Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659279

Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Show all headers | View raw

rhertz wrote:
> 
> In March 1905, six months before Einstein, the Austrian physicist Fritz
> Hasenohrl published his third and final paper about the relationship
> between mass and radiant energy in the same journal Annalen der Physik
> that received and published his papers about relativity.
> His final paper, a review of his former two since 1904, was an
> elaborated thought experiment to determine if the mass of a perfect
> black body radiation increased, from rest, while it was slowly
> accelerated (the same hypothesis used by Einstein in his SR paper, to
> deal with electrons). The final result was that this relationship:
> 
> m = 4/3 E/c² , which can be expressed as  E = 3/4 mc²
> 
> which he found to be independent of the velocity of the cavity.
> His work received much attention from the physics community, and won the
> Haitinger Prize of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In 1907 he
> succeeded Boltzmann as professor of theoretical physics at the
> University of Vienna.
> 
> This is the translation of his first paper, in 1904, where he derived m
> = 8/3 E/c². In the next two papers, he corrected some mistakes,
> publishing the last one in March 1905, six months before Einstein's
> paper deriving E = mc².
> 
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies#cite_note-21
> 
> Prior to Hassenohrl, and since 1881 paper from J.J. Thomson, different
> works were published correcting Thomson and relating mass increase and
> changes of the electrostatic energy of a moving charged sphere (later
> the electron) by Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Larmor, Wien and (finally) by
> Abraham in 1903. The work of Hassenohrl was based on Abraham, but with
> the fundamental change of using radiant energy from inside a perfect
> black body moving. This alone was considered a breakthrough in physics,
> and Einstein took note of it and simplified the thought experiment of
> Hassenohrl (a closed system) for other in an open system, which has
> theoretical deficiencies, which Einstein was never able to solve, giving
> up in 1942 (7th. attempt).
> 
> The remarkable work of Hassenohrl showed, beyond doubts, that any energy
> (electrostatic or radiant) is related to mass increase, when moving, by
> the relationship m = 4/3 E/c².
> 
> This fact, known for almost a decade since FitzGerald, couldn't be
> explained correctly until 1922, when Enrico Fermi focused on the
> problem.
> 
> All these works are considered today as pre-relativistic, even when
> ether is barely mentioned.
> 
> Hassenohrl himself used two references (Einstein jargon didn't exist
> yet): A fixed reference frame and a co-moving reference (along with the
> cavity). The popularization of relativity and the easiness of having a
> relationship E = mc² (even with restricted use of velocities) made it
> much more appealing to the scientific community than having to deal with
> E = 0.75 mc².
> 
> Even more, in the next decades, using c = 1 became popular, and so the
> direct use E = m, as it was shown in the calculations done by Chadwick
> (1932) to justify that he had proven the existence of the neutron. A
> different world would exist if E = 0.75 mc² had been adopted, which is a
> proof of what I've sustained for years about that such a simple equation
> was adopted for convenience and colluded consensus (like many other
> constants and formulae. GR?).
> 
> Hassenohrl's work proved that his equation is independent of the
> velocity, and that mass is an invariant property of matter. On the
> contrary, E = mc² has a limited range of applicability, forcing its use
> to rations v/c << 1. This is because its derivation comes from using the
> first term (the cuadratic one) of an infinite McLauring series used on
> the expansion of the Gamma factor minus one:
> 
> γ - 1 = 1/√(1 - v ²/c²) - 1 = 1/√(1 - β²) - 1 = 1/2 β²  + 3/4 β⁴ + 15/24
> β⁶ + 105/192 β⁸ + ..
> 
> Einstein used L (γ - 1) ≈ L/2 β² = 1/2 (L/ c²) v², from where he
> extracted m = L/ c² as the mass in the kinetic energy equation. Nor him
> neither von Laue (1911) nor Klein (1919) could solve this very limited
> approximation for uses on closed systems. Yet, the equation stayed (for
> consensus due to its convenience).
> 
> The work of Hassenohrl, based on his thought experiment, is very
> detailed. Much more than the loose arrangement of Einstein's paper. He
> did care to present his closed system with severe restrictions:
> 
> - A perfect black body cylindrical cavity, with the walls covered with a
> perfectly reflective mirror, exterior temperature of 0"C, and two
> perfect black body caps on the ends, tightly fixed and having zero
> stress from the forces of radiation and motion.
> 
> - A very small acceleration, in order to cause smooth changes in
> velocity of the cavity.
> 
> - The black body radiation is taken from its intensity i (he never
> mentioned Planck), which he described as a "pencil of energy", which
> formed an angle θ with the vector of velocity.
> In modern terms, it's the Monochromatic Irradiance or Spectral Flux
> Density: Radiance of a surface per unit frequency or wavelength per unit
> solid angle.
> 
> - This directional quantity differs from Planck's Spectral Radiant
> Energy formula by (c/4𝜋), which he accepted when integrating along the
> volume of the cavity, giving original Planck's density u of radiation
> energy.
> 
> With the above considerations, and many others, Hassenohrl wrote his
> final paper, for which he gained recognition and a prize. But the
> problem for him, and for physics, is that it was a pre-relativistic work
> where absolute reference at rest was used (as in all the other works
> from legions of physicists during the centuries). Relativity
> cannibalized all the classic physics, except when it's not convenient to
> do so: a blatant hypocrisy (take the merging of reference frames in
> particle physics, or just the Sagnac effect).
> 
> The problem that Hassenohrl's work poses for physics is his enormous
> complexity, which has consumed a lot of manpower since 1905 up to these
> days, in order to be understood.
> 
> This paper
> Fritz Hasenohrl and E = mc²
> Stephen Boughn
> Haverford College, Haverford PA 19041
> March 29, 2013
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7162
> 
> is one of many modern papers that try to understand Hassenohrl's work by
> using relativity and Planck, which simplify the complex work of the
> Austrian physicist. Even this paper poses some doubts about the validity
> (or not) of Hassenohrl's work in these days, where a notion of absolute
> reference frame is gaining momentum within physics. The paper try to
> explain (but fails) which were Hassenohrl's mistakes (of course under
> the light of relativity), but it serves as a guide to analyze
> Hassenohrl's work.
> 
> However, the author is highly biased, because he focused on the first
> 1904 paper and not in the final publication in Annalen der Physik, where
> Hassenohrl had changed substantially his first proposal. For instance,
> introducing the idea of a slowly accelerated cavity (which is essential
> to prove the independence of the gain in mass with respect to the
> velocity).
> 
> I'm sorry not being able to get the March 1905 paper to cite it here. It
> seems that efforts to erase Hassenohrl's work (or Abraham's work with
> electrons) from the history have been successful. You have to resort to
> find books from the '50s to get some info, like the one cited by Stephen
> Boughn.
> 
> Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²?  Which one would the physics community
> adopt?
> 
> Hmmm....

You mean...in those days they never heard of...footnotes? 



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-01 00:28 +0000
  Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-11-30 18:53 -0800
    Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-01 12:44 -0800
      Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-02 00:36 +0000
        Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-02 17:44 +0000
          Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-02 18:07 +0000
            Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 11:20 -0800
            Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-02 21:54 +0000
              Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 16:39 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-03 02:35 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 19:07 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 13:50 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 09:13 -0800
              Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-03 02:22 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-03 14:15 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-03 14:01 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-03 18:27 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-03 19:02 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-04 10:10 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-04 12:40 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-04 12:41 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-04 21:17 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 13:29 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-04 22:20 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 15:56 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-04 17:15 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-05 11:57 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-05 12:42 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-05 15:26 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-05 19:42 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 18:29 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-06 03:55 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 10:48 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 04:51 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-06 14:46 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 21:00 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 13:27 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 01:21 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 18:30 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-07 12:03 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 16:03 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-07 10:49 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-07 22:35 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-08 05:42 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-08 06:46 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 21:35 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-10 09:15 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-10 23:16 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-10 18:37 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 21:35 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-07 22:35 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-07 14:50 -0800
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-08 10:19 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 12:56 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-08 15:01 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-07 22:19 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 22:14 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-08 09:19 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 12:30 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-09 15:21 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-09 20:28 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-10 11:20 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 14:05 -0600
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-09 22:44 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-09 23:26 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-08 21:17 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 23:32 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 12:30 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 00:34 +0000
                Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-08 04:52 +0100
                Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-04 15:44 +0000
        Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-11 05:59 +0000
  Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 19:10 -0800
    Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 19:37 -0800
  Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-12-01 12:27 +0200
    Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100
  Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-01 12:38 +0100
  Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-01 12:19 +0000
    Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 10:30 -0800
      Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-02 00:56 +0000

csiph-web