They are a consequence of global Lorentz invariance, which is the fundamental property. All non-gravitational phenomena turn out to be described by this property. QCD describes the strong interactions and this description is invariant under global Lorentz transformations.

When gravitational phenomena must be taken into account, it turns out that global Lorentz invariance becomes invariance under general coordinate transformations-from which it’s possible to show that global Lorentz invariance is recovered, when gravitational effects can be neglected.

Akash Verma I take the fundamental equation of physics to be the Einstein equations of General Relativity without the cosmological term.

This equation describes the relationship between curved space and time and mass energy.

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

The fundamental particles which are the electron, proton and neutron are looped waves in Space Time. The proton and neutron are three wavelengths and it should be possible to show that for these particles energy x wavelength = hc. This derives the relationship E=hf.

The derivation of the Schrödinger equation can then follow.

The quantisation of the electron can then be explained using classical wave ideas and this then explains the quantisation of light. We get a new insight into chemical bonds:

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Richard

Akash Verma

What do U mean when you say :

Are these formulae "fundamental" ??

REZA

the real question is what exactly is fundamental in physics, and yes, are these equations fundamental?

One cannot cay mass is fundamental but space is not........... velocity is fundamental but acceleration is not............. In more specialistic terms ,say , one cannot state that Bloch topology is fundamental but non-Hermitian Hamiltonians are not ........... See ?? Akash Verma

Reza Sanaye

Question is not whether space is fundamental or mass is not, what I ask is that, are equations and theories related to mass and space are fundamental and consistent with experiments.

For instance we know know that mass gravitational force are fundamental, but that does not mean every gravitational theory is fundamental.

If speeking about dualities this equation is fundamental but if speeking about energy this equation miss a part of uncertainity.

For duality we have always 4-vector momentum=Planck constant times 4-vector wave-vector.

We can define a 4-vector identity. A corpuscle have an identity in time and an identity in space and we have:

4-vector momentum= Universal constant times 4-vector identity

4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity

So it is evident the wave-corpuscle duality.

Identity in time= speed of light times time corpuscle

Identity in space= speed of the corpuscle times time corpuscle

Time corpuscle=energy of the corpuscle/universal constant.

we can also define a 4-vector inertia:

4-vector momentum=speed of light times 4-vector inertia

In a system of unities where :

Speed of light=Planck constant= Universal constant=1

All those dualities disappear--> There is only a unique sytem for disctritness of space-time and energy.

If entropy is for a gas signify irreversibility than for a corpuscle signify friction by viscosity of space-time--> so you can determine the amount of energy exchanged with the environnement.

If for Planck the exchanged energy is an integer times the minimum quanta of energy than you can deduce the part of uncertainity in the energy formulae of a corpuscle.

CQFD.

“…Are mass energy equation and energy-momentum relation (E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2) fundamental? …..”

- this relation is really fundamental, not, of course, because that

“…They are a consequence of global Lorentz invariance, which is the fundamental property.….”

- really the question relation and “global Lorentz invariance” are the consequence of that Matter is rather simple informational system that is based on a simple binary reversible logics; and so Matter’s ultimate base are primary elementary logical structures – (utmost universal) [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (corresponding) [5]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (utmost universal) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct).

At that everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice, which so propagate in the lattice, correspondingly in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, c[“bold” means 4D vector], what is determined by FLE parameters: c=lP/tP, lP and tP are FLE’s “size” and “FLE binary flip time”, which are Planck length and Planck time.

Disturbances are created when some 4D momentum P impacts on a FLE in the lattice, and corresponding sequential FLE flipping starts in the lattice/space. Particles are close-loop algorithms that so cyclically run, which, correspondingly have momentums P=mc and energies E=Pc=ћω, ωis the algorithm’s frequency.

There exist two main types of particles – “T-particles” that are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis, which, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along this axis with the speed of light, and so have “rest masses”, m0, and momentums Pct=m0c; and “S-particles”, that are created by momentums that are directed along a 3D space line, and so always move with the speed of light in 3D space, now observed ones are photons; S-particles have, of course, zero rest mass.

Because that the spacetime is fundamentally Cartesian, and so the cτ-axis is orthogonal to any 3D space line, if a T-particle is impacted by some 3D momentum p, Pct remains be constant, and, correspondingly, the relation in the question is for the T-particles simply application of the Pythagoras theorem P2=p2+( Pct)2= p2+( m0c)2 - since, again, E=Pc. For S-particles that is simply P=p, E=pc.

The Lorentz transformations – and so “Lorentz invariance” are derived by the Pythagoras theorem as well.

More see one of two main papers of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics,

- where not only that above is rigorously scientifically solved/clarified.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

I think that we are near each other: which you call P=mc is the habitual pi=mc ui where c=c ui (i=0,1,2,3).

Which you call T-particles they are photons which they have an identity in time equal to their identity in space.

Which you call S-particles they are corpuscles which they have an identity in space and an identity in time. If a corpuscle is in rest its lenght identity in space is equal to zero, and its lenght identity in time is equal to c times its rest mass on an universal constant.

Stam Nicolis

The hypothetical Lorenz Invariance is NOT satisfied by physics , analyticity and unitarity at high energies. THIS WOULD FALSIFY OUR STANDARD IDEAS ABOUT QFT , TOO .

Reza

Once more: Quantum field theory, in the absence of gravity, is consistent with global Lorentz invariance at any energy scale-for free theories this is obvious and for asymptotically free theories this can be shown to all orders in perturbation theory about free fields.

In the presence of gravity, Lorentz invariance isn’t a global, but a local symmetry.

But the most important point is that the symmetries are the input, not the output. One starts with them and they imply the form of the equations of motion. Whether the solutions of the equations of motion respect the symmetries of the equations is a separate problem. For the Standard Model and global Lorentz invariance it can be shown to be the case, both for the classical solutions and the fluctuations about them.

However, once one understands what a symmetry implies, it's straightforward to describe what are the effects that can break it.

once one understands what a symmetry truly implies , one will not do the thing you are doing with it :

One would not put the metonymy in place of real spatiality AND THEN name it all straightforwardly prone to breaking .

Respectfully

Reza

Both equations are absolutely necessary and fundamental else the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy or equivalently relativistic mass will be lost. The mass-energy equivalence and the energy-momentum relation follow directly from Einstein's special theory of relativity and the equivalence between mass and energy is one of Einstein equivalence principles where gravity can be completely gotten rid of in a local inertial frame where spacetime is locally non-compact and Minkowskian and thus non-Euclidean.

İki denklemde enerji denklemidir ve ikisinde kütle ortak ve belirleyici özellik gösterir. İki denklem birbirini kütle ve enerji yönünden tamamlar. Diğer değişkenlerde enerji için belirleyicidir. Enerji korunmuyorsa kütle de korunmaz. Aynı şekilde birbirine zıt iki denklem gibi düşünülebilir.

Alaya Kouki

“….Which you call T-particles they are photons which they have an identity in time equal to their identity in space. Which you call S-particles they are corpuscles which they have an identity in space and an identity in time. If a corpuscle is in rest its lenght identity in space is equal to zero, and its lenght identity in time is equal to c times its rest mass on an universal constant.….”

- it seems that you didn’t read the SS post on page 1 attentively enough, and so in the quote above confused T- and S- particles. In the post T-particles are your “corpuscles”, which are created by some Pcτ momentums in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (utmost universal) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), and so can be at rest in the 3D XYZ space, having at that “rest masses” and always constantly moving with the speed of light, c, along the cτ-axis,

- while S-particles, including photons, are created by some momentums that are directed along some 3D space line, and so always constantly move in 3D space with c;

- and: all, T- and S- particles are just particles, which, in this sense are some, however specific “corpuscles” – they move in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) [in mainstream physics, including the SR the cτ-dimension is the time dimension] with 4D speeds of light, c, as cyclically flipping “FLE flip point”, and so always interact as “a point” that has ~Planck length size, while the point moves along some 4D “helix” that has radius be equal to particle’s Compton length λ=ћ/P, correspondingly a particle is observed as a “wave”.

Though that above is some first approximation picture, since in 4D space the 4D angular momentum – and in certain sense the 4D helix - cannot exist; and, besides, practically everything is observed by humans only in 3D space, including if a T-particle moves in 3D space, it is observed as the de Brogile wave – which really is the same as photon’s wave.

As to

“…I think that we are near each other: which you call P=mc is the habitual pi=mc ui where c=c ui (i=0,1,2,3)…”

- yeah, because of the SR is based really essentially on the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle and the Lorentz transformations, which follow from the principle in general, and concretely from the ultimate Matter’s base FLE’s properties [more see the SS post on page 1 and the linked Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model paper],

- the SR is well adequate to the reality in practically all everyday physical practice; and, besides, yeah – in the SR all particles move in the 4D Minkowski space with 4-velocities ui, that have identical specific “absolute values” be equal to the speed of light; and 4-momentum pi=(E/c, p) is pi=mui, while absolute value of the momentum p=mc, where m is the rest mass. What yeah, looks as that is like real picture in real Cartesian spacetime that is described in the SS&VT model in the SS post on page 1.

However really imaginary mathematically Minkowski space evidently by no means is real Matter’s spacetime – nobody and never observed till now imaginary either space or time, and correspondingly, , though vector ui absolute value is c, 3D component (u1,u2,u3) can have arbitrary, including arbitrarily larger than c, absolute value – while, again, nobody and never observed particles with speeds larger than c.

Etc., and – of course – from the above it is evident that the SR by no means answers to the thread question why in the SR the squared energy/momentum relation is as it is?, that only causes next questions – why really in the SR pi=muiis as it is? – or, more generally – why the purely mathematical construction, which is based on evidently ad hoc mystic postulate that real Matter’s spacetime is Minkowski space [and not only, some other SR postulates are also some ad hoc, mystic, and fundamentally wrong, assumptions], while from observation it evidently follows that the spacetime is at least Euclidian, is adequate to the reality?, etc.

Again – really scientific answers to all these questions can be. and are, given only in the SS&VT model, so more see at least the links in the SS post on page 1.

Cheers

Wilhelm Wien was of the opinion that electromagnetic equations were more fundamental than the kinematic equations that now underlie Special Relativity:

Wien, W. (1901) Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik, Annalen der Physik. 310, Nr. 7, 1901, S. 501-513.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Possibility_of_an_Electromagnetic_Foundation_of_Mechanics

“…Wilhelm Wien was of the opinion that electromagnetic equations were more fundamental than the kinematic equations that now underlie Special Relativity…Wien, W. (1901)...”

- it looks as rather strange that somebody in 1901 would have some opinion about kinematic equations that now underlie Special Relativity, i.e. about the Lorentz transformations, which were derived in 1904…

That is another thing that yet in late 1800s physicists – not only Wien, of course, knew that Maxwell equations in different moving relatively inertial reference frames cannot be conformed in framework of the Galileo relativity principle, i.e. by using Galileo transformations;

- and just first of all for this reason the Galileo-Poincare relativity principle was in end of 1800s formulated, and Larmor, Abraham, etc., rather long time attempted to derive the corresponding to this principle version transformations between frames; and eventually Lorentz and Poincaré finalled this works in 1904; the development of basic dynamics was finalled by Einstein in 1905.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

I had learn your article until page 11. My remarks:

1-For you space is divided in elements equal to Lp

2-Time is divided in elements equal to Tp

This division is necesary because Zeno quantum mechanics: "If one want to go for a distance D, than he should travel distance D/2, than he should travel D/4, than he should travel D/8...etc. than he should travel zero interval, than he can't move" But motion exist than there is a minmum distance to travel. The same logic should be applied to time.

In conclusion Universe is a lattice.Time is the change in the lattice.

My question is why you choose Lp & Tp to measure those lattices?. Planck system is a home made system, however I can made another home made system which is the system where Planck constant, speed of light and contant lambda of the General Relativity are equal to one.

Your T-particle are mine S-particle and vice-versa.

What is the mass of your "FLE" ?

What we can measure in your theory?

If you have a corpuscle with a mass m what is its coordinate in your [5] dimension cτ?

I think taht it is a good idea that you modelise the universe as a lattice, but I think also that exist a unique system of unities that determine the lenght of an element of the lattice. Time is absolute in Classic theory and in general relativity: which we need is a theory of change and to do so we need the unique absolute system of unities.

fundamental or otherwise , energy relations were NOT first discovered by Prof Einstein ............

reza

Alaya Kouki

“…I had learn your article until page 11. My remarks:….”

- from your last post it looks that yeah, you read the paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, till now only until page 11; if you would read next pages, possibly your last post would have some other content. So it seems that for you it would be useful read the whole paper; here only a few comments to your post.

“…1-For you space is divided in elements equal to Lp 2-Time is divided in elements equal to Tp….”

- any space and time of anything, including of the Matter, fundamentally are continuous and infinite, and fundamentlly cannot be “divided”. But everything in Matter exists and happens on the ultimately fundamental Planck scale discretely – in accordance with FLE properties/parameters; though any discreteness indeed exists fundamentally in anythong, including Matter, and indeed that Zeno rigoroulsy proved more 2500 years ago in his indeed outstabding aporias. Though that above is incomplete – besides he descreteness the changes are fudnmentally random, what is well observed on the QM scale, which in at least couple of tens of orders by magnitude is larger than Planck scale.

“…In conclusion Universe is a lattice.Time is the change in the lattice.….”

- that is fundamentally incorrect; “Universe”, more correctly “Matter”, really is a huge set of particles, bodies, galaxies, etc., that aren’t “a lattice” , that are mostly quite different disturbances in the lattice; while the abslutely fundamental phenomenon “Time” is actualized in Matter’s spacetime as the, again – continuous and infinite – “time dimension” [ct-dimension in the spacetime see SS post above], while all/every changes of states of particles, bodies, galaxies, etc., happen in this dimension, where the changing items move on concrete time intervals at every change.

“…My question is why you choose Lp & Tp to measure those lattices?. Planck system is a home made system, however I can made another home made system which is the system where Planck constant, speed of light and contant lambda of the General Relativity are equal to one..…..”

- Planck units system indeed – as anything in physics“a home made system”, however in this case this system practically undoubdetly is really ultimately fundamental and true. That follows from that using of the system allows to develop the [SS&VT above] physical model that is consistent with all really reasonable experimental data in all scales. An example – only basing on Planck units the SS&VT models of the fundamental Nature Gravity, Electric [more recent than in the linked paper models of these Forces see in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces]

and Nuclear Force [see in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force] consist with experimens.

“…What is the mass of your "FLE" ?....”

- that, if relates directly to FLE, is at least till now completely beyond physics; in physics – see whole linked paper – the “mass of FLE” is equal to zero – infinitesimal momentum action on a FLE lattice casues propagating with 4D speed of light in the lattice of “sequential FLE flipping point” along a direct 4D line in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z);

- and only if the momentum isn’t infinitesimal, since the flippoint cannot propagate with larger thanc speed, the flipping FLEs become to precess cyclically, the flipping point propagate along a 4D “helix” [with c√2 speed], etc., - i.e. a having inertial mass particle appears and moves in the lattice, more see SS posts above and whole model.

“….What we can measure in your theory?....”

- ? – the SS&VT infrmationalphysical model by no means differs in this sense from any other physical model – any/every experiments are in framework of the model – as are in framework of real maimtream physics.

I.e. in all real theories any real experiments must be, of curse, legitime; however really any experiment’s result isn’t only some “digits on instrument’s monitor”, the experimetal result is the interpretation of the “digits” by some theory;

- and, at that, the SS&VT inetrpretations, first of all in fundamental points, are principally much more adeqaue to the reality than intrepretaions that the mainstream physics gives.

As, say, see the mainstream and SS&VT model intepretations of what is well experimentally observed relation “E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2” in the posts in the thread.

Cheers

In the Special Relativity theory, the energy-momentum equation is not (E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2), but (E^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2).

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

Sergey Shevchenko

You appear to have forgotten that it is movement which connects space and time. But: Which movements are natural, run without external forces in your 4D point-flipping so-called physics theorization ??? Is there an absolute space? Is space a property or a substance? First and foremost, Albert Einstein has unfortunately distorted our understanding today, who introduced the independence of the speed of light from the reference frame into mechanics with the special theory of relativity and recognized acceleration and gravitational fields as being of the same essence in the general theory of relativity ......

Despite that in the SS posts above in the thread the thread question is completely answered, in the thread now a couple of rather strange posts appeared again. One is simply post of a special RG fullstop ignorant spammer that practically always writes some thrash in threads if in a thread some really scientific post appears, especially if that open new page – see his post 4 days ago now, etc., so here comment only to some “physical” post

“…In the Special Relativity theory, the energy-momentum equation is not (E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2), but (E^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2).….”

- again – see the SS posts above – and corresponding mainstream physics publications, including all textbooks with standard well more 50 years the SR version,

- in the just “Special Relativity theory”, the energy-momentum equation is (E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2), and not (E^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2);

- what is after the mainstream the “revolutionary” breakthrough more 50 years ago, where it was postulated that the existent in first SR existence decades parameters of bodies “rest mass”, m0, and “relativistic mass” m=γm0, are ignorant anachronisms that have no physical sense – while only one -“invariant mass” - is fundamental parameter of bodies, is really fundamentally unphysical.

Really just the last equation version in the quote - as that is rigorously shown in the SS&VT informational physical model, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physicsreally has fundamental physical sense, while this breakthrough was rather strange.

That happened/happens in the standard SR because of a next fundamentally wrong postulate – that real Matter’s spacetime is the evidently for any normal human strange imaginary [mathematically] Minkowski space, where, including, the “mass-that is fundamental invariant” in this case is quite natural, as the “4-momentum” pi=mcui= (E/c,p), where p is real 3D momentum, while the 4-velocity ui is physically rather strange velocity [see the SS post above], so the absolute value of pi, let "p4",is always p4=mc, while the 3D momentum can be larger than this absolute value, etc.

Nonetheless at that yeah, the relation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 is adequate to the reality, including if is as that p42=(mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2 .

However really the absolute value of real 4D momentums, P, are, of course, always larger than any momentums’ components, etc.; but that is, of course, in the real fundamentally real [mathematically] Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), more concretely in the really observed till now 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z),

- where always P=mc, [“bold” is a 4D Cartesian vector] P= (mVcτ,mVX,mVY, mVZ), where m is just the really physically existent “relativistic mass”, γm0, including in the cτ-dimension, which is called and used in mainstream physics practice and really in the SR “time dimension”, and so really the rest mass isn’t an invariant;

- however, since the speed in the cτ-dimension Vcτ is really by Pythagoras theorem is lesser than c in the γ-factor also, mVcτ=m0c; and so just the cτ-component of real momentum is Lorentz-invariant, moreover is constant at any 3D space momentum impact on a body;

-while since the speed of light is real invariant also, that created in the standard SR revolution above the illusion of the fundamental “invariant mass” which really is equal to the rest mass.

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts, let hope that in the thread at least the special spammers further will not appear.

Cheers

what exactly is fundamental in physics..?

Unluckily nobody really tried to answer this question from the true basics of nature = measured facts. At time when today's physics emerged measurement was hopelessly imprecise and people claimed something as true when they got 4 digits of today's 10 we know. The so called first proofs of GR - e.g. solar deflection of light - was way off of the expected value. Also the correct Mercury perihelion solution was known already a long time ago. So be aware that at least some historic physic achievements were driven by propaganda.

So its no surprise that most "great equation" of the standard model are of no use to explain the basic structure of matter. This also includes Einstein's E=mc2 where some misuse it (Dirac equation) as a field energy equivalent.

I once did sum up most major flaws in basic physics https://vixra.org/abs/2209.0037 .

But we all know that once you invested more than 5 years in your education, then its hard to learn that a large part seems to be garbage.

At least for engineering physics works well enough as 4 digits most of the time are OK...

Verilen denklem enerji denklemidir. Hamiltonian denklemi enerji denklemidir. Dolayısıyla burdaki momentumda enerjiyi belirtir. Işık zaten tek başına bir enerjiyi belirtir. Einstein denklemi de bir enerjiyi verir. Sonuç olarak iki enerji denklemi bir enerji denklemini verir. Elde edilen bu enerjinin birimi yine bir enerjidir.

I'm unsure whether we can answer the question, of what is fundamental in nature. It is easier to answer the question, of what is fundamental in our models. "Mass energy equation and energy-momentum relation (E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2)" are surely not fundamental because they result from more fundamental relations, notably, from the equation of motion (which is not fundamental, too).

The most fundamental equation is the F=ma force equation, because it can interchangeably be derived from all other force equations:

Article Unifying All Classical Force Equations

André: Fundamental equations of motion are of the first order in time. Euler:

dx = v dt, dv = F/m (m = const.), or d(mv) = F .

André: Bohr has calculated the orbital energies of H using the Coulomb force only. His values are close to the experimental ones. If the gravitational force would have the same strength as the Coulomb force, the total force would equal twice the Coulomb force. The resulting orbital energies would be quite different and far from the experimental ones. Hence, your text 'Unifying All Classical Force Equations' is erroneous. The error is here:

F_Coulomb = m_1 a_1 , F_gravity = m_2 a_2

Now, you set m_1 = m_2 (what is allowed) and a_1 = a_2 (what is not allowed).

Peter Enders

Dear Peter,

The first 5 equations of the article I provided were directly quoted from the George Gamow book "Gravitation". Also confirmed from textbook "Physics" by Halliday and Resnick.

All other first level step-wise equations of the progressive derivations provided can be verified to be exact by anybody who owns a very simple pocket calculator. All required constant and variable values are provided, and can be confirmed from any formal sources, such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

You can numerically verify the equations yourself.

This article was formally published in 2013 and no calculation nor any logical grounding error was ever reported.

Best Regards, André

Dear André, it's not about numerical values. Your (15) is just wrong.

"This article was formally published in 2013 and no calculation nor any logical grounding error was ever reported." This proves nothing. It would be more helpful if you would comment my argument about the Bohr orbital energies.

Dear Peter,

How can Equation (15) be wrong? It is a simple ratio of equation (8) which is the Coulomb equation applied to the mean ground state orbital of the hydrogen atom (Corresponding to the Bohr ground state orbit) over Equation (11) which is the corrected gravitational equation taking into account the well established orbital parameters of the Bohr atom, which is given as an example in all undergrad textbooks.

You ask me to comment about your argument about the Bohr orbital energy.

Equation (8) is precisely the force applied at the Bohr orbital distance, calculated with the Coulomb equation: 8.238721806E-8N.

The corresponding energy is thus r∙F=4.359743805E-18 joules, obtainable equally from equation (8) and Equation (11)

Half of this energy is the momentum energy of the electron at the Bohr radius distance from the proton. The other half being the energy corresponding to the related relativistic mass increase of the electron at this distance from the proton.

I find it interesting that you discard numerical confirmation as being meaningless. It always was the only way that equations could be confirmed as matching physical reality by means of resolution with values that were confirmed from experimental data.

Best Regards, André

Respectable André Michaud

" Half of this energy is the momentum energy of the electron at the Bohr radius distance from the proton. The other half being the energy corresponding to the related relativistic mass increase of the electron at this distance from the proton. "

It is very surprising that you know to the point of certainty that the energy you are talking about is right split half in the middle !

Yours

REZA

Dear Reza Sanaye

You wrote: " It is very surprising that you know to the point of certainty that the energy you are talking about is right split half in the middle ! "

I learned about it from Paul Marmet. If you were to study his derivation to the point of numerical confirmation, you would know it too.

Best Regards, André

Dear Christian Baumgarten

You have been kind enough to give us all the following link :

Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time

It is not at all difficult to see for oneself that the homogenization of symbols [ according to your chapter ] is to be pivoted on Time .

Problem is that : Time itself is truly a moot point amongst many philosophers of science AND relativistic and non-relativistic physicists .

How so you justify centering all those things on the concept of time ??

yours

Reza

Peter Enders

Quote :

" Bohr has calculated the orbital energies of H using the Coulomb force only. "

Is that act of Bohr's not wrong in view of he fact that we know nowadays that Coulomb force would NOT possibly turn out to be as precise for sub-particle world as it likely is is for Meso- and Macro-physics ??

sincerely

Reza

André Michaud

it is extremely regrettable that when you are asked the question of why that amount of energy is exactly split right in the middle , you seem it sufficient to say : well , I heard it from Paul Marmet ..........

I am sorry for you

I am sorry for myself , too { for other reasons }

Respectfully

Regards

REZA

Dear Reza

You wrote: " it is extremely regrettable that when you are asked the question of why that amount of energy is exactly split right in the middle , you seem it sufficient to say : well , I heard it from Paul Marmet .......... I am sorry for you. I am sorry for myself , too { for other reasons }"

You forgot to mention the remainder of my answer: "If you were to study his derivation to the point of numerical confirmation, you would know it too."

I have repeatedly explained all aspect of this issue on RG.

As the saying goes, "You can bring water to a horse, but nobody can force it to drink."

Remaining blissfully satisfied with the current state of affairs is a personal choice.

Sorry to say, but I hold nobody's hand.

I did study Marmet's derivation to the point of numerical confirmation. All of my formally published articles are freely available on the Internet, including the first wave of derivations from Marmet's discovery published way back in 2007. But only interested people are likely to study them.

Nobody but you can remedy your sorryness about yourself.

Best Regards, André

Reza: Unfortunately, I don't understand your question.

My point was this: Bohr has neglected gravitation and obtained reasonable results. André Michaud has claimed that one has to add the gravitational force between electron and proton in H of equal magnitude. This would dramatically change the energies of the Bohr orbitals, wouldn't it?

Dear Peter Enders

You wrote: "André Michaud has claimed that one has to add the gravitational force between electron and proton in H of equal magnitude."

This is not what I "claimed".

I said that the most fundamental equation is the F=ma force equation, because it can interchangeably be derived from all other force equations, and gave a link to the article in which this is demonstrated.

This doesn't mean that one has to add the gravitational force between electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. Only that the gravitational force is demonstrably the same force as the Coulomb force, since the same force and energy values can be obtained from both equations.

Best Regards, André

Reza Sanaye : it is extremely regrettable that when you are asked the question of why that amount of energy is exactly split right in the middle.

It's just lack of competence. Factually its never 1:1 split just in average...

Or the most exact watch is a broken watch. 2x a day it shows the absolute exact time.

Also there is no relativistic mass increase for an electron on a atomic orbit as factually electrons do never orbit. Just the EM flux joins the proton EM flux on a complex 3 rotation orbit.

To much Kindergarten physics..

It is very difficult to say what is fundamental in Physics because Physics is not axiomatic. Axioms are fundamental in Mathematics and definitions and Theorems are their derivatives. It is using the Mathematics but it is normally not so strict. Obviously Mathematics is inspired by the real world and so by the Physics but is much more strict. You can find a lot of loose statements in Physics handbooks of which normal Mathematicians would probably laugh. I think what is most fundamental in the Special Theory of the Relativity is that the measurement of the speed of light gives the same result no matter what the coordinate system is so then it is quite obvious that in one coordinate system nothing can move faster than the light and so the action of the persistent force should be resistant to accelerate indefinitely and so the mass must grow to infinity for the observer having the ability to extort the steady constant force according to mass-momentum formula because while it pumps energy by action the only way it can pump it without the significant velocity growth effect is the growth of the inertial mass. Otherwise first of all the light could not catch up the detector in the escaping coordinate system so its speed not only would not be invariant but in some system the same light would not be detectable. The act of not catching-up the detector in relatively moving coordinate system must be surely invariant. Strictly the relativistic mass growth can be explained already within totally no-relativistic Physics as an apparent effect by simply assuming the only way to extort forces on particles is through the mass particles winds moving with the velocity c which first not necessarily means the speed of light Article Force Flux theory of the para-relativistic mass growth withi...

@Matt Kalinski

That the acceleration vanishes when the velocity of a body approaches c is a purely kinematic effect. Moreover, when you formulate the inertial force in a manifest Lorentz-covariant manner, you obtain

-m_0 d^2 x^\mu / d\tau^2 ;

there is no m(v).

Christian Baumgarten

Dear Christian,

I agree with you about the time factor. But I have a question about your view on physical theorizing.

You wrote: "Therefore it appears to be the best and maybe the only basis for "axiomatic" physical theorizing."

Do you think that an "axiomatic" foundation is systematically required for physical theorizing?

I always thought about physical theorizing as simple "reverse engineering" strictly from confirmed observables. This is what led to the local 3x3D+1 vectorial space geometry due to the requirement for simultaneous motion about two perpendicular axes to explain 3-body stationary action resonance stability in nucleons from the electromagnetic perspective, and to an explanation of stationary action resonance electronic stability in atoms.

Best Regards, André

The level of Anisotropy we find in spectroscopic atomistics absolutely forbids 1:1 split just in average...in such a complicated field as that of Atomic nucleons electrons interactivities : whether somebody like Paul Marmet makes such a hugely erroneous mistake or whoever else . That Mr Michaud fully completely admits this error and clings onto it is a very weird thing . Mr Christian Baumgarten’s bringing in the temporality variance on a similar issue is pretty admirable . Care has to be , of course , taken on the point of knowing that what Schrodinger worked on could potentially be both time-variant and time-invariant ; depends what genre of algebra you are gonna apply . Mr Enders is right to be sensitive about the historical facticity that Bohr has neglected gravitation and obtained reasonable results. AND THAT : Mr André Michaud has been at work to add on the gravitational force between electron and proton in H of equal magnitude. My personal guess is that this would be a highly strong point on the part of Mr Michaud .I myself always pampered inner wishes to do it in mathematical physics .This would dramatically change the energies of the Bohr orbitals ,As Respectable Mr Enders says . BUT this does in no way falsify Mr Wyttenbach’s assertion that there is absolutely no relativistic mass increase for an electron on an atomic orbit . I firmly believe this . Still ,I tend to remind Mr Wyttenbach that electrons CAN orbit : Yes,Again Jurg is true when he says the EM flux joins the proton EM flux on a complex 3 rotation orbit : But then compactified closed sets of the topology thereof may manifest as electrons orbiting ,too . Indeed ,this is what we may go so far-fetched as to include within the realm of wavespread collapse , too .

Respectfully

humbly

REZA

Christian Baumgarten

Peter Enders

André Michaud

Jürg Wyttenbach

Reza Sanaye : I firmly believe this . Still ,I tend to remind Mr Wyttenbach that electrons CAN orbit..

Of course you are right! In a synchrotron electrons do orbit! But on nuclear level its a weird idea. What should cause the momentum change? As the electron should cover a whole sphere...

Unluckily some old models are based on ridiculous ideas as this was the way to think around 1900... But in the mean time we have grown up and should start to more deeply understand how nature - the particles, atoms - work.

Christian Baumgarten : Time has no meaning for any particle or any steady state. But for all changes - engineering! - time is key.

Whether time is fundamental or not is a matter of definition. If you take the speed of light as a number of oscillation of a given resonator or a photon then the dependency is cyclic.

From a mathematical point of view is much simpler to define. Fundamental are all categories that show isolated properties. Distance, weight, time, mass, charge, wave number. The least independent is charge as it can be defined by the strong force equation.

Reza Sanaye

Dear Reza

Quote: "whether somebody like Paul Marmet makes such a hugely erroneous mistake or whoever else "

First, Paul Marmet did not make any mistake and is not involved in the observation of the fact that the energy induced in elementary charged particles by the Coulomb restoring force systematically splits into the 1:1 relation between momentum energy and electromagnetic energy. What he discovered is that the electromagnetic half of the induced energy is exactly the same energy that the Kaufmann data reveals as being the velocity related mass increase of free moving electrons on curved trajectories in his bubble chamber.

Second, you are completely delusional if you think that it is possible to understand a model that took 25 years to fully document, from a few questions and answers exchanged in such ad hoc conversations. Deep study is required, as with any other comprehensive model.

You have absolutely no idea to what exactly the 1:1 split that I mention is referring to.

You wrote: "Mr André Michaud has been at work to add on the gravitational force between electron and proton in H of equal magnitude."

You completely misunderstand the derivation provided in the article I referred to. There is no question of "adding" the gravitational force between proton and electron in the hydrogen atom, only to mathematically demonstrate via numerical resolution that both the Coulomb restoring force and the gravitational force are one and the same force, which Einstein himself recognized and mentions in his 1910 article, but that he then did not build on due to an incompatibility with SR that was due to a bad decision taken in 1907 that he preferred to pursue, in agreement with the general community consensus, for a very specific reason, which is that he and the whole community at the time did not believe that gravitation also applied to the atomic level.

Fully documented in the first part of the following article with direct quotes and all original formal references provided, including links to those directly available on the internet:

Article Demystifying the Lorentz Force Equation

If you or anybody else wishes to understand what Marmet's discovery and Einstein's observation about the identity between the Coulomb restoring force and the gravitational force lead to, there is no way but to deeply study of the model.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

So therefore , I am supposed to understand ---according to your above post-----that I understand NOTHING of exact sciences !

Gosh !

André Michaud : one cycle of which was discovered by de Broglie in 1924 to correspond to exactly one unit of energy represented by Planck’s constant h as clarified in a 2017 article [46] and its 2021 expanded final republication [47],which explains why the frequency of all photons emitted by electrons de-exiting as they return to their stable rest state orbital in atoms are resonance harmonics of this fundamental resonance state.

This is one of the basic errors (you also cite) of classic physics theory. resonance harmonics are defined as integer multiples what never holds for photons. Photons can have any frequency and "h" is just a proportionality constant to get the photon energy!

harmonics as h or even as integers on photons implies set(s) of numbers that are geometrically characterized by their being so distant from one another that the sum of their bases [ for example , additive basis of order 2 ] remain nonnegative integers, or else there wouldn't be enough pairs to cover all the said distance . While it's true that repetition is allowed, order doesn't matter for the slit stream(s) of photons that are to show us photons can have any frequency .......

Reza

Dear Jürg Wyttenbach

(Sorry, I just noticed I had answered you in the wrong thread. Here is my comment)

You wrote: "This is one of the basic errors (you also cite) of classic physics theory"

In regard to my text: "one cycle of which was discovered by de Broglie in 1924 to correspond to exactly one unit of energy represented by Planck’s constant h as clarified in a 2017 article [46] and its 2021 expanded final republication [47],which explains why the frequency of all photons emitted by electrons de-exiting as they return to their stable rest state orbital in atoms are resonance harmonics of this fundamental resonance state"

You failed to notice the word "emitted". There is no error. All photons are emitted as a multiple of the Planck constant, because all orbitals are related to the same integer driven frequency scale.

You wrote: "… integer multiples what never holds for photons. Photons can have any frequency and "h" is just a proportionality constant to get the photon energy!"

I know. This is why I calculate photon energy with this equation:

E=e2/2ε0αλ.

Best Regards. André

Dear Reza Sanaye

You wrote: "So therefore , I am supposed to understand ---according to your above post-----that I understand NOTHING of exact sciences !"

No. Therefore, you understand nothing of the electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles as established in the trispatial vectorial geometry because you never studied it.

Otherwise, it would be clear to you why the energy induced in all charged elementary particles by the Coulomb restoring force is systematically split 1:1 between unidirectional momentum energy and omnidirectionnally inert oscillating electromagnetic energy.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

And you understand everything about everything ........

Come off your High Horse , Boy !

True scientists are not like that ,,,,,,,,,,

Reza Sanaye

You wrote: "And you understand everything about everything"

No. I understand the electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles in context of the trispatial vectorial geometry.

You wrote: "Come off your High Horse , Boy !"

Disrespect to me will not cause you to understand it better.

Considering your condescending attitude, this will be my last answer to your comments.

André Michaud

My condescending attitude ? To you ? Or your disrespect to me ? Which way has it generally been ?

You have almost always been belittling me right in front of others ...........But I did continue debates with you simply "Kauz we were learning from one another .........

You see ?

You were psychologically searching for something , some alibi ,some idea ,some excuse , something anyway ,to dodge answering on many of your Own most confused ideas even in that electromagnetics of yours , which is by now proven to be destitute of important rigorous aspects a true branch of science has to have .........

Added to your other faults in physics is now your shying away to even discuss !

Ok

Don’t answer Queries……………..

True scientists are not like that ,,,,,,,,,,

You are just proving yet another prominent facet of your own long list of shortcomings ,,,,,,,,

Have nice Dreams ,Sir !

Sincerely

REZA

André Michaud : You failed to notice the word "emitted". There is no error. All photons are emitted as a multiple of the Planck constant, because all orbitals are related to the same integer driven frequency scale.

Who told you that nonsense??

André Michaud

when you write for photons E=e2/2ε0αλ so E=hc/λ so h=e2/2ε0α do you mean this is exact?

Dear Jürg Wyttenbach

You wrote: "ou failed to notice the word "emitted". There is no error. All photons are emitted as a multiple of the Planck constant, because all orbitals are related to the same integer driven frequency scale.

Who told you that nonsense??"

Louis de Broglie in his 1924 thesis, which is what earned him the Nobel prize.

Best Regards, André

Dear Alaya Kouki

You ask: "when you write for photons E=e2/2ε0αλ so E=hc/λ so h=e2/2ε0α do you mean this is exact?"

Yes.

This relation is confirmed with equations (1) to (4) in this article:

Article The Last Challenge of Modern Physics: Perspective to concept...

If perchance you own a pocket scientific calculator, you can numerically confirm all equations, which is something that turns out to be a rare commodity in mainstream.

Best Regards, André

The last post that really scientifically answers to the thread question is the SS post on page 3, 4 days ago now; while after this post again a vivid series of really too strange physically posts of a mostly 3 posters appeared; a few examples of posts that have at least strange, but somehow relate to physics, are, say:

“…I'm unsure whether we can answer the question, of what is fundamental in nature. It is easier to answer the question, of what is fundamental in our models. "Mass energy equation and energy-momentum relation (E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2)" are surely not fundamental because they result from more fundamental relations, notably, from the equation of motion (which is not fundamental, too).….”

- the equation E^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 is evidently fundamental for any professional physicist, who knows that it is fundamentally universally true; since really truly determines the fundamental relations between the main fundamental and universal parameters of all/every material objects: “Inertia” – concretely “inertial mass” of an object, “Energy”, concretely energy of the object, and “momentum” of the object;

- and any equations of motion that describe state of any object in any situation and at any interactions can be correct only provided that the energies, masses, and momentums of the objects in the equations are in accordance with this equation.

Though that in the quote above is some “metaphysical” claim, when metaphysics as a rule isn’t mentioned in textbooks, but such “fundamental” claims as

“…The most fundamental equation is the F=ma force equation…” and “…André: Fundamental equations of motion are of the first order in time. Euler:dx = v dt, dv = F/m (m = const.), or d(mv) = F . ….”

- look as too strange yet on textbook level, really fundamental equation a force in physics is F=dP/dt, P is momentum that is transmitting to, say, a body if a force’s acts, t is the time variable.

Or, say, that

“…This is what led to the local 3x3D+1 vectorial space geometry due to the requirement for simultaneous motion about two perpendicular axes to explain 3-body stationary action resonance stability in nucleons from the electromagnetic perspective, and to an explanation of stationary action resonance electronic stability in atom….”

- looks as too strange again, at least about some strange “stability in nucleons from the electromagnetic perspective”; nucleons themselves are stable because of that Strong Force acts between the partons/quarks, are stable in nuclei because of that Nuclear Force between nucleons act, when Electric Force just attempts to destabilize nucleons in nuclei, but is ~ 100 times is lesser than attractive Nuclear Force; though “local 3x3D+1 vectorial space geometry” etc., looks as some simply strange physical terms/events/effects.

Etc.; really every post of these posters have some strange physical sense, and so on this background the fullstop posts of the special spammer became quite legitimate, and he was/is well vivid in the thread, especially 2 days ago.

For those who really wants to know the scientific answer to the thread question – see the SS posts on pages 1-3.

Cheers

André Michaud

J'ai lu le §18 entier: "ce qui déconnecte le calcul de l'énergie fondamentale de toute nécessité d'utilisé les paramètres de l'état de repos de l'orbite de Bohr, et le connecte plutôt aux paramètres électromagnétiques, et montre aussi que les calculs d'énergie peuvent être déconnectés du passage du temps (1) (PDF) Le dernier défi de la physique moderne: Perspective en matière d'analyse des concepts et des modèles (Republication amplifiée PI). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352222977_Le_dernier_defi_de_la_physique_moderne_Perspective_en_matiere_d'analyse_des_concepts_et_des_modeles_Republication_amplifiee_PI [accessed May 19 2023]."

Mais bien sur que Planck aussi dans calcul de sa constante et celle de Boltzmann à éliminer le temps dans l'expérience de F.Kurlbaum en multipliant la mesure de puissance rayonnée par c/4.

Votre article est très intéressant dans le sens il me suggère que la théorie de Max Planck du rayonnement du corps noir est incomplète puisque celui ci repose sur un modèle où les parois de la cavité noire est composée d'une infinité d'oscillateurs harmoniques qui sont des électrons liés à des noyaux hydrogénoïdes et que leurs oscillations est complètement chaotique donc chaque oscillateur a une entropie et par conséquent dans la loi de rayonnement du corps noir ça ne doit pas pris en compte uniquement l'état fondamental des atomes hydrogénoïdes mais aussi leurs états excitées et alors mécaniquement on doit voir dans la loi du rayonnement du corps noir au moins une partie contenant la masse de l'électron (entropie signifie irréversibilité et donc mécaniquement signifie frottement visqueux et par principe de la dynamique l'inertie de l'électron entre en jeux) ce qui n'est pas le cas dans la loi de Planck.

Alaya Kouki

Cher Alaya,

Merci pour votre appréciation de mon article.

À propos de la théorie du corps noir de Planck, fondée sur son analyse des données recueillies par Wilhelm Wien dans les années 1890, il faut noter qu'il fut découvert plus tard, suite à l'hypothèse de Louis de Broglie dans sa thèse de 1924, que tous les électrons se stabilisent dans des états de résonance stationnaires correspondant à une séquence de nombres entiers bien connue qui caractérise tous les états de résonance même à notre niveau macroscopique.

Cela signifie en bref que suite à l'excitation d'un électron par accumulation d'énergie via convection ou conduction avec les atomes environnants, ou par absorption d'un photon incident, le forçant à s'éloigner d'un noyau d'atome jusqu'à une des orbitales permises, mais métastable, plus éloignée du noyau, cet électron est incapable d'y demeurer et presque aussitôt retourne sur son orbitale de repos plus près du noyau. C'est à ce moment qu'un photon de bremsstrahlung est émis, dont l'énergie correspond à la différence entre la fréquence de résonance de l'orbitale métastable plus éloignée et la fréquence de résonance de l'orbitale de repos.

C'est ainsi que tous les photons des fréquences de lumière visible et de toutes les autres fréquences électromagnétiques sont générés.

C'est pourquoi la fréquence de ce photon émis est aussi un multiple de la constante de Planck, comme tous les photons mesurés par Wien, car ils ont tous été émis de cette manière. C'est aussi pourquoi, à force de calcul, Planck s'est aperçu que toutes les fréquences des photons du corps noir avaient cette quantité d'énergie h comme commun dénominateur.

Cette valeur h découverte par Planck à été retrouvée par de Broglie en faisant des calculs avec les paramètres de l'orbite théorique de repos de l'atome de Bohr.

J'ai un article formel qui doit paraître d'ici la fin du mois courant dans lequel j'analyse justement à la Section 6 la manière dont de Broglie à calculé cette valeur à partir de l'équation de sa thèse de 1924 qui le rendit célèbre.

Il sera publié formellement en anglais, bien sûr, mais sera aussi disponible en français. Son titre français sera: "Introduction à la mécanique cinématique et électromagnétique synchronisée"

Aussitôt publié, il deviendra directement accessible comme première entrée de cet index général:

Article INDEX - Mécanique électromagnétique (Le modèle des 3-espaces)

Toutes les références historiques formelles seront citées, incluant des liens vers celles qui sont directement disponibles sur Internet.

Amicalement, André

nice work. i'm left wondering about Standard Deviation. please educate me

Standard deviation is a topic covered in almost all books on principles of statistics ...............

@Reza, sorry you missed my point. apply to the question

Dear Joseph A Sprute

If you are referring to my work, thank you so much for your appreciation.

You ask: "i'm left wondering about Standard Deviation. please educate me"

When analyzing the inner structure and behavior of individual charged and scatterable electromagnetic elementary particles at the subatomic level, which is the domain that I have been analyzing, no group statistics are involved, so the concept of Standard Deviation does not appear to be applicable.

That's my best shot at "education" in context with regard to Standard Deviation. Sorry to possibly disappoint you.

Best Regards, André

i was asking because of the "new physics". i thank you for your kind regard and the answer I was looking for

The relativistic energy-momentum relation for massive particles is so fundamental as the Lorentz group is in nature.

Dear Joseph A Sprute

Note that there is no "new physics" involved. Only physics that progressively ceased to be referred to over the course of the past century in standard textbooks because not translated to English and that the orthodox community has stopped being aware of.

Best Regards, André

The thread question is completely scientifically answered in SS posts on 3,4,7 pages, including that

“…The relativistic energy-momentum relation for massive particles is so fundamental as the Lorentz group is in nature.….”

- though is in certain sense correct, is at that fundamentally incomplete - energy-momentum relation is fundamental since it follows from the ultimately fundamental and universal properties of the ultimate base of Matter – the primary elementary logical structures – [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- and, since everything in Matter moves/propagates in the FLE lattice in 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) only with 4D velocities that have identical absolue values be equal to the speed of light, c, [“bold” means 4D vector], having 4D momentums P and energies E=Pc, so the “energy-momentum relation for massive particles” follows from this by Pythagoras theorem, while for photons that move omly in 3D space E=Pc is true directly.

At that photons fundamentally have both – inertial and gravitational masses, m=P/c=E/c2.

Lorentz group isn’t completely fundamental, systems of free bodies aren’t described completey by the transformations, correspondingly by using a system of free bodies it is possible to observe absolute [i.e. in the absolute 3D space] motion and to measure the absolute velocity, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Cheers

Andre'. there is a new physics definition where E-RES is concerned ~ Chemistry x Biology + Physics = Metaphysics @Some None Any Ever (Y) #Cooperate Coexist Couple Cybernetics

Joseph A Sprute

You insist I missed the point ............ And , to remedy that , you say :

"Quote :

" apply to the question " ...........

What does it mean in English language "" apply to the question '''' ????

Where did you learn your English ?

Reza. thank you for dwelling. you have massively informed me

Joseph A Sprute

Excuse me !

What does it mean in English :

Quote :

" Reza. thank you for dwelling. "

Reza, it means you aren't adding anything to the conversation. but thanks for trying anyways :)~ IMHO: E^2 Energy & Element, PC is 2 often the problem

"E-RES" theoretical value of Gravitational Constant = Collision Avoidance & Conflict Resolution ~ seems C=SUGAR, Cognition Sentience Universe Gravity About Real

I have never seen a single piece of document in which somebody weighs some Uranium/plutonium . . .something radioactive . .. . . and takes it to a nuclear power station ...... And weighs it again after the production of electricity and heat. . . . . to see very precisely how much has been reduced from than chunk of enriched radioactive material ......... nobody has accomplished this ;;;;;;;;;

Rana Hamza Shakil

This is exactly the only way the equation works since Poincaré not Einstein!! found the famous relation dm=E/c2. This comes from EM theory and has nothing to do with special relativity. Photons behave as EM mass and thus a delta of mass can be exchanged.

The use of E=mc2 in any other classic equation (Klein Gordon,Dirac) simply is garbage as mass - as a total - is not conform with EM mass/EM field.

Quote: " I have never seen a single piece of document in which somebody weighs some Uranium/plutonium . . .something radioactive . .. . . and takes it to a nuclear power station ...... And weighs it again after the production of electricity and heat. . . . . to see very precisely how much has been reduced from than chunk of enriched radioactive material ......... nobody has accomplished this ;;;;;;;;;"

Yes it was done.

In 1932, Cockcroft and Walton succeeded in converting some nucleon mass into energy by bombarding Lithium7,3 nuclei with protons (Hydrogen1,1), that resulted in the fusion of protons with Lithium nuclei, momentarily producing unstable Beryllium8,4 nuclei that immediately fissioned into two Helium4,2 nuclei, releasing a large amount of electromagnetic energy during the process. Einstein considered this experiment as proof that the mass of elementary particles was made of energy, meaning that it proved the validity of equation E=mc2, proving by the same token that the mass of atomic nuclei was made of electromagnetic energy.

Cockcroft, J.D. & Walton, E.T.S. (1932) Disintegration of Lithium by Swift Protons. Nature volume 129, page 649 (1932).

https://www.nature.com/articles/129649a0

Einstein's comment about the Cockroft and Walton experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itf8hK4xENw

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0

In 1932, Cockcroft and Walton succeeded in the fusion of protons with Lithium nuclei ........... This much is true ............ The rest of what has been attributed to them in the above-post are mere Sham ................. They never ever calculated E=mc2

What the Cockroft and Walton experiments demonstrated is not the fusion of protons and lithium nuclei, but that the fission of the resulting Beryllium8,4 nuclei into two Helium4,2 nuclei liberates a huge and measurable amount of electromagnetic energy which measurably corresponds to the difference between the mass of one Beryllium8,4 atom and the sum of the masses of 2 Helium4,2 atoms, so they did measure E=mc2.

André Michaud Reza Sanaye : that the fission of the resulting Beryllium8,4 nuclei into two Helium4,2 nuclei liberates a huge and measurable amount of electromagnetic energy....

Of course they did not measure the released energy. They only measured the crude approximate energy of some particles.

This experiment is stone age physics as Lipinskis did show 7-Li-H fusion has a peek at 100eV proton energy! See patent WO2014189799 or Lipinski US 20160118144.

Jürg Wyttenbach

They NEVER measured the released energy

Even their so-called approximations are {{ by today's standards }} fully out-of-date ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Given that fission of Beryllium8,4 into a pair of 2 Helium4,2 atoms is exothermic, anybody can measure the amount of energy released ever since it was first realized by Cockroft and Walton.

Stone age or Up to date have nothing to do with it.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_your_views_on_Rutherfords_word_in_field_of_radioactivity_Should_he_be_called_father_of_radioactivity

Do answer this question as well if you all like to.