomic and nuclear physics such condition never is realized, but the contrary isn't true.

That equation is used in and supported by particle physics experiments daily.
It is a careless mistake of the physics-experimenters?  5. Here is a translation of the paper by Einstein in which he derived the famous equation. I have not checked the proof.
DrRocket, I myself found it hard to understand Einstein's original paper when I first read it, and still find it difficult to follow; I can assure you a layman will not be able to appreciate it.

I dont look at this information such optimistic, because to prove that we need the inertial reference frame (where potential force field is absent absolutely oneself from), but in practical of atomic and nuclear physics such condition never is realized, but the contrary isn't true.
I think you misunderstand . The formula can only be used to derive the energy of a body at rest; in motion, this should be .

Also, we do not need the inertial reference frame, as that has nothing to do with the equaiton itself.  6. Also, the experimental proof is sound: nuclear physics was able to use this equation to calculate the energy released by a particle collision, and the formula has certainly been very well tested by numerous particle collision experiments.

The theoretical proof, however, I believe once read someone posting it here. Allow me some time to find it, and I will post it here for your benefit.  7. [quote="Liongold"]

I think you misunderstand . The formula can only be used to derive the energy of a body at rest; in motion, this should be .

Also, we do not need the inertial reference frame, as that has nothing to do with the equaiton itself.
Your statement is misleading, as the quantity m in Einsteins equation is the relativistic mass and not just the rest mass.

The equation means exactly what it says and it applies not only quite well but is most revealing when applied to a body in motion. For a body "at rest" the equation specializes to where is the rest mass. In general . The difference in energies between that of a body at rest and at a given velocity is the kinetic energy, KE where .

Special relativity itself applies in an inertial reference frame and only in an inertial reference frame and in the absence of gravity. So there is a role for the inertial reference frame as the equation is an equation of special relativity. Even in general relativity this equation is applied in a locally Lorentzian coordinate system, but one must be careful as the notion of energy becomes difficult to discuss globally in general relativity.  8. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Here is a translation of the paper by Einstein in which he derived the famous equation. I have not checked the proof. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
I had a bit of time to read Einstein's paper. It is really quite simple, and hence elelgant. The physical insight is extremely deep.

However, it is not a proof in the mathematical sense. It is rather a justification for a priinciple. If you read the paper "backwards" what he seems to have done is to assert that and then by use of a Taylor series show that the usual Newtonian formulat is a low speed approximation.

In any case the relativistic equation has been used and shown to be accurate in a myriad of experiments using particle accelerators, and the principle of equivalence of mass and energy is a pillar of the theory of relativity.  9. Originally Posted by Liongold
I think you misunderstand . The formula can only be used to derive the energy of a body at rest; in motion, this should be .
I think the relativistic mass should not be confused with the rest mass .

Also, we do not need the inertial reference frame, as that has nothing to do with the equaiton itself.
Iven rest mass need the inertial reference frame!!!  10. Originally Posted by DrRocket
In any case the relativistic equation has been used and shown to be accurate in a myriad of experiments using particle accelerators
I dont thing so!!!
In any case physics-experimenters dont reject very strong force field in atom and nuclear, so the formula can not be used at all!  11. Originally Posted by huytoan
That the formula E = mc^2 never have been proved ???
Proof occurs in maths, not physics. In physics you have confirmation or disocnfirmation. Einstein's formula has never been disconfirmed, and all experiments and observations so far fall in line with it - most famously, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  12. Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
Proof occurs in maths, not physics.
But maths are fundamental of physics?

In physics you have confirmation or dicsonfirmation. Einstein's formula has never been disconfirmed,
I dont think so!
The right formula maybe is that: E = mc^2+2Uk, where Uk  critical potential energy of a force field in wich the body exists - why not???.

and all experiments and observations so far fall in line with it - most famously, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Why not E = 2mc^2, or 3mc^2 is for the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who it determine?  13. Originally Posted by huytoan Originally Posted by DrRocket
In any case the relativistic equation has been used and shown to be accurate in a myriad of experiments using particle accelerators
I dont thing so!!!
In any case physics-experimenters dont reject very strong force field in atom and nuclear, so the formula can not be used at all!
Then think again, more clearly next time.  14. You can use E=mc^2 to predict the energy released in a nuclear rxn, whether fission, alpha decay or something else. It's easily testable. Take the mass difference and use it in the equation.  15. But maths are fundamental of physics?
So? Proof occurs only when you can show logically that it must be so; yet the universe does not behave like that. You can never say that the universe may not throw up an example of a situation where your "proof" may not work.

The right formula maybe is that: E = mc^2+2Uk, where Uk  critical potential energy of a force field in wich the body exists - why not???.
Why so? The formula is only used when the object is at rest; in a force field or something similar, the object will not be at rest. So the formula cannot be used there.  16. To Golkarian:
You can use E=mc^2 to predict the energy released in a nuclear rxn, whether fission, alpha decay or something else. It's easily testable. Take the mass difference and use it in the equation.
Can you provide what accuracy of the experiments is?

To DrRocket:

Then think again, more clearly next time.
I dont know!  maybe it will never been happen?

To Liongold:
So? Proof occurs only when you can show logically that it must be so; yet the universe does not behave like that. You can never say that the universe may not throw up an example of a situation where your "proof" may not work.
I dont understand clearly what do you mean?
Why so? The formula is only used when the object is at rest; in a force field or something similar, the object will not be at rest. So the formula cannot be used there.
I must to repeat again that the formula is used when the object is moving too, not only at rest!!!  17. I must to repeat again that the formula is used when the object is moving too, not only at rest!!!
Where did you read this, my friend? It is quite obvious that you cannot use such a formula for an object in motion, as that would violate the law of conservation of mass and the constancy of the speed of light.

dont understand clearly what do you mean?
Well, science is different from mathematics. Science can only be proved or disproved by experiment, whereas mathematics can be proved by logic alone. That the formula explains experiment is proof for its correctness.  18. Originally Posted by Liongold
Well, science is different from mathematics. Science can only be proved or disproved by experiment, whereas mathematics can be proved by logic alone. That the formula explains experiment is proof for its correctness.
In fact, science can only be disproved, making the whole point about some formula not being proven pointless: nothing is actually proven.
It can be shown with very high likelihood though.  19. Originally Posted by Liongold
Where did you read this, my friend?
It is in any literature on SR, dear friend! (I mean the formula (1)  OK?)
law of conservation of mass
There isnt that law in SR  do you know?
Well, science is different from mathematics. Science can only be proved or disproved by experiment, whereas mathematics can be proved by logic alone. That the formula explains experiment is proof for its correctness.
Well, well the first, we are talking about physics in praticular, but not about science in general  those are different matters; the second, the my topic is related to maths only, but inertial reference frame is used as a initial condition for the calculation based on Lorenzs transformations.  20. Originally Posted by Liongold
I must to repeat again that the formula is used when the object is moving too, not only at rest!!!
Where did you read this, my friend? It is quite obvious that you cannot use such a formula for an object in motion, as that would violate the law of conservation of mass and the constancy of the speed of light.
dont understand clearly what do you mean?
He is quite correct. The equation applies quite well for an object in motion, so long as you recognize that m is the relativistic mass and not simply the rest mass. It does not violate the constancy of the speed of light, and in fact the constancy of the speed of light is important in the discovery of this principle (see the paper by Einstein noted earlier). There is no such thing as the conservation of mass, what is conserved in special relativity is mass/energy and one important implication of is that mass and energy are just two different aspects of the same thing.  21. I see. Thanks for clearing that up, DrRocket.  Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement