Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

Like Tree10Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 24th 2018, 09:15 AM   #21
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by Ziang View Post
This is a link
galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/mass_and_energy.html
That website is misleading. The box isn't a fake as the author claims. A.P. French from MIT created a similar derivation which takes into account a non-rigid box and arrives at the same result. The article was published in the American Journal of Physics.
topsquark likes this.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24th 2018, 12:51 PM   #22
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,454
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
benit13, Dan - Have you read Einstein's 9105 paper on mass-energy equivalence.? Einstein didn't use the gamma factor because the derivation was for a slowly moving body. When he later derived the same result for EM radiation there too the gamma factor is absent. Its only for a particle moving at a speed comparable to the speed of light that gamma comes into play. In that case it cannot be avoided.
Actually,yes I have. I have forgotten who first used the used the $\displaystyle \gamma$ notation.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24th 2018, 01:23 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 993
Are y'all sure about that?

Here is an extract from (the admitedly English translation) of the 1905 paper

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

A Einstein

June 30 1905.

Here he is clearly using beta instead of gamma, quite liberally in the equations above.

Here also is Wiki on the subject which shows that symbology has changed as beta is now used for something else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
Attached Thumbnails
The formula E = mc^2 never have been proved?-1905paper1.jpg  
topsquark likes this.

Last edited by studiot; Feb 24th 2018 at 03:11 PM.
studiot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24th 2018, 02:41 PM   #24
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,454
I did read it, but perhaps not recently enough. See here.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24th 2018, 06:45 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
If the equivalence can come from absolute space and time then why absolute space and time is not a possible candidate for reality?
Ziang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26th 2018, 06:00 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by Ziang View Post
This is a link
galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/mass_and_energy.html
Thanks for the link.

I think the key here is two sentences:

"Now it is known from Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves that a flash of light carrying energy E also carries momentum p=E/c. Thus, as the flash leaves the bulb and goes down the tube, the box recoils, like a gun, to conserve overall momentum. Suppose the whole apparatus has mass M and recoils at velocity v. Of course, v<<c."

and

"The only way this makes sense is to say that to counterbalance the mass M moving d backwards, the light energy must have transferred a small mass m, say, the length L of the tube so that

Md=mL
and balance is maintained"

You have light carrying momentum and interacting with matter? Furthermore, you have light transferring mass to a box? That's not classical thinking at all.

Note that Maxwell's insight into light carrying momentum was key to moving scientists away from classical thinking and into contemporary thinking, so the same idea is used to propose a thought experiment into how one might derive $\displaystyle E = mc^2$ without knowing about the photon. That's fine, but it seems we're following history now rather than finding an alternative that neglects contemporary ideas.
topsquark likes this.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26th 2018, 09:15 AM   #27
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by Ziang View Post
If the equivalence can come from absolute space and time then why absolute space and time is not a possible candidate for reality?
Because it contradicts reality. Just because something can be derived without using the properties of spacetime it doesn't imply that everything can.
topsquark likes this.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26th 2018, 06:35 PM   #28
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,568
For those who didn't read this entire thread, the claim The formula E = mc^2 never have been proved? is invalid. First because no formula in any science can ever be proven and second because its been born out by experiment on a daily basis in every particle accelerator in the world for close to a century.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Tags
formula, mc2, proved



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
formula of energy ling233 Advanced Mechanics 0 Jan 20th 2016 04:11 PM
Need help rearranging formula. Xp96 Atomic and Solid State Physics 1 May 28th 2013 07:33 AM
Need a formula for this question.. jonbrutal Kinematics and Dynamics 0 Feb 14th 2010 06:57 AM
how to use lens formula?? kenny1999 Light and Optics 1 Sep 2nd 2009 11:48 PM
Which formula do I use? kdaaa Advanced Mechanics 1 Mar 11th 2009 12:48 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed