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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659277 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#659408 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 07.12.2024 22:19, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > Den 06.12.2024 21:00, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> >>
> > 
> > According to:
> > https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
> > (2019)
> > The SI definitions are:
> > 
> > The relevant defining constants:
> >   ??_Cs = 9192631770 Hz  (hyperfine transition frequency of Cs133)
> >   c = 299 792 458 m/s (speed of light in vacuum)
> > 
> > The relevant base units:
> > Second:
> >   1 s = 9192631770/??_Cs  1 Hz = ??_Cs/9192631770
> > 
> > Metre:
> >   1 metre = (c/299792458)s = (9192631770/299792458)?(c/??_Cs)
> > 
> > The home page of BIMP:
> > https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units
> > 
> > Give the exact same definitions, so I assume
> > that the definitions above are valid now.
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
> 
> >>>
> >>> If the speed of light is measured _with the meter and second
> >>> defined above_ it is obviously possible to get a result slightly
> >>> different from the defined speed of light.
> >>>
> >>> So I was not "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
> >>
> >> You were, and it would seem that you still are.
> >> You cannot measure the speed of light because it has a defined value.
> >> If you would think that what you are doing is a speed of light
> >> measurement you don't understand what you are doing.
> 
> Yes, I was indeed "absolutely, and totally wrong",
> but not completely wrong.
> 
> > 
> > When you have a definition of second and a definition of metre,
> > it is _obviously_ possible to measure the speed of light.
> > 
> > If you measure the speed of light in air, you would probably
> > find that v_air ≈ 2.99705e8 m/s.
> > 
> > If you measure it in vacuum on the ground, you would probably
> > get a value slightly less than 299792458 m/s because the vacuum
> > isn't perfect.
> 
> OK so far.
> 
> > 
> > If you measure it in perfect vacuum (in a space-vehicle?) you
> > would probably get the value 299792458 m/s.
> 
> You would certainly measure the value 299792458 m/s.
> 
> It is possible measure the speed of light in vacuum, but not much
> point in doing so since the result is given by definition.
> 
> > But it isn't impossible, if you had extremely precise instruments,
> > that you would measure a value slightly different from 299792458 m/s,
> > e.g. 299792458.000001 m/s.
> 
> This is indeed "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
> 
> I somehow thought that the "real speed" of light in vacuum
> measured before 1985 was different from 299792458 m/s.

Of course it was. The adopted value was a compromise
between the results of different teams.
BTW, you are also falling into the 'das ding an sich' trap.

> (Which it probably was, but the difference hidden in the error bar)
> And since the definition of metre only contain the defined constant c,
> i thought "the real speed" of light could be different from c.

Yes, that is where you go wrong.

> But this is utter nonsense!

Beginning to see the light?

> Now I can't understand how I could think so.
> My brain seems to be slower than it used to be. :-(
> 
> The real speed of light in vacuum is exactly c = 299792458 m/s,
> and 1 metre = (1 second/299792458)c, is derived from c,
> which means that the measured speed of light in vacuum will
> always be c.

Correct.
Perhaps I can explain the practicalities behind it in another way.
If you measure the speed of light accurately
you must of course do an error analysis.
The result of this that almost all of the error results from
the ecessary realisation of the meter standard. (in your laboratory)
So the paradoxal result is that you cannot measure the speed of light
even when there is a meter standard of some kind.

You may call whatever it is that you are doing
'a speed of light measurement',
but if you are a competent experimentalist you will understand
that what you are really doing is a meter calibraton experiment.
Hence the speed of light must be given a defined value,
for practical experimental reasons. [1]

Jan

[1] Which have not changed.
(and will not change in the forseeable future)
Meter standards are orders of magnitude less accurate
than time standards. (see why this must be?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659428 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Den 08.12.2024 12:30, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> 
>> Den 07.12.2024 22:19, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
>>>
>>> But it isn't impossible, if you had extremely precise instruments,
>>> that you would measure a value slightly different from 299792458 m/s,
>>> e.g. 299792458.000001 m/s.
>>
>> This is indeed "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
>>
>> I somehow thought that the "real speed" of light in vacuum
>> measured before 1985 was different from 299792458 m/s.
> 
> Of course it was. The adopted value was a compromise
> between the results of different teams.
> BTW, you are also falling into the 'das ding an sich' trap.
> 
>> (Which it probably was, but the difference hidden in the error bar)
>> And since the definition of metre only contain the defined constant c,
>> i thought "the real speed" of light could be different from c.
> 
> Yes, that is where you go wrong.
> 
>> But this is utter nonsense!
> 
> Beginning to see the light?
> 
>> Now I can't understand how I could think so.
>> My brain seems to be slower than it used to be. :-(
>>
>> The real speed of light in vacuum is exactly c = 299792458 m/s,
>> and 1 metre = (1 second/299792458)c, is derived from c,
>> which means that the measured speed of light in vacuum will
>> always be c.
> 
> Correct.
> Perhaps I can explain the practicalities behind it in another way.
> If you measure the speed of light accurately
> you must of course do an error analysis.
> The result of this that almost all of the error results from
> the ecessary realisation of the meter standard. (in your laboratory)
> So the paradoxal result is that you cannot measure the speed of light
> even when there is a meter standard of some kind.
> 
> You may call whatever it is that you are doing
> 'a speed of light measurement',
> but if you are a competent experimentalist you will understand
> that what you are really doing is a meter calibraton experiment.
> Hence the speed of light must be given a defined value,
> for practical experimental reasons. [1]
> 
> Jan

This is my way of thinking which made me realise that I was wrong:
How do we measure the speed of light?
We measure the time it takes for the light to travel a known distance.
So we bounce the light off a mirror and measure the round trip time.
How do we calibrate the distance to the mirror?
We measure the time it takes for the light to go back and forth
to the mirror.
L = (c/299792458)⋅t/2 where t is round trip time in seconds
AHA!!!

> 
> [1] Which have not changed.
> (and will not change in the forseeable future)
> Meter standards are orders of magnitude less accurate
> than time standards. (see why this must be?)
> 

No, I don't understand.
The definition of metre only depends on the two constants
Δν_Cs and c and both have an exact value.
Is it because the time standard only depend on one constant?

I can however understand that practical calibration of the meter
is less precise than the calibration of a frequency standard.

------------------

I would like your reaction to the following;

In:
https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
I read:
https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra

"The CIPM has adopted various secondary representations of
  the second, based on a selected number of spectral lines of atoms,
  ions or molecules. The unperturbed frequencies of these lines can
  be determined with a relative uncertainty not lower than that of
  the realization of the second based on the 133Cs hyperfine transition
  frequency, but some can be reproduced with superior stability."

This is how I interpret this:
The second is still defined by "the unperturbed ground state
hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom"
   Δν_Cs = 9192631770 Hz by definition.

But practical realisations of this frequency standard,
that is an atomic frequency standard based on Cs133 is
not immune to perturbation, a magnetic field may affect it.

So there exist more stable frequency standards than Cs,
and some  are extremely more stable.
But the frequencies of these standards are still defined
by Δν_Cs. 1 hz = Δν_Cs/9192631770
This is "Calibration of a frequency standard".

The "secondary representations of second"
don't change the duration of a second
and the "secondary representations of metre"
don't change the length of a metre.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659438 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 08.12.2024 12:30, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> > 
> >> Den 07.12.2024 22:19, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> >>>
> >>> But it isn't impossible, if you had extremely precise instruments,
> >>> that you would measure a value slightly different from 299792458 m/s,
> >>> e.g. 299792458.000001 m/s.
> >>
> >> This is indeed "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
> >>
> >> I somehow thought that the "real speed" of light in vacuum
> >> measured before 1985 was different from 299792458 m/s.
> > 
> > Of course it was. The adopted value was a compromise
> > between the results of different teams.
> > BTW, you are also falling into the 'das ding an sich' trap.
> > 
> >> (Which it probably was, but the difference hidden in the error bar)
> >> And since the definition of metre only contain the defined constant c,
> >> i thought "the real speed" of light could be different from c.
> > 
> > Yes, that is where you go wrong.
> > 
> >> But this is utter nonsense!
> > 
> > Beginning to see the light?
> > 
> >> Now I can't understand how I could think so.
> >> My brain seems to be slower than it used to be. :-(
> >>
> >> The real speed of light in vacuum is exactly c = 299792458 m/s,
> >> and 1 metre = (1 second/299792458)c, is derived from c,
> >> which means that the measured speed of light in vacuum will
> >> always be c.
> > 
> > Correct.
> > Perhaps I can explain the practicalities behind it in another way.
> > If you measure the speed of light accurately
> > you must of course do an error analysis.
> > The result of this that almost all of the error results from
> > the ecessary realisation of the meter standard. (in your laboratory)
> > So the paradoxal result is that you cannot measure the speed of light
> > even when there is a meter standard of some kind.
> > 
> > You may call whatever it is that you are doing
> > 'a speed of light measurement',
> > but if you are a competent experimentalist you will understand
> > that what you are really doing is a meter calibraton experiment.
> > Hence the speed of light must be given a defined value,
> > for practical experimental reasons. [1]
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> This is my way of thinking which made me realise that I was wrong:
> How do we measure the speed of light?
> We measure the time it takes for the light to travel a known distance.
> So we bounce the light off a mirror and measure the round trip time.
> How do we calibrate the distance to the mirror?
> We measure the time it takes for the light to go back and forth
> to the mirror.
> L = (c/299792458)?t/2 where t is round trip time in seconds
> AHA!!!
> 
> > 
> > [1] Which have not changed.
> > (and will not change in the forseeable future)
> > Meter standards are orders of magnitude less accurate
> > than time standards. (see why this must be?)
> > 
> 
> No, I don't understand.
> The definition of metre only depends on the two constants
> ??_Cs and c and both have an exact value.
> Is it because the time standard only depend on one constant?
> 
> I can however understand that practical calibration of the meter
> is less precise than the calibration of a frequency standard.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> I would like your reaction to the following;
> 
> In:
> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
> I read:
> https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra
> 
> "The CIPM has adopted various secondary representations of
>   the second, based on a selected number of spectral lines of atoms,
>   ions or molecules. The unperturbed frequencies of these lines can
>   be determined with a relative uncertainty not lower than that of
>   the realization of the second based on the 133Cs hyperfine transition
>   frequency, but some can be reproduced with superior stability."
> 
> This is how I interpret this:
> The second is still defined by "the unperturbed ground state
> hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom"
>    ??_Cs = 9192631770 Hz by definition.
> 
> But practical realisations of this frequency standard,
> that is an atomic frequency standard based on Cs133 is
> not immune to perturbation, a magnetic field may affect it.
> 
> So there exist more stable frequency standards than Cs,
> and some  are extremely more stable.
> But the frequencies of these standards are still defined
> by ??_Cs. 1 hz = ??_Cs/9192631770
> This is "Calibration of a frequency standard".
> 
> The "secondary representations of second"
> don't change the duration of a second
> and the "secondary representations of metre"
> don't change the length of a metre.

Instead of replying point by point I'll sum up the whole situation.
(as I understand it, and perhaps repeating what I wrote earlier)

For understanding all this you must realise
that there are two kinds of frequency standards:
microwave ones, typically in the (perhaps many) GHz range,
and
optical ones, typically in the hundreds of THz range.
The GHz ones may serve as absolute frequency standards and as clocks.
The optical ones (like the standard stabilised HeNe laser)
may also serve as (secondary) meter standards.
Standards labs supply lists of 'recommended' optical frequencies.
The optical frequency sources are of course also 'floating' frequency
standards on their own.

The GHz ones can be calibrated against each other by direct counting.
So their accuracy may equal that of the Cs standard. (by the definition)
The stability of frequency standards can in general be established
by comparing ensembles of them against each other. (so indepently of Cs)
Which kind of standard to use depends on what you need:
relative or absolute accuracy.

AFAIK about those matters, the idea among metrologists at present
is to leave things as they are,
until a really big step forward can be made.
(hopefully already at the next CGPM)

Some of the optical frequency standards are far more stable indeed.
(nowadays pushing 10^18, last time I looked)
But their frequencies (in terms of the Cs standard!)
are known to a much lesser accuracy. 
(pushing 10^12, again last time I looked)
The use of frequency combs caused a revolution here. (see 2005 Nobel)

Summary: optical frequency standards can be far more stable, 
but their frequencies are (relatively speaking!) poorly known.

Once you have a calibrated optical frequency standard, [1]
for which you know the frequency in terms of the Cs standard,
you know its wavelength, by the definition of  c,
so you can start measuring distances and sizes
in terms of its wavelength, hence in meters.
It has become a secondary meter standard.

So measuring distances/lengths is inherently much less accurate
than measuring time/frequency.
And, circle closed, this was precisely the reason
for giving  c  a defined value.
So c really cannot be measured anymore,
not because some crazed guru-followers decreed so,
but because of hard experimental realities and necessities.

Hope this clears up the questions you had,

Jan

[1] This is the ongoing, never-ending, program I mentioned earlier:
finding optical frequency standards, aka secondary meter standards,
to ever greater accuracy and reproducibiliy.
The original <1983 series of measurements, then called 'measuring c',
was just good enough to base the definined value of c on.
Those decades of added precision had to go into better frequency/meter
standards, not into a 'better' value of c.

PS There are first indications that it may be possible
to harness a gamma ray line from a nuclear transition
in the not to far future, for again greatly increased stability.
Very low frequency, as gammas go, but still in the very far UV.
Challenges, challenges.








  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659454 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Den 09.12.2024 20:28, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I would like your reaction to the following;
>>
>> In:
>> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
>> I read:
>> https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra
>>
>> "The CIPM has adopted various secondary representations of
>>    the second, based on a selected number of spectral lines of atoms,
>>    ions or molecules. The unperturbed frequencies of these lines can
>>    be determined with a relative uncertainty not lower than that of
>>    the realization of the second based on the 133Cs hyperfine transition
>>    frequency, but some can be reproduced with superior stability."
>>
>> This is how I interpret this:
>> The second is still defined by "the unperturbed ground state
>> hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom"
>>     ??_Cs = 9192631770 Hz by definition.
>>
>> But practical realisations of this frequency standard,
>> that is an atomic frequency standard based on Cs133 is
>> not immune to perturbation, a magnetic field may affect it.
>>
>> So there exist more stable frequency standards than Cs,
>> and some  are extremely more stable.
>> But the frequencies of these standards are still defined
>> by ??_Cs. 1 hz = ??_Cs/9192631770
>> This is "Calibration of a frequency standard".
>>
>> The "secondary representations of second"
>> don't change the duration of a second
>> and the "secondary representations of metre"
>> don't change the length of a metre.
> 
> Instead of replying point by point I'll sum up the whole situation.
> (as I understand it, and perhaps repeating what I wrote earlier)
> 
> For understanding all this you must realise
> that there are two kinds of frequency standards:
> microwave ones, typically in the (perhaps many) GHz range,
> and
> optical ones, typically in the hundreds of THz range.
> The GHz ones may serve as absolute frequency standards and as clocks.
> The optical ones (like the standard stabilised HeNe laser)
> may also serve as (secondary) meter standards.
> Standards labs supply lists of 'recommended' optical frequencies.
> The optical frequency sources are of course also 'floating' frequency
> standards on their own.
> 
> The GHz ones can be calibrated against each other by direct counting.
> So their accuracy may equal that of the Cs standard. (by the definition)
> The stability of frequency standards can in general be established
> by comparing ensembles of them against each other. (so indepently of Cs)
> Which kind of standard to use depends on what you need:
> relative or absolute accuracy.
> 
> AFAIK about those matters, the idea among metrologists at present
> is to leave things as they are,
> until a really big step forward can be made.
> (hopefully already at the next CGPM)
> 
> Some of the optical frequency standards are far more stable indeed.
> (nowadays pushing 10^18, last time I looked)
> But their frequencies (in terms of the Cs standard!)
> are known to a much lesser accuracy.
> (pushing 10^12, again last time I looked)
> The use of frequency combs caused a revolution here. (see 2005 Nobel)
> 
> Summary: optical frequency standards can be far more stable,
> but their frequencies are (relatively speaking!) poorly known.
> 
> Once you have a calibrated optical frequency standard, [1]
> for which you know the frequency in terms of the Cs standard,
> you know its wavelength, by the definition of  c,
> so you can start measuring distances and sizes
> in terms of its wavelength, hence in meters.
> It has become a secondary meter standard.
> 
> So measuring distances/lengths is inherently much less accurate
> than measuring time/frequency.
> And, circle closed, this was precisely the reason
> for giving  c  a defined value.
> So c really cannot be measured anymore,
> not because some crazed guru-followers decreed so,
> but because of hard experimental realities and necessities.
> 
> Hope this clears up the questions you had,

Yes. Thank you!

> 
> Jan
> 
> [1] This is the ongoing, never-ending, program I mentioned earlier:
> finding optical frequency standards, aka secondary meter standards,
> to ever greater accuracy and reproducibiliy.
> The original <1983 series of measurements, then called 'measuring c',
> was just good enough to base the definined value of c on.
> Those decades of added precision had to go into better frequency/meter
> standards, not into a 'better' value of c.
> 
> PS There are first indications that it may be possible
> to harness a gamma ray line from a nuclear transition
> in the not to far future, for again greatly increased stability.
> Very low frequency, as gammas go, but still in the very far UV.
> Challenges, challenges.
> 
> 

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659858 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

On 12/9/2024 1:28 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Den 08.12.2024 12:30, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>>> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 07.12.2024 22:19, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
>>>>>
>>>>> But it isn't impossible, if you had extremely precise instruments,
>>>>> that you would measure a value slightly different from 299792458 m/s,
>>>>> e.g. 299792458.000001 m/s.
>>>>
>>>> This is indeed "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
>>>>
>>>> I somehow thought that the "real speed" of light in vacuum
>>>> measured before 1985 was different from 299792458 m/s.
>>>
>>> Of course it was. The adopted value was a compromise
>>> between the results of different teams.
>>> BTW, you are also falling into the 'das ding an sich' trap.
>>>
>>>> (Which it probably was, but the difference hidden in the error bar)
>>>> And since the definition of metre only contain the defined constant c,
>>>> i thought "the real speed" of light could be different from c.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is where you go wrong.
>>>
>>>> But this is utter nonsense!
>>>
>>> Beginning to see the light?
>>>
>>>> Now I can't understand how I could think so.
>>>> My brain seems to be slower than it used to be. :-(
>>>>
>>>> The real speed of light in vacuum is exactly c = 299792458 m/s,
>>>> and 1 metre = (1 second/299792458)c, is derived from c,
>>>> which means that the measured speed of light in vacuum will
>>>> always be c.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>> Perhaps I can explain the practicalities behind it in another way.
>>> If you measure the speed of light accurately
>>> you must of course do an error analysis.
>>> The result of this that almost all of the error results from
>>> the ecessary realisation of the meter standard. (in your laboratory)
>>> So the paradoxal result is that you cannot measure the speed of light
>>> even when there is a meter standard of some kind.
>>>
>>> You may call whatever it is that you are doing
>>> 'a speed of light measurement',
>>> but if you are a competent experimentalist you will understand
>>> that what you are really doing is a meter calibraton experiment.
>>> Hence the speed of light must be given a defined value,
>>> for practical experimental reasons. [1]
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> This is my way of thinking which made me realise that I was wrong:
>> How do we measure the speed of light?
>> We measure the time it takes for the light to travel a known distance.
>> So we bounce the light off a mirror and measure the round trip time.
>> How do we calibrate the distance to the mirror?
>> We measure the time it takes for the light to go back and forth
>> to the mirror.
>> L = (c/299792458)?t/2 where t is round trip time in seconds
>> AHA!!!
>>
>>>
>>> [1] Which have not changed.
>>> (and will not change in the forseeable future)
>>> Meter standards are orders of magnitude less accurate
>>> than time standards. (see why this must be?)
>>>
>>
>> No, I don't understand.
>> The definition of metre only depends on the two constants
>> ??_Cs and c and both have an exact value.
>> Is it because the time standard only depend on one constant?
>>
>> I can however understand that practical calibration of the meter
>> is less precise than the calibration of a frequency standard.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> I would like your reaction to the following;
>>
>> In:
>> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
>> I read:
>> https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra
>>
>> "The CIPM has adopted various secondary representations of
>>    the second, based on a selected number of spectral lines of atoms,
>>    ions or molecules. The unperturbed frequencies of these lines can
>>    be determined with a relative uncertainty not lower than that of
>>    the realization of the second based on the 133Cs hyperfine transition
>>    frequency, but some can be reproduced with superior stability."
>>
>> This is how I interpret this:
>> The second is still defined by "the unperturbed ground state
>> hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom"
>>     ??_Cs = 9192631770 Hz by definition.
>>
>> But practical realisations of this frequency standard,
>> that is an atomic frequency standard based on Cs133 is
>> not immune to perturbation, a magnetic field may affect it.
>>
>> So there exist more stable frequency standards than Cs,
>> and some  are extremely more stable.
>> But the frequencies of these standards are still defined
>> by ??_Cs. 1 hz = ??_Cs/9192631770
>> This is "Calibration of a frequency standard".
>>
>> The "secondary representations of second"
>> don't change the duration of a second
>> and the "secondary representations of metre"
>> don't change the length of a metre.
> 
> Instead of replying point by point I'll sum up the whole situation.
> (as I understand it, and perhaps repeating what I wrote earlier)
> 
> For understanding all this you must realise
> that there are two kinds of frequency standards:
> microwave ones, typically in the (perhaps many) GHz range,
> and
> optical ones, typically in the hundreds of THz range.
> The GHz ones may serve as absolute frequency standards and as clocks.
> The optical ones (like the standard stabilised HeNe laser)
> may also serve as (secondary) meter standards.
> Standards labs supply lists of 'recommended' optical frequencies.
> The optical frequency sources are of course also 'floating' frequency
> standards on their own.
> 
> The GHz ones can be calibrated against each other by direct counting.
> So their accuracy may equal that of the Cs standard. (by the definition)
> The stability of frequency standards can in general be established
> by comparing ensembles of them against each other. (so indepently of Cs)
> Which kind of standard to use depends on what you need:
> relative or absolute accuracy.
> 
> AFAIK about those matters, the idea among metrologists at present
> is to leave things as they are,
> until a really big step forward can be made.
> (hopefully already at the next CGPM)
> 
> Some of the optical frequency standards are far more stable indeed.
> (nowadays pushing 10^18, last time I looked)
> But their frequencies (in terms of the Cs standard!)
> are known to a much lesser accuracy.
> (pushing 10^12, again last time I looked)
> The use of frequency combs caused a revolution here. (see 2005 Nobel)
> 
> Summary: optical frequency standards can be far more stable,
> but their frequencies are (relatively speaking!) poorly known.
> 
> Once you have a calibrated optical frequency standard, [1]
> for which you know the frequency in terms of the Cs standard,
> you know its wavelength, by the definition of  c,
> so you can start measuring distances and sizes
> in terms of its wavelength, hence in meters.
> It has become a secondary meter standard.
> 
> So measuring distances/lengths is inherently much less accurate
> than measuring time/frequency.
> And, circle closed, this was precisely the reason
> for giving  c  a defined value.
> So c really cannot be measured anymore,
> not because some crazed guru-followers decreed so,
> but because of hard experimental realities and necessities.
> 
> Hope this clears up the questions you had,
> 
> Jan
> 
> [1] This is the ongoing, never-ending, program I mentioned earlier:
> finding optical frequency standards, aka secondary meter standards,
> to ever greater accuracy and reproducibiliy.
> The original <1983 series of measurements, then called 'measuring c',
> was just good enough to base the definined value of c on.
> Those decades of added precision had to go into better frequency/meter
> standards, not into a 'better' value of c.
> 
> PS There are first indications that it may be possible
> to harness a gamma ray line from a nuclear transition
> in the not to far future, for again greatly increased stability.
> Very low frequency, as gammas go, but still in the very far UV.
> Challenges, challenges.
> 



So you're saying that speed of light is not c but is in units of c.




-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659441 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 17:37:53 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> Talking about idiocies in SI definitions of units by BIPM, what about
> the Kg of mass?
>
>
> The old definition of the kilogram was based on the mass of the
> International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK), a platinum-iridium
> cylinder kept at the BIPM. The IPK was sanctioned in 1889 by the 1st
> General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM).
>
> After 1960, the kilogram was the only SI unit still defined in terms of
> a single manufactured object. So to ensure the accuracy of mass and
> weight measurements, all the standard masses used in all the
> measurements around the globe were, in theory, to be directly compared
> to the IPK — which was kept by the International Bureau of Weights and
> Measures (BIPM) in Sèvres, France.
>
> Since May 20, 2019, the kilogram is now an ABSTRACT IDEA based on light
> and energy, rather than a physical object. The new definition doesn't
> need a physical reference block.
>
> The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking
> the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015E−34
> J⋅s, which is equal to kg⋅m^2/s, where the meter and the second are
> defined in terms of c and ΔνCs.
>
> It was the last physical object used to define the seven standard units
> of the SI system, but it was susceptible to different perturbations like
> changes in g, temperature, etc. Now, this reference is gone, after it
> was found a difference of 54 micrograms (by 2005) with was previously
> thought as a true 1.00000000 Kg of mass.
>
> Now, everyone of the seven units of SI don't have any physical
> representation. All of them are FIXED as theoretical values, even when
> PHYSICS REALITY shows that they all ARE INCORRECT!
>
> Yet, they have been ADOPTED, and any other secondary unit is derived
> from THEORETICAL VALUES.
>
> This is what science has become: a FUCKING JOKE (ON YOU).

In case you didn't follow this:


Since May 20, 2019, the kilogram is now an ABSTRACT IDEA based on light
and energy, rather than a physical object. The new definition doesn't
need a physical reference block.


SI base unit: kilogram (kg)
https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/kilogram


Being h = 6.62607015E–34 kg m^2/s


1 Kg =  h/6.62607015E–34 s/m^2

replacing h, it gives that 1 Kg = 1 Kg.

I'd swear that this is A CIRCULAR REFERENCE without any value at all!

Science has become a fucking joke, as I wrote.


From the same page, another variant of the same joke:


1 Kg =  299,792,458,942^2/(9,192,671,730 x 6.62607015E–34) h ΔνCs/c^2

then

1 Kg =  1 Kg

Science at its highest!

Fucking retarded people, taking the rest as fucking retarded people!

Now, what idiocies were you writing about FIXING the speed of light?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659442 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Volume 106, Number 1, January–February 2001
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology
The Kilogram and Measurements of Mass and Force

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/j61jab.pdf


For almost 140 years, this was the standard of 1 Kg of mass:

QUOTE:

" In 1878, three 1 kg cylinders, KI, KII, and KIII, made of
90 % platinum—10 % iridium alloy were ordered from Johnson
Matthey in England; they were delivered in 1879. They were
polished, adjusted, and compared with the Kilogram of
the Archives by four observers in 1880 at the Observatory
of Paris. The mass of KIII was found to be the closest to
that of the Kilogram of the Archives. KIII was placed in
a safe at the BIPM in 1882, was chosen by the CIPM to be
the International Prototype Kilogram, and was ratified
as such by the 1st “Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures”
(CGPM) in 1889. In 1901, the 3rd CGPM in Paris established
the definition of the unit of mass: “The Kilogram is the
unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the International
Prototype of the Kilogram.”
.........

VERIFICATIONS: "The latest one, the third periodic verification,
took place between 1988 and 1992. For it, the IPK was used with
the NBS-2 balance. The results of the third periodic verification
demonstrated a long-term instability of the unit of mass
on the order of approximately 30 ug/kg over the last century [4];
this instability is attributed to surface effects that are not
yet fully understood."


Some calculations:

1 Pt atom = 3.24827372640E-25 Kg
1 Ir atom = 3.23153838601E-25

0.9 Kg of Pt contains 2.77070245862E+24 atoms
0.1 Kg of Ir contains 3.09450138154E+23 atoms

For unknown reasons, 0.000030 Kg vanished in the last century, as
measured in
the period 1988-1992. This represents an average of 1.80664222610E+22
atoms of Platinum that vanished in thin air (or any mix of Pt-Ir that
you may use).

But the abstract values of h, c and ΔνCs are considered INVARIANT
because they are FIXED NUMBERS (by choice of a bunch of retarded
scientists at CPGH). They all are unaccountable for their actions that
ruin physics since WWII.

Is this degradation happening by design, coming from an obscure agenda?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659420 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 8:19:33 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 07.12.2024 22:19, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 06.12.2024 21:00, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>>> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> According to:
>> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
>> (2019)
>> The SI definitions are:
>>
>> The relevant defining constants:
>>   Δν_Cs = 9192631770 Hz  (hyperfine transition frequency of Cs133)
>>   c = 299 792 458 m/s (speed of light in vacuum)
>>
>> The relevant base units:
>> Second:
>>   1 s = 9192631770/Δν_Cs  1 Hz = Δν_Cs/9192631770
>>
>> Metre:
>>   1 metre = (c/299792458)s = (9192631770/299792458)⋅(c/Δν_Cs)
>>
>> The home page of BIMP:
>> https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units
>>
>> Give the exact same definitions, so I assume
>> that the definitions above are valid now.
>>
>>
>> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
>
>>>>
>>>> If the speed of light is measured _with the meter and second
>>>> defined above_ it is obviously possible to get a result slightly
>>>> different from the defined speed of light.
>>>>
>>>> So I was not "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
>>>
>>> You were, and it would seem that you still are.
>>> You cannot measure the speed of light because it has a defined value.
>>> If you would think that what you are doing is a speed of light
>>> measurement you don't understand what you are doing.
>
> Yes, I was indeed "absolutely, and totally wrong",
> but not completely wrong.

I disagree that you were wrong at all.
1) The expression "c" has multiple meanings. On the one hand, it is,
   according to a widely accepted geometric model of spacetime, a
   constant that expresses the relationship between units of space and
   units of time. This "c" is given a defined value of 299792458 m/s,
   and because it has that value by definition, it cannot be measured.
2) Another meaning of "c" is the speed of photons in vacuum. Photons
   are, to the best of our knowledge, massless, and according to the
   above geometric model of spacetime, all unimpeded massless
   particles travel at the speed "c" given in definition (1).

Does the above-mentioned geometric model of spacetime, this "theory",
correspond to reality? All tests of predictions made by that model
(in the absence of gravity) have thus far validated its predictions.

But although well-validated, this theory (SR) is not proven and can
never be. Other theories of physics exist that are far beyond my
competency to discuss, which would predict different results of
physical measurements.

So it is legitimate to ask questions like, "Is the speed of light
in vacuum completely independent of wavelength"? since alternative
theories of physics envision scenarios where the SR prediction breaks
down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659423 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 8:19:33 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> > Den 07.12.2024 22:19, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> >> Den 06.12.2024 21:00, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> According to:
> >> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
> >> (2019)
> >> The SI definitions are:
> >>
> >> The relevant defining constants:
> >>   ??_Cs = 9192631770 Hz  (hyperfine transition frequency of Cs133)
> >>   c = 299 792 458 m/s (speed of light in vacuum)
> >>
> >> The relevant base units:
> >> Second:
> >>   1 s = 9192631770/??_Cs  1 Hz = ??_Cs/9192631770
> >>
> >> Metre:
> >>   1 metre = (c/299792458)s = (9192631770/299792458)?(c/??_Cs)
> >>
> >> The home page of BIMP:
> >> https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units
> >>
> >> Give the exact same definitions, so I assume
> >> that the definitions above are valid now.
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> If the speed of light is measured _with the meter and second
> >>>> defined above_ it is obviously possible to get a result slightly
> >>>> different from the defined speed of light.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I was not "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
> >>>
> >>> You were, and it would seem that you still are.
> >>> You cannot measure the speed of light because it has a defined value.
> >>> If you would think that what you are doing is a speed of light
> >>> measurement you don't understand what you are doing.
> >
> > Yes, I was indeed "absolutely, and totally wrong",
> > but not completely wrong.
> 
> I disagree that you were wrong at all.

So you are not there yet.

Remember that nothing you say, and no definitions you make
can have any effect on reality as it is.
It can only change your way of looking at it,
and your interpretations of what you see.

> 1) The expression "c" has multiple meanings. On the one hand, it is,
>    according to a widely accepted geometric model of spacetime, a
>    constant that expresses the relationship between units of space and
>    units of time. This "c" is given a defined value of 299792458 m/s,
>    and because it has that value by definition, it cannot be measured.
> 2) Another meaning of "c" is the speed of photons in vacuum. Photons
>    are, to the best of our knowledge, massless, and according to the
>    above geometric model of spacetime, all unimpeded massless
>    particles travel at the speed "c" given in definition (1).

All very true, but completely irrelevant
from the point of view of metrology.

Metrology is about how to realise units, and nothing else.
Deep thoughts about the nature of things,
or what words might mean, do not come into it at all.
In particular, the whole theory of relativity is irrelevant
as far the definition of the meter is concerned.
[snip more irrelevancies]

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659407 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 06.12.2024 21:00, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> > 
> >> Den 05.12.2024 19:42, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:>
> >>>> So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better
> >>>> precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458.000001 m/s,
> >>>> then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with
> >>>> SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one.
> >>
> >> Note: measured with SI metre and SI second.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.
> >>> Such a result does not mean that the speed of light
> >>> is off its defined value,
> >>> it means that your meter standard is off,
> >>> and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it.
> >>> (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value)
> 
> According to:
> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
> (2019)
> The SI definitions are:
> 
> The relevant defining constants:
>   ??_Cs = 9192631770 Hz  (hyperfine transition frequency of Cs133)
>   c = 299 792 458 m/s (speed of light in vacuum)
> 
> The relevant base units:
> Second:
>   1 s = 9192631770/??_Cs  1 Hz = ??_Cs/9192631770
> 
> Metre:
>   1 metre = (c/299792458)s = (9192631770/299792458)?(c/??_Cs)
> 
> The home page of BIMP:
> https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units
> 
> Give the exact same definitions, so I assume
> that the definitions above are valid now.
> 
> 
> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf

Certainly. Letters are merely letters, you should know how to read.
You should have read on to the section on the realisations of those
units.
===
Avec un tel système d'unités,
il n'existe en principe aucune limite concernant l'exactitude avec
laquelle une unité peut
être réalisée. L'exception reste la seconde pour laquelle la transition
micro-onde du césium
doit être conservée, pour le moment, comme base de la définition.
===

Translating: All units may be developed in the future
to ever inceasing accuracy, except for the second,
which is the defining basis of the system.

> >> If the speed of light is measured _with the meter and second
> >> defined above_ it is obviously possible to get a result slightly
> >> different from the defined speed of light.
> >>
> >> So I was not "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong".
> > 
> > You were, and it would seem that you still are.
> > You cannot measure the speed of light because it has a defined value.
> > If you would think that what you are doing is a speed of light
> > measurement you don't understand what you are doing.
> 
> When you have a definition of second and a definition of metre,
> it is _obviously_ possible to measure the speed of light.

So you persist in being utterly wrong about it.
All meter standards are based on the defined speed of light.
So they cannot be used to measure the speed of light.

> If you measure the speed of light in air, you would probably
> find that v_air ≈ 2.99705e8 m/s.

True, but irrelevant.

> If you measure it in vacuum on the ground, you would probably
> get a value slightly less than 299792458 m/s because the vacuum
> isn't perfect.

Again, irrelevant.
Of course you can measure -other- speeds.

> If you measure it in perfect vacuum (in a space-vehicle?) you
> would probably get the value 299792458 m/s.

In that case you would be an incompetent idiot
who doesn't know what he is doing.
(which is calibrating a local meter standard)

> But it isn't impossible, if you had extremely precise instruments,
> that you would measure a value slightly different from 299792458 m/s,
> e.g. 299792458.000001 m/s.
> 
> However, so precise instruments hardly exists, and probably never will.
> So I don't think this ever will be a real problem needing a fix.

Definitions can never be fixed by experiments.
Only people can do that, by agreeing on another one.

> But my point is:
> It is possible to measure the speed of light even if it exists
> a defined constant c = 299792458 m/s

OK, I give up on you. It would seem that you will never get it.

> If you are claiming otherwise, you are simply wrong.
> 
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >>> In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called
> >>> 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983)
> >>> are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM.
> >>> The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements
> >>> are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard',
> >>> or 'calibration of a frequency standard'.
> 
> Calibration of a frequency standard is just that, and not
> a 'speed of light measurements'.

Do you have any idea of how these things were done?
(and still are)

> >> Is any such recalibration of the meter ever done?
> > 
> > Of course, routinely, on a day to day basis.
> > Guess there are whole departments devoted to it.
> > (it is a subtle art)
> > The results are published nowadays as a list of frequencies
> > of prefered optical frequency standards.
> > (measuring the frequency of an optical frequency standard
> >   and calibrating a secondary meter standard are just two different ways
> >   of saying the same thing)
> > And remember, there is no longer such a thing as -the- meter.
> > It is a secondary unit, and any convenient secondary standard will do.
> 
> In:
> https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
> 
> I read:
> https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra
> 
> "The CIPM has adopted various secondary representations of
>   the second, based on a selected number of spectral lines of atoms,
>   ions or molecules. The unperturbed frequencies of these lines can
>   be determined with a relative uncertainty not lower than that of
>   the realization of the second based on the 133Cs hyperfine transition
>   frequency, but some can be reproduced with superior stability."

Yes, of course, many of them, such as rubidium clocks,
hydrogen masers, etc. 
The difference is that the Cesium standard is exact, by definition.
All others have error bars on them.

> This is how I interpret this:
> The second is still defined by "the unperturbed ground state
> hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom"
>    ??_Cs = 9192631770 Hz by definition.
> 
> But practical realisations of this frequency standard,
> that is an atomic frequency standard based on Cs133 is
> not immune to perturbation, a magnetic field may affect it.

Certainly, it takes a very competent experimentalist to get it right.
Well, that is what standards labs are for.

> So there exist more stable frequency standards than Cs,
> and some  are extremely more stable.
> But the frequencies of these standards are still defined
> by ??_Cs. 1 hz = ??_Cs/9192631770
> This is "Calibration of a frequency standard".

They are more stable only in terms of themselves.
Their true frequency is not known to comparable accurately.
(to far less than the stability of the Cesium standard, actually)

> The "secondary representations of second"
> don't change the duration of a second
> and the "secondary representations of metre"
> don't change the length of a metre.

The secondary representations of the metre -are- the metre. [1]
There is no primary meter, so no 'the length of the meter,
('ding an sich' error again)

Jan

[1] Practicalities: secondary meter standards are less accurate than the
second by several orders of magnitude.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659377 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 18:42:24 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

>> So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better
>> precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s,
>> then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with
>> SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one.
>
> So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.
> Such a result does not mean that the speed of light
> is off its defined value,
> it means that your meter standard is off,
> and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it.
> (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value)

Not necessarily.

It is still possible that despite there having been 1 1/2 centuries
of experiment supporting the constancy of the speed of light, at some
level of precision of measurement, some variation may be discovered.
To quantify such variation, it would obviously be necessary to perform
such analysis using an EARLIER definition of the meter.

> In other words, it means that you can nowadays
> calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard
> to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983.
> This is no doubt true,
> but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light.
>
> In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter.
> The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter,
> that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458? m/s (exactly)

Yes.

Going back to the OP thread topic, the fact that since 2018, E=mc^2
is true BY DEFINITION does not render irrelevant experiments designed
to test its validity.

Here is a thought experiment:
1) Take a gram of electrons and a gram of positrons, converting them
   completely to electromagnetic energy.
2) Take a gram of protons and a gram of antiprotons, converting them
   completely to electromagnetic energy.

Do we know absolutely for sure that all masses, whatever their form,
are equivalent when converted to electromagnetic energy? I believe it
to be true, but I don't KNOW it to be true.

Certainly in terms of behavior in a gravitational field, most
alternative theories of gravitation generically predict violations of
the weak equivalence principle in the 10^-16 to 10^-18 range. The
Galileo Galilei mission will be the first experiment to explore this
range:
http://eotvos.dm.unipi.it/nobili/

Could violations of the "mass-energy equivalence principle" exist?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659400 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

W dniu 05.12.2024 o 15:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
> Den 04.12.2024 21:17, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>> ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The mere fact that theory and over a century of experimental
>>> validation have led to the speed of light being adopted as a constant
>>> does not invalidate experiments intended to verify to increasing
>>> levels of precision the correctness of the assumptions that led to
>>> it adoption as a constant.
>>
>> So you haven't understood what it is all about.
>> I rest my case,
>>
>> Jan
> 
> The meter is defined as:
> 
> 1 metre = (1 sec/⁠299792458⁠ m/s)
> 
> 1 second = 9192631770 Δν_Cs

Anyone can check GPS, nobody serious cares
about the moronic wishes of your moronic cult.
But feel free to keep enchanting the reality,
poor halfbrain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659328

On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 10:10:39 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:02:45 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> And I forgot:
>>
>> The settlement of constants BY COLLUSION requires that ALL THE
>> INSTRUMENTATION THAT EXIST (used in any science) BE RE-CALIBRATED, to
>> obey.
>>
>>
>> Do you get this?
>>
>> If you manufacture mass spectrometers, voltmeters, timers, WHATEVER,
>> better that you RE-ADJUST the values that come from measurements.
>>
>> Example: Your voltmeter measures 1 Volt as 0.9995743 OLD Volts? Then
>> RECALIBRATE THAT MF or you will sell NONE. Is that clear?
>>
>> CALIBRATION is an essential part in the design and manufacturing OF ANY
>> INSTRUMENT!. But you require MASTER REFERENCES (OR GUIDELINES LIKE THOSE
>> FROM BIPM).
>>
>> Your laser based distance meter measure 1 meter as 1.00493 meters?
>> RECALIBRATE THE INSTRUMENT RIGHT IN THE PRODUCTION LINE.
>>
>> Not to talk about instrumentation used to compute Atomic Weight or
>> a.m.u.
>>
>> ADJUST, COMPLY AND OBEY OR YOU'RE OUT OF THE BUSINESS.
>>
>> Did you manufacture a single instrument in an university lab? ADJUST,
>> COMPLY AND OBEY or you are OUTCASTED.
>>
>> How do you dare to measure c = 299,793,294 m/s? ARE YOU CRAZY? Adjust
>> the readings to c = 299,792,458 m/s, OR ELSE.
>>
>> And this has been happening since late XIX Century. Read the history
>> behind the definition of 1 Ohm, mainly commanded by British
>> institutions, with Cavendish lab behind it.
>
> E ≈ 1.0000000 mc^2 is not a calibration adjustment. It is a
> measurement made with calibrated instrumentation whose consistency
> with other instrumentation has been carefully verified by procedures
> such as you cast aspersion upon above.
>
> Do you want to go back to three barleycorns per inch? Or the
> historical chaos that resulted in the Troy pound, Tower pound,
> London pound, Wool pound, Jersey pound, Trone pound, libra, livre
> and so forth? Or a second equals 1/86400 part of a day?


************************************************************************
Atomic mass unit is measured by determining the mass of atoms relative
to carbon-12. Measured by mass spectrometer (mass-to-charge ratio).
Units  amu (or u, Dalton)

Atomic weight is a calculated average based on the naturally occurring
isotopes and their abundance. Measured by mass spectrometer + isotopic
abundance. Dimensionless (relative value).

Example	Carbon-12 mass = 12 amu.	Carbon atomic weight ≈ 12.01.

The formula used in a mass spectrometer relates the mass-to-charge ratio
(m/z) of ions to their behavior in an electric or magnetic field. The
mass-to-charge ratio m/z  is directly proportional to the radius of the
ion’s path in the magnetic field.

m/z = r² B² e/2V

m = z (r² B² e/2V)

m = mass of the ion (in kilograms).
z = charge of the ion (in coulombs, usually a multiple of the elementary
charge e.
V = accelerating voltage (Volts)
B = magnetic field strength (in tesla, T).
r = radius of the circular path of the ion in the magnetic field (in
meters).

Measurement Process: The mass of atoms is measured using highly
sensitive instruments like a mass spectrometer. The steps are:

1) Ionization: Atoms are ionized (charged).
2) Acceleration: Ions are accelerated through an electric field V.
3) Deflection: Ions are deflected by a magnetic field B, based on their
mass and charge.
4) Detection: The mass-to-charge ratio is detected and used to calculate
the atomic mass of the ion.

*****************************************************************

NIST 2024 value for amu:  1.660 539 068 92 x 10^-27 kg

Some values of Relative Atomic Mass (C = 12.0000000)
H 1    1.00782503223(9)
He 4   4.00260325413(6)
Li 7   7.0160034366(45)
Be 9   9.012183065(82)
C 12  12.0000000(00)

****************************************************************

QUESTION 1: IN THE FORMULA

        m = z (r² B² e/2V)

WITH HOW MANY DIGITS EACH VARIABLE HAS TO BE MEASURED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
amu WITH 9 DECIMAL DIGITS? IN PARTICULAR, THE MAGNETIC FIELD AND THE
RADIUS.

QUESTION 2: WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE CALIBRATION OF THE MANY
INSTRUMENTS USED IN MASS SPECTROGRAPHY? CAN THEY BE FIXED BY COLLUSION
OF MANUFACTURERS AND REGULATORY BODIES?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659473

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:36:16 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> In what is considered as the first experimental proof of Einstein's 1905
> E = mc² paper, 27 years after (1932), the English physicist John
> Cockroft and the Irish physicist Ernest Walton produced a nuclear
> disintegration by bombarding Lithium with artificially accelerated
> protons.
>
> They used beams of protons accelerated with 600,000 Volts to strike
> Lithium7 atoms, which resulted in the creation of two alpha particles.
> The experiment was celebrated as a proof of E = mc², even when the
> results were closer to E = 3/4 mc², BUT NOBODY WANTED TO NOTICE THIS!
>
> For this paper, Cockcroft and Walton won the 1951 Nobel Prize in Physics
> for their work on the FIRST artificial transmutation of atomic nuclei,
> not for proving E = mc², a FALSE CLAIM still used by relativists.
>
> Cockcroft and Walton NEVER HAD IN MIND to prove E = mc², as it can be
> shown in his 1932 publication, nor they mentioned Einstein even once:
>
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133
>
> Yet, relativists hurried to celebrate the experiment as a triumph of
> Einstein's theories, because they needed such accomplishment to
> celebrate the veracity of their pseudoscience.
>
> The equation for their experiment was the following:
>
>
> 7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy
>
> From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932):
>
>
> Lithium7 amu	7.0104
> Hydrogen amu	1.0072
> 	        8.0176
>
> Helium amu	4.0011
> Helium amu	4.0011
> 	        8.0022
>
> Difference  	0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 ± 2.7 MeV
>
> The difference in energy using E = mc², with 2024 NIST values, varies
> from -2.1% to -49.7%, AVERAGING almost -25%.
>
> CURIOUSLY, the average error over hundred of measurements is EXACTLY the
> factor 0.75 of the Hassenohrl's formula  E = 3/4 mc².
>
> What happened with the history of this experiment. Was it re-written
> since THIS single experiment, NEVER EVER REPEATED, to hype Einstein?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> These are the values with NIST 2024:
>
>
> Lithium7 amu	7.0160034366
> Hydrogen amu	1.00782503223
> 	        8.02382846883
>
> Helium amu	4.00260325413
> Helium amu	4.00260325413
> 	        8.00520650826
>
> Difference  	0.01862196057 amu
>          	17.36590E+07 MeV
>
> ************************************************************
>
> INTERESTING: 92 years after the 1932 experiment, NIST managed to correct
> the amu of the elements, so the difference FITS with E = mc².
>
> WORSE YET: In the Manhattan booklet "Los Alamos Primer", written by
> Serber & Oppenheimer in 1943, to instruct scientists recruited for the
> project, the calculations WRITTEN THERE were based on electrostatic
> repulsion of split atoms, which ALSO DIFFER IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT with the
> infamous 200 MeV computed by Meitner and her nephew in 1939.
>
> Serber, on his 1992 book, affirmed that nuclear fission WAS UNRELATED to
> E = mc², and that the fission process was NON-RELATIVISTIC.
>
> Yet, just after WWII finished, the infamous Time Magazine cover had the
> figure of Einstein and the nuclear cloud with E = mc² written on it.
> Time Magazine was widely known as an outlet of Jewish propaganda, and
> still is (what was left of it).
>
>
> So, Hassenohrl was the real deal and Einstein the Jewish icon to be
> hyper-hyped as the most important physicist since Babylon times?
>
>
> From 1932 to 1943, the brightest minds involved in EXPERIMENTAL nuclear
> fission DIDN'T SUPPORT E = mc².
>
> The above FACT has to count, and open the eyes of most. The drive to
> reinstall the genius of Einstein and relativity re-started in the early
> '50s, and never did stop (cosmology, particle physics, etc.).
>
> We live in a world of lies and INFAMOUS reconstruction of history, and I
> mean ALL THE HISTORY.
How can E=mc^2 when the exact same mass of one substance is converted
into a different amount of energy than another substance? "In his
memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with Einstein,
including one where he asked the point-blank question : do your theories
relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally blunt answer
‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a small scale would
not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a Cosmopolitan’ by
Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)” [Newton, Zak. WAS EINSTEIN
WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.] “And as for the
claim that his E = M22 prefigures the huge amounts of energy that can be
released by breaking up an atom, his equation deals with the supposed
conversion of mass into energy but the mass in an atom is not destroyed
in a nuclear explosion. It is simply broken into smaller particles. 
Furthermore, his equation implies that the amount of energy held in a
body depends only on the amount of mass, not what it is a mass of. All
substances are considered to be the same, mass for mass, as generators
of energy. Except we know they aren’t. If you split an atom of uranium
it releases more than two and a half million more units of energy than
an atom of carbon while the fusion of deuterium into helium delivers 400
times the ‘oomph’ of uranium.” [Newton, Zak. WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The
Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659280

On 11/30/2024 04:28 PM, 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....

Fermi's always been pretty famous,
now those others are getting more their due.


About mc^2 or 3/4 mc^2, perhaps first you should acknowledge
that mc^2, is the first term in the infinite series and maybe
the rest of them add up to 1/4.

Then there's also (m-m') = e/c^2, though that's rotational.

The idea of the geometric pencil should get you into
algebraic geometry and more the integral than differential,
analysis.


Then you got there the non-adiabatic course or with
regards to "radiation in a shell" or the cavity.

I don't know much yet about this "4/3 problem in
electron physics", yet, again it's probably about
the linear and rotational and the "nominal un-linearity"
of things, with regards to the quadrature and triangle
rule, and what's been neglected.


The aether theory is "post-" relativistic again.
I know it really got a bad name and that's too bad
because now that was dumb.

Whether "rest" mass or "resistant" mass becomes a
thing since _inertia_ contra momentum or energy,
is still a thing, and indeed, some, like Einstein,
have that it is _is_ the thing.

Physics these days doesn't even yet have
a concept of "heft", inertial. That then
gets all into the equivalence principle,
and, you know, not the equivalence principle.


Kind of like Fresnel and "ether theory
might be not a total drag", make for
things like f = ma that f(t) = ma(t),
vis-a-vis mv and mv(t), whether "inertia"
is resistance to acceleration, "momentum" is
resistance to acceleration, or there's also "heft",
classical mechanics.


I'll be looking to read into Jammer.

Well then, thanks for these mentions.

"The net work done ..." is an integral equation,
_after_, "Retaining terms _to first order_ in β ...".
(2.8, 2.9)


"One might worry that that we have ignored
questions of simultaneity that, afterall,
are first order in v/c."



I imagine we should look to Max Jammer.

"From conservation of energy/momentum we know that ...."


"This assumption is the requirement that the change in
velocity of the cavity in one light crossing time is
much less than the speed of light, the small acceleration
condition."



Yet, there are infinitely-many nominally non-zero
higher-orders of acceleration in any change.


"In addition, we did not address what constitutes
a constant acceleration of the cavity."


"Hasenöhrl was certainly familiar
with Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction
and, in fact, invoked it in H2 and H3 ...."


"Because a Born rigid object has constant
dimensions in instanteously co-moving frames,
its length in the lab frame is Lorentz contracted.
This is only approximately so."


"The problem is that the results from energy conservation
imply an effective mass that is different from that implied by
conservation of momentum and both of these are different
from the m_eff = E/c^2 that we are led to expect from
special relativity."




In my podcasts I'd kind of arrived at that
momentum wasn't a conserved quantity, that
though it's "conserved in the open" after
kinematics, kinematics being different than kinetics.
(Rotational, linear, "nominally un-linear".)


The author of the paper you cited does make a
point like 'don't go assuming e = mc^2 if
you don't know'.


"It is often claimed that Einstein’s derivation of E = mc^2
was the first generic proof of the equivalence of mass and
energy (see Ohanian[2009] for arguments to the contrary)."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659281

On 11/30/2024 07:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/30/2024 04:28 PM, 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....
>
> Fermi's always been pretty famous,
> now those others are getting more their due.
>
>
> About mc^2 or 3/4 mc^2, perhaps first you should acknowledge
> that mc^2, is the first term in the infinite series and maybe
> the rest of them add up to 1/4.
>
> Then there's also (m-m') = e/c^2, though that's rotational.
>
> The idea of the geometric pencil should get you into
> algebraic geometry and more the integral than differential,
> analysis.
>
>
> Then you got there the non-adiabatic course or with
> regards to "radiation in a shell" or the cavity.
>
> I don't know much yet about this "4/3 problem in
> electron physics", yet, again it's probably about
> the linear and rotational and the "nominal un-linearity"
> of things, with regards to the quadrature and triangle
> rule, and what's been neglected.
>
>
> The aether theory is "post-" relativistic again.
> I know it really got a bad name and that's too bad
> because now that was dumb.
>
> Whether "rest" mass or "resistant" mass becomes a
> thing since _inertia_ contra momentum or energy,
> is still a thing, and indeed, some, like Einstein,
> have that it is _is_ the thing.
>
> Physics these days doesn't even yet have
> a concept of "heft", inertial. That then
> gets all into the equivalence principle,
> and, you know, not the equivalence principle.
>
>
> Kind of like Fresnel and "ether theory
> might be not a total drag", make for
> things like f = ma that f(t) = ma(t),
> vis-a-vis mv and mv(t), whether "inertia"
> is resistance to acceleration, "momentum" is
> resistance to acceleration, or there's also "heft",
> classical mechanics.
>
>
> I'll be looking to read into Jammer.
>
> Well then, thanks for these mentions.
>
> "The net work done ..." is an integral equation,
> _after_, "Retaining terms _to first order_ in β ...".
> (2.8, 2.9)
>
>
> "One might worry that that we have ignored
> questions of simultaneity that, afterall,
> are first order in v/c."
>
>
>
> I imagine we should look to Max Jammer.
>
> "From conservation of energy/momentum we know that ...."
>
>
> "This assumption is the requirement that the change in
> velocity of the cavity in one light crossing time is
> much less than the speed of light, the small acceleration
> condition."
>
>
>
> Yet, there are infinitely-many nominally non-zero
> higher-orders of acceleration in any change.
>
>
> "In addition, we did not address what constitutes
> a constant acceleration of the cavity."
>
>
> "Hasenöhrl was certainly familiar
> with Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction
> and, in fact, invoked it in H2 and H3 ...."
>
>
> "Because a Born rigid object has constant
> dimensions in instanteously co-moving frames,
> its length in the lab frame is Lorentz contracted.
> This is only approximately so."
>
>
> "The problem is that the results from energy conservation
> imply an effective mass that is different from that implied by
> conservation of momentum and both of these are different
> from the m_eff = E/c^2 that we are led to expect from
> special relativity."
>
>
>
>
> In my podcasts I'd kind of arrived at that
> momentum wasn't a conserved quantity, that
> though it's "conserved in the open" after
> kinematics, kinematics being different than kinetics.
> (Rotational, linear, "nominally un-linear".)
>
>
> The author of the paper you cited does make a
> point like 'don't go assuming e = mc^2 if
> you don't know'.
>
>
> "It is often claimed that Einstein’s derivation of E = mc^2
> was the first generic proof of the equivalence of mass and
> energy (see Ohanian[2009] for arguments to the contrary)."
>
>

Consider for example McLaughlin's 2008 "Nature and Inertia",
a dry and rambling recount of that since Newton made an
un-tenable theory with pull-gravity that now it's out.

Yeah, everybody knows that "e=mc^2" in SR is circular
and where it's arrived at is the GR's K.E.'s Taylor series.
(... If only the first term of an infinite series.)

"Vis-viva: kind of like super-symmetry: not dead again."

"Resistance, for Leibniz, presumes a prior positive inclination
to persevere. Newton, however, reverses the order of perseverance
and resistance." -- McLaughlin

"Are these inertial forces real or not?" -- A.P. French


The zero meters/second is infinity seconds/meter,
so, in kind of classical accounts, any change is
as from rest, for example accelerating the course
of turns of otherwise rotating bodies or as they
"radiate", besides as above for they "deform".

So, "heft" is sort of the idea for inertial resistance
and resistance as inertial, moment of inertia.


"Mach's Principle originated as a philosophical view
that was only later developed intoa theory of physics.
Einstein hoped that General Relativity would instantiate
Mach's principle and ''suggested that the inertial forces
are not fictitious but are gravitational in origin.''" -- McLaughlin


Yeah, sure Einstein, go uniting gravity and strong nuclear
force with some fall-gravity then expect to arrive at
that the kinetic and kinematic have that too, in that
"General Relativity" per se is detachable from these
and re-attachable to whatever arrives as "you know,
whatever, classical in the limit".

Or, he's not far from right is what I'm saying,
Einstein, and you should give him a little more
credit his later works, being that he knew what
was required and now everybody's missing it.


"Inertia is not accurately described
as brute resistant matter."

There are plenty of pre-relativistic theories
that are potential theories, so there are lots
of times that it's "pre-potentialistic" theories
which are more relevant.

(I think I just made up that word, "potentialistic".)


"In this respect, inertia is unlike the Aristotelian
notions of gravitas and levitas, which are more easily
misconstrued as movers than is inertia."

"Although a developed account of natural and compulsory
motion will not be given here, the basis for distinguishing
between natural and compulsory motion is present in
inertial physics, even if physicists think of it in
different, perhaps confusing, terms."



_Zero-eth_ law(s) of motion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659284

On 2024-12-01 00:28:14 +0000, rhertz said:

> Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²?  Which one would the physics community
> adopt?

The latter because the former was refuted by later experiments, in
particular observations and analysis of radioactive decays.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659361 — Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2024-12-01 00:28:14 +0000, rhertz said:
> 
> > Now, E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc??  Which one would the physics community
> > adopt?
> 
> The latter because the former was refuted by later experiments, in
> particular observations and analysis of radioactive decays.

Yes, it was an elementary error that was easily fixed.
Nevertheless, some people never give up.

There are still papers being written
about the so-called '4/3-problem',
as if that really is a problem,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659285

Den 01.12.2024 01:28, skrev rhertz:
> 
> Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²?  Which one would the physics community
> adopt?
> 
> Hmmm....

You know the answer.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659286

Le 01/12/2024 à 01:28, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :

> Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? 

 E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

 If Vr~0 then E=mc².

 If a mass is at rest in a system, it has no real speed in this system.

Nor any observable speed since Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Its only displacement is in time, and only the energy of displacement in 
time is counted.

E=mc² is the energy of a particle by its passage in time.

If, in addition, the particle moves in space, it also takes on an energy 
of movement (not to be confused with kinetic energy).

This energy is E=mVr².

It is extremely simple.

Since this does not add longitudinally since the axis of time and the axis 
of movement are perpendicular, we must call upon Pythagoras.

E=sqrt[(mc²)²+(mVr²)²]

E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) and, if Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

So :
E=mc²/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

It's that simple.

R.H.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web