tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post4229968987098427893..comments2024-04-30T02:24:01.571-07:00Comments on homunculus: Did Einstein discover E=mc2?Philip Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09986655706443117158noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-82987653667816932712016-12-30T17:07:23.471-08:002016-12-30T17:07:23.471-08:00If you imagine a light-complex initially in equili...If you imagine a light-complex initially in equilibrium, trapped in a perfectly reflecting container, an attempt to change the motion of the container results in an increased resisting radiation pressure against the advancing wall, and a reduced pressure against the receding wall. So the enclosed light appears to an outsider to have increased the inertial mass of the container. <br /><br />We can work out how much apparent mass results from a lightcomplex with energy E in the container's rest frame, by transforming the energy of the individual rays according to a Doppler equation and then working out the resulting momentum of the light-complex when it's moving.<br /><br />Regardless of whether we do this calculation using the "relativistic Doppler" equations of special relativity, or the simpler (but also technically relativistic) equations of Newtonian optics, we get precisely the same result, that in the rest frame, the lightcomplex with energy E contributes E/c^2 of apparent mass to the container, giving us E=mc^2.<br /><br />I think that when Einstein published his SR-based calculation he's likely to have realised that older theory gave precisely the same result ... but back in 1905 he may have been more interested in presenting E=mc^2 as an exciting prediction of his new theory, rather than as something more general that also agreed with older theory.<br />ErkDemon (Eric Baird)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00430413494529535159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-12332723300775463002012-04-02T21:25:21.789-07:002012-04-02T21:25:21.789-07:00No, not by a long shot... see http://einsteinsfoll...No, not by a long shot... see http://einsteinsfolly.blogspot.com.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01084600029931755700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-1121673291925158332011-09-09T08:43:30.575-07:002011-09-09T08:43:30.575-07:00Einstein attempted to prove E = mc2 on four separa...Einstein attempted to prove E = mc2 on four separate equations throughout his life, beginning in 1906. Each time he failed - in his own eyes, not his critics.<br />Read the detailed history in "Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity" - Arthur I. Miller pp. 334-359.<br /><br />Incidentally, ask yourself how an electron loses some of its inertial mass when it interacts with another remote electron? (Hint: Maxwell's theory is statistical.)<br />'maxwell'Eleanorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07807618394202096834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-81789620873583741282011-08-25T13:00:15.113-07:002011-08-25T13:00:15.113-07:00One of the corollaries of the equation, was the sp...One of the corollaries of the equation, was the splitting of gamma photons into electron-positron pairs, with the energy of the photon and the masses of the particles, and their kinetic energy, being accounted for by the equation. And it was presumed that the reverse process of electron positron mutual annihilation would yield a suitably energetic photon.<br /><br />One of the many things that perplex me is: if the electron is held off from falling into the proton of a hydrogen atom, on the grounds of 'quantum forces', then why isn't the electron-positron collision also not 'held off' in similar manner?JimmyGirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01548795180321590463noreply@blogger.com