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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659290

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

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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?


I mean, in those days 'they' didn't use footnotes to make reference their sources because it wasn't required then...


So, why would Fritz Hasenohrl and Einstein (the guy with autism looking everywhich way than everyone else) be in the same
room with Fritz if Einstein didn't get permission to steal from Fritz in 1911????

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1911_Solvay_conference.jpg











-- 
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