Christian Baumgarten

The information on the youtube you showed, is not related to my discussion.

Yes. It would be useful to learn special relativity, it’s no longer a research topic.

The expression that’s invariant under Lorentz transformations is E^2-|p|^2c^2. It is this property that leads to the definition of the mass og the object as its value. If m^2>0, there exists a Lorentz frame where (E,p)=(mc^2,0). If m^2=0, no such frame exists and E=|p|c.

It would be a good idea to learn special relativity from a textbook.

c = λf, where c is speed of light, λ is wavelength, and f is frequency.

E = hf ⇒ E = h(c/λ), This is right.

Electromagnetic waves or light have zero mass. So, they are always not at rest.

E=m c2 gives the mass to be used in momentum effect calculations even if the particle has no rest mass. Rest mass and observed mass are different. The energy of a photon is still E=h f (f=frequency).

Yah. if m^2>0, the Lorentz frame where (E, p)=(mc^2, 0), is it frame which the particle (with the rest mass =m) is motionless?

Chinnaraji Annamalai,

You are wrong and mistaken. E=mc^2 is called mass-energy equivalence equation or formula and it isn't only about massive or moving or massless particles,and it has been experimentally proved and shown how electromagnetic radiation is converted into matter. In Newtonian classical physics,there are two separate conservation laws:one for matter and the other for energy,but that has been adjusted and corrected,thanks to Albert Einstein,and instead of two conservation laws we have one,that of mass-energy, as stated by Einstein.

Issam Mohanna: I think your knowledge of study is not enough to talk about this scientific issue. You have to learn more.

Could you please explain the equation: E^2 = m^2 * c^4 + p^2 * c^2.

Chinnaraji Annamalai,

We don't teach physics for free especially to schoolboys and you are no exception. Both the mass-energy equivalence relation and the energy-momentum relation can be derived from each other for both massive and massless particles, and I will keep it for you as homework.

This short YouTube video which fits you is a fictitious story about an Indian who tried to play smart with Einstein.Enjoy yourself.

https://youtu.be/-Y1rqVyVzLE

The E=mc^2 is valid equation ,and this can be proven by dimensional analysis. Further more it shows the relationship between energy and speed,thus energy of a system is directly proportional to its mass.

Prosper BIJATEN Kabre

Electromagnetic/Light Energy (E) = mass * (speed of light)^2, which is wrong.

Light/photon has no rest mass. Speed of any particle/object with mass is not equal to the speed of light.

The complete equation (not the one publicized on T-Shirts) is:

E = ((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2)^(1/2) where p is the particle momentum, m its mass and c the speed of light.

Therefore: for particles that have a mass, it is possible to move to a reference frame where p = 0, therefore in that reference frame E = mc^2 simply.

For particles which don't have a mass, such a reference frame doesn't exist, since their velocity c is a constant in every reference frame. There, the equation is simply E = pc.

Dear All, science does not distinguish between artificial light and sunlight. Simply sunlight that has massive frequencies, wavelength, with visible and invisible characters couldn't have constant speed as formula is following.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

regards

light has mass just not rest mass.

Chinnaraji Annamalai

The dear author of the question is absolutely right. The formula E = mc^2 in relation to a photon is not correct. The author indicated the reason correctly.

But this formula is not true not only for the photon, but also for any moving material body. The fact is that A. Einstein initially obtained in work (1) the absolutely correct formula Eо = mc^2 for the energy and rest mass of any body (here o is a subscript denoting zero), which is now called the law of equivalence of mass and energy peace. In the same work, A. Einstein tried to extend this formula to any state of motion of a material body, essentially writing the formula m = L/V^2, in which m is the mass of the body, L is the energy, V is the speed of light. It is clear that this last formula is identical to the modern form of writing E = mc^2.

Not everyone knows, but later Ives H.E in work (2) showed that the derivation of both formulas in Einstein’s work (2) was carried out with a gross violation of logic. Therefore, A. Einstein’s proof of this formula in work (2) cannot be considered successful. As far as I know, no one has been able to question the conclusions of Ives H.E. Moreover, the opinion of Ives H.E is confirmed later by Jammer M. in work (3) and earlier by Cahn W. in work (4). Here is what Cahn W. writes about this: “Indeed, what is known to a non-specialist as the most famous mathematical formula ever discovered in science was only the result of retiti princpia, that is, an argument based on a conclusion from a position that it still requires proof.”

And if after A. Einstein the validity of the formula Eо = mc^2 was nevertheless proved in a different way by M. Planck in 1907 and P. Langevin in 1913, then the validity of the formula E = mc^2 has not been proven to this day failed to prove it.

I note that in addition to work (1), A. Einstein “proved” the formula E = mc^2 in 10 more of his subsequent works. But in all these works, the starting point of Einstein's proofs was the illogical "proof" for E = mc^2 from his work (1). So even in these 10 works this formula was never proven. In fact, in all these works, A. Einstein substantiated the formula Eо = mc^2, but was never able to prove the formula E = mc^2.

But thanks to the authority of A. Einstein, the never-proven formula E = mc^2 entered the history of physics under the name of the law of equivalence of relativistic energy and relativistic mass, and became one of the most famous and revered formulas in physics. And in vain revered.

Therefore, if we stick to the truth, then the formula E = mc^2 has not yet been proven. And it cannot be proven. Why? Yes, because on the left side of this formula there is relativistic energy, which, as everyone knows, grows with increasing speed of movement. And on the right side there is a constant speed of light and a certain, as previously believed, relativistic “mass”. Therefore, energy E, according to the given formula, can only increase due to an increase in the parameter m. But, as it became known, the rest mass of a body is the only mass that a body has, and this mass in the special theory of relativity is Lorentz invariant, that is, unchangeable, it is constant. Therefore, it cannot grow in any way in the expression E = mc^2. Therefore, this equation itself is internally contradictory, and therefore cannot be proven flawlessly.

But the fact is that under the parameter m in the indicated equation there is hidden a certain value equal to m = mо/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2). Here “sqrt” is the square root of the expression in parentheses, and mo is the constant rest mass. It was m that was taken for the so-called relativistic “mass”. But the rest mass of a body has three of its hypostases (incarnations): mass as a measure of the amount of matter, mass as a measure of inertia, mass as a measure of gravitational influence.

Then, if m really is a relativistic mass, then with an increase in the speed of motion of a body picking up speed, the amount of matter should increase and it should have an increasingly greater gravitational field. Up to infinitely large as the speed of motion approaches the speed of light. Question: has anyone observed, in this regard, at least the transformation of an electron accelerated in accelerators into its heavier analogue - a muon, and then the transformation of the latter into an even heavier one? Well, if the mass is really growing... No, this is not happening.

There is only one truthful answer in this supposedly “confusing” situation: the ratio mo/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2) is relativistic “mass”, and relativistic inertia, while maintaining the rest mass itself unchanged. As it should be for her.

This is what I showed in my work “On the theory of inertia and the law of equivalence of relativistic inertia and energy.” Therefore, we should write not m = mо/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2), but I = mo/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2), where I is precisely the total relativistic inertia.

Then the never proven law E = mc^2 disappears, and in its place appears the law of equivalence of relativistic inertia and relativistic energy, expressed by the formula E = Ic^2.

Literature:

(1) Einstein A., “Does the inertia of a body depend on the energy it contains,” 1905, in the book “Albert Einstein. Collection of scientific works”, volume 1 “Works on the theory of relativity 1905 – 1920”, publishing house “Nauka”, Moscow, 1965.

(2) Ives H.E., “Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1952, 42, p. 540-543.

(3) Jammer M., “Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics”, 1961, Harvard University Press, Cambridge-Massachusetts;

(4) Cahn W., “Einstein, a pictorial biography”, New York: Citadel, 1955. p. 26.

Sorry for the long answer. But it would have to be detailed and therefore it cannot be short.

With full respect to everyone.