Banner
    What's Wrong With E=MC^2?
    By Johannes Koelman | August 15th 2009 07:36 AM | 126 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Johannes

    I am a Dutchman, currently living in India. Following a PhD in theoretical physics (spin-polarized quantum systems*) I entered a Global Fortune

    ...

    View Johannes's Profile
    Google “E=mc2 is wrong” and you get 1,060 hits. Google “E=mc2 is correct” and you get a mere 138 hits. There you have it. It took us a more than a century, but finally this crazy inconsistent theory of relativity got outvoted. Common sense cries victory!

    Fortunately, science does not work that way. Science is no democracy, and we do not render a theory invalid by popular vote. Einstein's theory of relativity has stood the test of time and its correctness is beyond any doubt. But... there is an issue with what is arguably the most famous equation in the history of natural sciences.

    So what is the problem with Einstein's mass-energy relation?



    Well, to put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a mass-energy relation. What does exist is a mass-energy-momentum relation. The equation Einstein came up with more than a century ago can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. However, very, very few people seem to have paid attention to Einstein's warnings, nor to any of the more recent warnings. Even worse, the vast majority of authors of popular science books take great liberty in applying E=mc2 to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, and then declare mass to increase with velocity in an attempt to recover consistency in what has become an incoherent mix of relativistic and Newtonian dynamics. Theoretical physicist Lev Okun refers to this practice as a “pedagogical virus”.

    What I consider truly amazing, is how few people are aware of the mass-energy-momentum relation. In contrast to the widely popularized equation E=mc2, the mass-energy-momentum relation is a direct result of the fundamental principles of relativity theory, and provides true insight into the basics of relativity. Moreover, and contrary to what one might expect, the mass-energy-momentum relation is far from complicated. In fact, the mass-energy-momentum relation does not even need a mathematical equation, a simple drawing with annotations suffices.


    Einstein meets Pythagoras: the mass-energy-momentum relation. In the rectangular triangle, the hypotenuse represents energy times c (c denoting the speed of light), the vertical edge momentum times c2, and the base mass times c3.

    The above figure graphically captures the mass-energy-momentum relation for a particle of mass m and total energy E, moving at velocity v. The parameter c denotes the speed of light. Shown is a right triangle with labeled edges. The hypotenuse labeled Ec is proportional to the energy of the particle, and has length energy E times speed of light c. The vertical edge labeled Ev is proportional to the momentum of the particle and has length E times v. Finally, the base labeled mc3 is proportional to the mass of the particle and has length m times c3.

    The full relativistic kinematics is captured in this annotated triangle. Knowing two out of the three quantities mass, energy and momentum, using this simple diagram one can easily derive the third. For instance, suppose one wants to know the total energy of a particle, when given that it moves at a velocity of 3/5 the speed of light. With v:c equal to 3:5, it is clear that the vertical edge Ev and the hypotenuse Ec are in the same ratio. Applying the Pythagorean theorem immediately leads to the conclusion that we are dealing with a 3:4:5 triangle. Hence, the hypotenuse is 5/4 times the base: E = 5/4 mc2. Who told you relativity theory is heavy stuff?

    We can also use the above triangle to derive some generic relativistic results. For instance, as the vertical edge can not be longer than the hypotenuse, one of the core axioms of relativity follows: no particle can move with a speed v larger than the speed of light c. Notice that to achieve this result, we don't need any misleading constructions like 'mass increases with velocity'.

    Also the extreme case of m = 0, applicable to massless particles like photons, is well captured in the triangle. For m = 0 the triangle collapses to a vertical line element and it follows immediately that Ev = Ec or v = c. Massless particles move at the speed of light.

    Needless to say that Einsteins mass-energy relationship is captured as well in the special case Ev = 0 (i.e. for the triangle collapsing into a horizontal line element). For those brave enough to battle some math equations: it can also be shown that when Ev is non-zero but much smaller than Ec, the non-relativistic (Newtonian) limit is firmly captured in the mass-energy-momentum triangle. For Ev << Ec the triangle takes a flat shape with Ec ≈ mc3 so that the Pythagorean equation can be written (Ev)2 = (Ec)2 – (mc3)2 = (Ec + mc3)(Ec - mc3) ≈ 2mc3(Ec
    – mc3). Hence, Ec – mc3 = (Ev)2/2mc3 or E = mc2 + (Ev)2/2mc4 ≈ mc2 + (mc2)2v2/(2mc4) = mc2 + mv2/2. If you managed to follow this math reasoning, surely you will recognize the well-known Newtonian kinetic energy expression in this result.

    A few more relativistic insights are captured in the mass-energy-momentum triangle. For instance, the mere fact that the momentum edge is labeled not mv (nor mc2v) but rather Ev is significant. It stresses the fact that the total energy (and not mass) is a measure of inertia. Once one realizes this, it should be clear that statements like “mass increases with velocity” are plainly wrong.

    You might wonder, why is it that this mass-energy-momentum relation can be represented in a simple rectangular triangle? This question brings us to the heart of Einstein's relativity theory. In four-dimensional spacetime, energy and momentum lose their meaning as separate quantities. Instead, a four-component spacetime vector emerges that describes energy and momentum in a unified fashion. In loose loose terms one can envision this spacetime vector as a flow of energy at speed v in space and speed c in time. The space (Ev) and time (Ec) components of this energy-momentum vector do depend on the frame of reference of the observer, but the length of this vector is an absolute quantity, that is independent of the choice of observe. This quantity is called mass.

    In a normal Euclidean space, the length of a vector is determined by a Pythagorean sum of the components. Spacetime vectors behave subtly different as the space and time components contribute to the vector length with opposing signs. As a consequence, when grouped into a space and a time component, the length of a spacetime vector is given by the Pythagorean difference of the two components. What results is a rectangular triangle with the length of the spacetime vector being represented by one of the short edges.

    Will we ever see mass-energy-momentum triangles replacing E=mc2 as slogan on t-shirts? I don't hold my breath. A technically superior product in itself is unlikely to replace a strong brand. And “E=mc2” certainly is a strong brand for 20th century physics. In fact, it is more than that. A true symbol and icon of mankind's intellectual achievements. The fact that it is more than often represented in an inconsistent way is a shame, but can not take away that luster.

    --- Follow-up posting: click here ---

    Comments

    Did that hammock come with simon cowell, or did you add that separate?

    Johannes Koelman
    Simon Cowell is there to scare away from this blog any Idol who might come up with the bright idea to abuse relativity theory. Just in case...
    my name is venkatesh ,
    i am studing in india in narayana iit academy ,
    in a.p hyderabad,
    few days back i developed a rheory based on special theory of relativity ,
    i am studing +2 ,
    this is according to my imagination it can explain total what that cannot be explained by einstein of black holes etc.
    advantages of what i imagined
    ..................E=MC2=KNC2

    DOU KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY KNC2 ?
    IF U WANT TO KNOW THEN JOIN ?
    THIS IS ACCORING TO MY IMAGINATOIN I PREPARED A NOTES .
    WHICH SUPPORTS THIS FORMULAE

    ADVANTAGES OF WHAT I PREPARED

    1.WE CAN GET THE ABSOLUTE REASON FOR BIG BANG THEORY
    2.ACCORDING TO ME I CAN TELL THE SHAPE OF UNIVERSE
    3.I CAN GIVE THE REASON FOR BLACK HOLES
    4.WHAT IS HAPPENING TO A METERIAL
    WHEN IT IS ENTERING INTO BLACK HOLE ?
    5.WAS THIS UNIVERSE WAS FORMED FOR HUMAN?
    6.WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE HUMAN AFTER DEATH?
    IT CAN EXPLAIN PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE?
    7.HOW DOES THE CREATION WAS STARTED AND HOW THE DISTRECTION OF UNIVERSE WILL START.
    8.IS THERE ANY SUPREMU POWER FOR THIS UNIVERSE
    9.THERE IS ONLY SINGLE FORCE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FORMATION OF UNIVERSE AND WHAT IS THE REASON FOR DIFFERENT FORCES IN NATURE?
    10.WHAT IS THE SUPREME FORCE OF IT ?
    11.IT CAN EXPLAIN THE LAW OF CONSERVATION GF ENERGY?
    this are the advantages of it my mail id
    "venkateshT4094030@gmail.com

    Fuck off, why don't you make some real discovery like Einstein. looser.

    just like einstein i have made a significant discovery perpetual motion is not a pipe dream in fact creating energy is not immpossible...in fact within a vacume a simple push lever conected to a altenator via a pully system can and will create energy indefinatly......dumb ass

    according to me as far i have calculated, in e= kmc^2 the vale of (k=1/41.352057).

    Very interesting.
    I can see this works well on the macro scale.
    Natures favorite fractal is not a triangle.
    The XYZ graph on which we attempt to fit the universe and all that is in it, and the idea that the forces are negative and positive are incorect tools.
    North is equal to South, there are no negative values.
    This is a basic fundamental gap between macro and pico, we are in fact observing 2 equal positive forces.
    The shape of a bar, shpere and ring magnets are quite different. Only the bar was observed when physics was borne.
    The bar magnet with its negative and positive poles is the cornerstone of physics and is just plain wrong. Like wise is the XYZ graph. One cannot find the solutiion with flawed obsevation and the wrong tools.
    Something differnt is needed.

    The formula is written in Latin. The "E' is "energia," Latin for energy. The "m" is "massa," Latin for mass. The "c" is "celeritas," Latin for speed (of light).

    I would imagine it would make a nice Tshirt. Would go well with my Doppler shifted Einstein and my Maxwell's Equations/Swarzchild Radius T-shirts.

    Correction: Schwarschild

    Hank
    We have the Maxwell shirt, at least.   
    Johannes Koelman
    "We have the Maxwell shirt, at least."

    Can I order the relativistically covariant version?
    Just another example of elitist nerds trying to show that they are better and smarter than the public.

    Hank
    Elitism is back.   I think it's time society again be allowed to agree that science PhDs are smarter than gas station attendants without politically correct platitudes.   It isn't a value judgment, every one gets one vote ... but saying the smartest people are not smarter than dumber people is like saying 'the public' can all be better quarterbacks than Peyton Manning or outrun Usain Bolt.
    Fred Phillips
    We're more educated than gas-station attendants, but smarter? I'm not sure. Did you see the cute movie where Einstein, while at Princeton, encourages romance between his niece (Meg Ryan) and a garage mechanic? (Walter Matthau is in it too.)
    Come to think of it, with all the layoffs of knowledge workers in the current economy, I'd be surprised if there has not been an increase in PhD gas-station attendants.

    You write "Einstein's theory of relativity has stood the test of time and its correctness is beyond any doubt" and so reveal a basic lack of understanding of the concept of a 'theory'. A theory is never beyond doubt. It is never taken as correct, only not disproven. Not the same things at all. I am a research physicist and I, for one, would seriously question the statement that this theory has 'stood the test of time'. Given the strictness of the underlying premise of an 'inertial frame of reference', I question that any of the so-called 'tests' done to date are legitimate tests. Personally, I hold serious, objective misgivings about the validity of the special theory and I am certainly not alone in the broader community of physicists worldwide. Unfortunately, the media has canonized both the author of this theory and the theory itself to the point that it is considered heretical or irrational to even question the theory. This state stands as a basic failure of the science communitiy to remain skeptical and questioning. Once we begin taking theory as 'dogma', spoken ex cathedra and thus unchallengeble, we are in trouble. After all, that was once the case for Newtonian mechanics!

    Johannes Koelman
    Ken, Einstein's relativity theory is beyond any doubt just like Newton's classical mechanics was, and still is, beyond any doubt. Obviously since Einstein we know that Newton's theory has limited application range. That, however, does not render Newton's theory in any way wrong.
    In the same way, a future Quantum Gravity theory will clarify where Einstein's Relativity Theories will lose it's meaning. (We already know a few circumstances where it has to break down.)

    You have doubts about Einstein's Special Relativity theory. Fair enough. Anyone is most welcome to indicate areas where this theory will fail. In fact, I know of several research programs dealing with variants of Special Relativity. But the point is, you better do this building on Einstein's work. Ignoring the fact that physics is a cumulative intellectual enterprise won't get anyone far.
    universe is expanding how
    to know this reason i can give the answer for it
    according to what i imagined

    Any way you could present this in English?

    "In four-dimensional spacetime, energy and momentum lose their meaning as separate quantities. " How is that different in the world we experience other than thinking of one as the engine and the other as the expression?

    Hfarmer
    I have been reading the published literature about the inflationary theories and frankly they make about as much sense as that haiku.  They fit the data...but they are effective theories at best not final answers.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    What's the mapping between your triangle and this one en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativistic_Dynamics.svg ?

    But...I thought e=mc2 is the foundation of nuclear physics. How else does fission turn matter into energy if not through the power of e=mc2? How does the sun work, if it's not turning parts of its hydrogen into energy?

    Johannes Koelman
    Alex, the equation E0=mc2 is correct. The total energy of an object at rest (E0) is equal to its mass m (times the square of the speed of light). What is incorrect, is to apply this equation to moving objects (ie. to ignore the subscript "0"). Einstein meant the energy in his equation to represent rest-energy, unfortunately many people ignore that proviso (or are even unaware).
    Ahhh. I get it now, thanks!

    sir you said here that applying e= mc^2 to moving object is what incorrect.so if we apply e = mc^2 to a subatomic particle is wrong as they move at very high speed?(example:electrons are moving at high speed around the nucleus)

    Radhakrishna
    Very nicely written. The concept of variation in the mass with velocity has been in our Text Book for several  years, only indicate that once the concept concritised - right or wrong - to change it , extreemely difficult. Slowly the idea that whan a particle mooves with a velocity,  mass remain same, what changes is the momentum - appearing in few Text books. I wish to know more about this explanation. Will you provide some links? Your triangle method is worth to study further.  

    Some one said that Newton is wrong, Einstein is wrong - since all theory has the same fate - one or other day they become invalid.

    But the fact is that both fellows gave the theories and they are  not wrong - they may be having limitations. For example Newton has limitation if he mooves very fast ! 

    Limitaion is diffferent than the false theory. Theory requires modification and refinement. That is the way Science grows. If it is not, then it is not Science - it is Nonsense. 
     
    Johannes Koelman
    Thank you Radha. Indeed, some physics textbooks start appearing that correctly treat mass as invariant. However, it takes time for the trend to reverse, and the majority of textbooks still ignore the fact that it is energy (not mass) that provides inertia and that couples to gravity.
    Notable exception is the superb book "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler. I think that is the best link I can provide you. Taylor's site also contains a link to the first chapter of the first edition of the book.
    In some future blogs I plan to delve deeper into relativity theory, and to showcase simple ways to build the right intuition in this area of physics. But be patient!
    Radhakrishna
    Thank U Kolelman. I got that book, yet to read. Wheeler a great Physicist and writer. After going through I will write. 
     Iam eagerly waiting for your article on Relativity.
    Krishna
    chaosverse

    You know something's really wrong with the system of teaching basic science around the world when most physicists have to begin articles with something like "... a popular misconception, bolstered unfairly by text-books is..."

    Can you elucidate how Quantum Gravity has the potential to refine Special Relativity? And where does Special Relativity break down? Most science books stop at mentioning the breakdown of General Relativity in a singularity.

    In a side note:
    One has trolls on scientificblogging too? Why do they have to be Indians? And people from Hyderabad, to boot?


    Actually, 'E=mc2 is correct' gets 2,440,000 hits, and 'E=mc2 is wrong' only gets 72,100 hits on google. I don't think that the amount of hits for either of these two things could change so drastically in a month...maybe you ought to get your facts right the next time you write an article.

    Johannes Koelman
    Anon, please note that the Google search was done with exact matching of the search strings (hence the double quotes).

    talk about manufactured controversy. i don't know anybody who would describe themselves as having even a rudimentary knowledge of physics, who doesn't know about gamma. certainly i was taught about it in high school physics. when you say "most people don't know..." you're aware you're talking about the people who take medical advice from oprah, right?

    Are you not taking into account that Einstein actually said:
    E = (gamma) * m * c^2

    gamma is a coefficient that takes into account the speed of the particle so that the energy relation works up to the speed of light.

    It is the gamma that makes relativity work, otherwise scientists refer to the equation without the gamma as the "rest energy" equation, because, when velocity is zero, gamma = 1.

    The equation for gamma is this:
    gamma = 1 / sqrt( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) )

    This is straight out of my modern physics class from my undergrad.

    Johannes Koelman
    "Are you not taking into account that Einstein actually said:
    E = (gamma) * m * c^2   [..]    gamma = 1 / sqrt( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) )"


    That is a correct, yet complicated, way to represent the above mass-energy-momentum triangle. Unfortunately Einstein never wrote that. Einstein focused on the gamma = 1 limiting case.
    Way too many words for absolutely no substance.
    the energy-word-interest relation of this blog is close to nothing.

    Didn't get a thing.....but that t-shirt was fabulous..............From where can I buy it? Please provide more information over it. Provide links to related topics if possible.keep posting. Will be visiting back soon.

    Ok, so you have answered a question for me - "Where does a particles momentum go when the particle is converted to energy?" Your answer suggests that it is simply added to the mass conversion energy.

    But now you have posed me an even nastier problem.

    Given that within a system energy is constant (irrespective of what form that energy takes, mass, velocity, heat, light etc), then could I pose a thought experiment for you.

    A closed system has three bodies - you, me, and a small mass. I am approaching you at 20%c and the small mass is approaching me at 60%c (and approaching you at 80%c).

    You and I each have a device able to capture the mass and convert it to energy.

    First off, as the mass gets to me, I capture it and convert it using your previous example of E=5/4mc2 then as I later pass you I hand the massless energy to you.

    Second, as the mass gets to me, I let it pass and later you capture and convert it, but now the energy released is E=5/3mc2 a short time later, I pass you without handing any energy over.

    How do you explain the 5/12mc2 energy anomaly?

    It seems as though the energy I am carrying to you still posses momentum energy due to the fact that it is still travelling at 20%c towards you, yet how can this be as it is massless? As I pass by you, the two systems are identical, yet in the latter you will be much 'hotter' than in the former.

    The only way to balance this is for the energy I hand you to increase by the missing 5/12ths due to the speed of 20%c involved in the hand over. If I am approaching you at 20%c and I emit a joule of photonic energy at you, will it be 1.417 joules when you collect it ??

    Derek

    Johannes Koelman
    Derek --you are pre-empting me on what I was planning to do in a future blog: demonstrating how relativistic collision calculations can be made based on Pythagorean triangles.
    You have to be careful in your assumptions though:
    Ok, so you have answered a question for me - "Where does a particles
    momentum go when the particle is converted to energy?" Your answer
    suggests that it is simply added to the mass conversion energy.
    Indeed, mass is not an additive quantity and can disappear. Be aware, however, that both energy and momentum (the full so-called 4-momentum) is conserved.

    A closed system has three bodies - you, me, and a small mass. I am
    approaching you at 20%c and the small mass is approaching me at 60%c
    (and approaching you at 80%c).
    Be aware that you can not use Galilean velocity addition here!

    Good luck, you are on the right track! :)
    STOP TEASING

    The only track I am set on is the one to the Sanatorium !!

    What is wrong with my thought experiment ? Irrespective of Galilean velocity addition, If the particle is travelling towards me, and me and it are travelling towards you, the particle will have more velocity energy when you convert it than when I convert it. So how is energy conserved ?? Where is the difference, or does the energy just look different to me because I am travelling towards you? - but if that is the case every body will see other bodies energies all wrong depending on their respective velocities.

    What do you mean by "mass is not an additive quantity and can disappear"? Do you mean literally disappear or simply convert into energy ??

    Also you say "both energy and momentum (the full so-called 4-momentum) is conserved." Now my math and my physics is not up to understanding the Four-momentum explained on Wikepedia, but are you saying that the energy of the momentum is conserved (as you have shown) or are you saying that some kinetic aspect of the momentum is conserved? in which case, how is this manifest on the ball of energy I am carrying along with me having converted the moving mass into energy ? If we ever managed to convert that energy back into mass again, would the 'invisible' momentum component make the mass go whizzing off under the conserved momentum ???

    Derek

    Johannes,

    Another issue which has been bugging me.

    Momentum has a vector component, information which 'tells' the mass which direction the momentum is 'going'. When momentum gets absorbed into the energy conversion, where does the vector information go?

    Derek

    A photon has a vector component.

    When it hits me and combines with me, I absorb its energy, but what has happened to its vector information?

    What aspect of inertia did the photon have such that it knew which way to continue to travel?

    Vector is a human construction to describe a direction, but how does momentum 'describe' or 'store' this information?

    Derek

    Hmmm,

    OK, I have been looking at the various 'flavours' of energy - Potential, kinetic, light, heat, chemical etc. and I have realised that they ALL involve vectors.

    I have read that the energy of a photon is Pc where P is the photons momentum - OK, so it has a vectored velocity, but where is its mass? Is momentum something that all energy possesses irrespective of if it is massive or massless ? If that is the case, how can momentum of mass be turned into energy, because then you have energy from energy... Are there different sorts of momentum? one for mass and one for energy ??

    Then, if a chunk of mass with momentum is converted into energy, and that energy also has momentum, does it mean that the vector of the original mass is preserved, i.e. the energy all flows in the direction of the mass? And when that energy gets absorbed by an object, how can massless momentum affect the object it has been absorbed by?

    Are those the straps of a straight jacket I feel tightening around me ??

    Gerhard Adam
    I think your confusion is coming from the issue of mass for a photon.  Bear in mind that the mass you're thinking of refers to the inertia of an object, or its rest mass.  Since a photon cannot be brought to rest, it doesn't have a rest mass, so the equations still hold in describing the behavior of the photon, however it would be erroneous to treat it as if it were a tiny billiard ball.

    When the energy is absorbed, it is transferred to the atom in question which may raise the energy state of an electron which will cause the electron to emit a photon when it drops back down to its ground state.  So when you consider a photon's interaction (like in moving through glass), it is important to recognize that the photon interacting at the surface, is not the same photon being emitted on the other side.  The only way that could happen is if there is nothing in between to interact with so the photon can travel unimpeded.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard, please tell me that you are kidding.

    Are you seriously suggesting that a photon entering a piece of glass is NOT the same photon that emerges the other side ! That it is destroyed and replaced by an identical replicate in every detail a billion times over.

    My day just gets worse and worse. How was this demonstrated and proven? But then, how would you prove that it WAS the same photon ??

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually it's not that bad.  When an electron is in a higher energy orbital and drops to a lower energy state it emits a photon.  Now imagine that the energy of a photon hits that atom and promotes one of the electrons to such a higher orbital.  When the electron drops back down to ground state, it emits a photon of the same wavelength as the one that hit it.  As a steady progression of these events occurs, it results in the apparent "slowing down" of the photon which is what makes it appear that the light is bending.

    That's why I said that, strictly speaking, the same photon that entered isn't the same as the one that leaves.  If a photon traveled straight through, then there would be no basis for the bending that is observed, and it would imply that no interaction has occurred.
    That it is destroyed and replaced by an identical replicate in every detail a billion times over.
    I think you're getting hung up on the idea that somehow you can identify a specific photon and you're treating them like solid objects.  Besides frequency and wavelength, what characteristic is unique that would allow you to identify a specific photon?  If a photon of a certain frequency/wavelength enters and a photon of the same frequency/wavelength is emitted, how would you distinguish the two?  Electrons can be specifically "prodded" into producing such photon replicas all the time, which is the principle behind lasers.

    An imprecise analogy that may help is to imagine whispering a word into someone's ear and them whispering it into someone else's and passing it on.  At the end the word that emerges is identical to the one you started with, although you couldn't actually claim that it came directly from you.  The intermediary steps all "regenerated" it to produce the result.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Johannes Koelman
    But now you have posed me an even nastier problem.
    The only track I am set on is the one to the Sanatorium !!
    My day just gets worse and worse.
    Derek -- don't despair. As I said: you are on the right track. What I meant is that it is essential to struggle with these matters until you discover for yourself that relativity is a fully consistent theory.

    I have decided to dedicate my next blog entry here to the problem of how to predict relativistic collision outcomes. Hope this will help you progressing on your track towards understanding Special Relativity.
    Gerhard, this has troubled me all night and I now think I have discovered the smell.

    I have used excitation spectrophotometry, the technique raises electrons to higher energy levels by sending in a wavelength that is heavily absorbed and then analyses the resultant emission profile.

    Three things stem from this.

    First, the excitation beam is absorbed, it is not re-emitted and relayed through the sample as you claim it would have.
    Second, the wavelengths emitted are characteristic of the band gaps present in the sample.
    Third, the momentum of the excitation beam is not replicated, the emission is random in all directions.

    The second realisation was that if I make a glass from Lithium Fluoride, both are fully ionised so the lithium takes on the electron configuration of Helium and the fluoride takes on the configuration of Neon. No matter how you excite this salt, there are only a small number of band gaps available to this very simple structure and the emitted light is totally characteristic of lithium and fluoride ions. But here is the killer blow - I can pass full spectrum white light into that crystal and have it emerge without a single wavelength missing - yet the LiF does not have the machinery to produce even a tiny subset of all these wavelengths.

    The light MUST have passed through without absorption.

    But hey, I am the student here... have I missed something ??

    Gerhard, perhaps your concept is correct at a different level.

    Perhaps a photon is an electromagnetic wave / pulse propagating through the sea of virtual particles which are space at the Plank level.

    When I put a sound pulse into a fluid, it has a velocity dependant upon the density of that fluid, it also has a directional vector, so in some way it has momentum. But the fluid is interactive, as my sound pulse compresses / expands the fluid, it allows neighbouring molecules to have more or less space, so the influence of the sound wave is shared with neighbouring molecules and the sound pulse broadens, spreading in fan or cone.

    Note to self - the coherence of a sound pulse should be better in a cold substrate than in a hot one in relation to the speed of the sound wave against the vibrational speed of the substrate particles.

    In space, the virtual particles popping momentarily into our three space from some other dimension(s) must have virtually no interaction, because as the electromagnetic photon pulse compresses and expands them, neighbouring particles remain uninfluenced so the wave does not spread out. Alternatively, perhaps the electromagnetic capsule is in some way self containing, wrapping the energy pulse in a magnetic bubble which cannot propagate in anything other than the direction of its momentum vector.

    This model is at one and the same time a wave and yet because of its capsule nature, also very particle like - A SELF ENCAPSULATED WAVE. No need for Schroedinger uncertainty because an encapsulated wave IS a wave, but also acts like a particle. Being a wave, two waves can pass right through one another, each waves momentum maintaining the flow of each energy pulse discrete from the other. Yet because of its capsule nature, it remains finite so we think of it as a particle.

    Derek -- don't despair. As I said: you are on the right track. What I meant is that it is essential to struggle with these matters until you discover for yourself that relativity is a fully consistent theory.

    "Close your eyes Grasshopper and you will find the way"

    Man has reached his amazing grasp of the universe by learning and sharing - 'Standing on the shoulders of Giants'.

    Granted, this is sometimes foolhardy and has led to misconceptions such as - Earth is the centre of the universe - Earth is flat - and numerous flavours of religion - but despite this, it has got us where we are today.

    The advent of the Internet further allows people with knowledge to teach people with interest, where prior to the Internet, they would never have had the opportunity to converse, share and develop.

    You tell me I am on the right track, and to struggle for understanding, but you have not given me any hint of direction to any of the numerous questions I have shared with you.

    Are there answers or are they the questions still to be tackled?

    If there are answers and you do not wish to waste your time in dialogue with me, will you at least give me a hint of what to search for.

    Derek

    Johannes Koelman
    I have decided to dedicate my next blog entry here to the problem of how to predict relativistic collision outcomes. Hope this will help you progressing on your track towards understanding Special Relativity.
    Derek (and others who are interested) -- I have uploaded a follow-up to this article. This follow-up addresses your questions on relativistic mass changes etc. See if it helps (no doubt it will raise further questions, but that's ok).
    I guess the topic Johannes was describing is that Einstein’s equation is not relativistically invariant and that was well known to Einstein, who wasn’t able to fix it.

    The triangle is from Paul Dirac’s 1928 version of the Einstein equation that is relativistically invariant when taken as a whole, although the separate parts of it are not.

    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 for rest mass m and momentum p

    Dirac also used this equation to predict antimatter like a positron, because the energy has both positive and negative roots.

    Although it looks more complicated, the Dirac equation greatly simplifies calculations for high energy physics.

    WHAT DID I SAY? The statement is that when using the Dirac equation, relativistic calculations are easier than classical Newtonian calculations, … for which I apologize.

    Originally Dirac wrote the formulas in terms of wave mechanics, with probabilities, and for low energy situations that form of his equations is often the most appropriate. So the classical case is an average of what actually happens for many particles.

    When high energy levels are used, the particles tend to be larger than their corresponding wavelengths, and the classical equation is a good approximation for single particles and interactions.

    All of this is well known in the scientific community and has been for a long time. Johannes is just having fun with us.

    you should have googled E=mc^2 not E=mc2

    It's surprizing post as I am learning that E=mc^2 from school time and I also had proven so many examples on it So I thought it's a universal truth that E=mc^2.

    Johannes Koelman
    FF -- this is exactly the point of above post. I wouldn't call E=mc2 a universal truth. The universal truth is E2 - (E v/c)2 = (mc2)2. It is this relation that captures the essence of relativity.

    Compare this to the following:

    Would you call the statement: "In a rectangular triangle with one vanishing edge, the hypotenuse  equals the non-zero edge" a universal truth?
    When relating the edges of a rectangular triangle, I would prefer to reserve the label "universal truth" for Pythagoras' theorem.

    Note that I am not stating that E = mc2 is necessarily wrong. It is just that this relation is often misunderstood and frequently misapplied. It would be better if Einstein's mass-energy relation was consistently written E0 = mc2, where E0 indicates the rest energy.
    You know, now that I've read your article on the mass-energy-momentum relation it makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it seems quite obvious. I guess what is bothering me is that this had never occurred to me before. I appreciate you posting this article. Thank you.
    Johannes Koelman
    Thanks Eric, the best feedback one could wish for when writing a physics column.
    You're quite welcome and the feedback is well deserved, Johannes. You have a way of explaining things that make them crystal clear and easy to understand. In fact, in an online astronomy group to which I belong, today the topic of special relativity and the very same issues that you talk about in this article came up. So rather than give them my own inadequate explanation, I instead gave them a link to this very article. Needless to say, it was very well received and greatly appreciated. So you have more fans than you may realize. ;-)

    Very best,
    Eric
    hello sir,
    we had read your blog liked it very much. It was very informative and we are very thankful to you. Also, having read it, we came to know that you are practically a genius and wanted to ask you a question, which we had earlier posted on our blog. We had read about Einstein's speed limit and wanted to know why it holds? Why is it required in nature? Also, we had read about quantum entanglement and had a doubt regarding the topic. We are just a bunch of school boys and our knowledge regarding Q.E. is very limited. So, please forgive our ignorance if we might have missed out some point in the thought experiment.

    Now, we begin with 2 quantum particles that are entangled such that their spins are in the opposite direction. Now, before any measurement, both the particles exist in a state of superpositioned spin. So, none of the particles "know" where the other might turn out to be spinning when measured. So, now, lets assume that the particles in 2 diff. corners of the universe. Now, we take, suppose particle A and measure it. Lets assume it turns out to be spinning to the right. Now what if I measure the other particle B, just a few seconds after measuring A? B should turn out to be spinning to the left. But how come the information of the collapse of the wavefunction of the particle A reached B so quickly and its probabilities? Doesn't that violate the speed limit? A second ago, B had no idea as to where A was spinning. But just a second later it knew that A was spinning to the right, even though it was in a diff. corner of the universe. And the probabilities of B turing out to be spinning to the left or rightwere altered in the favour of spinning toward left. This problem puzzles us greatly. And hence, we ask for your help in reaching to the heart of it. Please do forgive our ignorance, if we have overlooked a fact somewhere, for we know little of the matter and simply wish to know more by questioning it. We hope to hear from you the problem in the thought experiment soon.
    Thank you
    A.B.G.D.

    Johannes Koelman
    Hi A, B, G, D -- thanks for your kind remarks.

    The best and deepest questions are often those asked by people who apologize for asking. Hardly ever is the answer to these questions anywhere near obvious. And such is the case with your questions on the universal speed limit, and quantum non-locality.

    First your question: "Why is there a universal speed limit?"

    The simple answer is "Nobody knows." With that I mean that there is no reason that we know of why a universe could not exist with other laws of physics that poses no such speed limit.

    That answer will not make you happy. So let me try to give you one more insight that at least suggests a deeper, more fundamental, reality behind the relativistic speed limit.
    I can best phrase this as: "There is no speed limit, there is only one speed."
    Surprising? Well, to appreciate this thought, you have to enter the realm of quantum physics. When one investigates the motion of subatomic particles such as electrons, it becomes clear that everything is in relative motion. No particle is ever at rest, as this would violate the uncertainty principle. When investigating this in more detail, it follows that particles like electrons always move at the speed of light, but move back and forth such that the effective speed can be smaller than the speed of light. Consider, for instance, an electron moving forward four steps, and then moving backward one step, all of this at the speed of light. The net effect? An electron moving forward at 3/5 of the speed of light. If you keep this picture in mind, it should be clear that it is impossible for electrons to move faster than light.
    The physics behind this so-called "Zitterbewegung" is captured in the Dirac equation. A beautiful representation of the Dirac dynamics for the simple case of an electron moving in one direction is given by the Feynman checkerboard model.

    Secondly, your question: "Does quantum entanglement and the collapse of the wave function not cause a violation of the universal speed limit?"

    Again a very deep question. The simple answer is "no, there is no violation of the relativistic laws".

    How can that be? A first hint is given by the fact that the "action at a distance" as described by you between A and B, can not be utilized to transfer any information between A and B. So if something seems to happen instantaneously, there is nothing that really moves instantaneously. We now have entered the counter-intuitive domain of quantum physics. Quantum physics tells us that if something can not be measured, it really does not exist (I am oversimplifying a bit, but that is the crux of the matter). So even if we observe correlations that seem to 'build' at infinite speed, there is nothing (no particles, and no piece of information) that really travels at a speed beyond the speed of light. It is just because we tend to interpret quantum physics with our classical intuition that we (erroneously) associate some quantum effects with infinite speeds.
     
    BTW, thanks for the compliment. But the label 'genius' I prefer to reserve for 'the Feynman's of this world'... :)
    Your "just one speed" explanation sounds *exactly* like the dynamics of Conway's Game of Life. There's just one "speed" (the propagation of information from one cell to the next) and different patterns (gliders, spaceships, etc) appear to travel against this background: some directly, others with more of a back-and-forth. But I've gathered from elsewhere that the notion of the universe as a discrete bit pattern with a simple transition function isn't exactly a new one.

    And here I thought the "Turing machine in Conway's game of life" was insane...

    hello sir,
    thank you for your wonderful explanation of the error in the experiment and for the answer to our doubts. we could see that you had simplified the answer to suit our understanding, and we thank you for that. and also,we now realise that we had forgotten to introduce our selves earlier. allow us to do so now, we are members of the group called thinkers.inida and go by the names, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta and read in tenth standard. We are interested very much in physics and wished to simply understand it better and know the truth. we thank you for aiding us to attain our goal. thank you very much.

    also, sir, is it that in case of entanglement, no piece of information travels between the particles? if so, how do they come to know of things like where the other is spinning? also sir is it so that the mass of a body in motion does not increase. if so, what about the formula for calculating M1 from M0. is it false? also, sir you told us about the electrons moving to and fro and this resulting in a velocity lesser than c. does this stop bodies that are much more massive than electrons from moving at a speed greater than c in any way. for we wished to know if there was a deeper inference to the explanation which we have not understood. also, sir, please tell us why this explanation does not go for tachyons. and why is it so that particles moving at velocities greater than c cannot come down to velocities lesser than c?

    we await your reply, sir. and hope our questions are not a nuisance for you. thank you once a again for your answer.

    BTW, the compliment was well deserved. and it is only your humility, sir, that stops you from realising it.
    thank you
    A.B.G.D.

    Johannes Koelman
    Hello A, B, G, D -- you're welcome.

    Indeed, there is no signaling and no information traveling associated with entanglement. You are surprised by that, and you should be! I have written a blog about this puzzling aspect of quantum physics (see here). It takes a profound change of perspective to appreciate why this is. It all boils down to us being limited in our intuitive reasoning (and even in our language) to realities corresponding to classical physics. I might spend a future blog entry on this.

    On relativistic mass increase: from didactical perspective it is best not to mix up the roles of mass and energy. Rest energy is mass (E0 = mc2), but that is the only energy that can be equated to mass.

    Energy increases when a particle speeds up, mass is invariant and doesn't. But you have to couple this with the insight that inertia is related to the total energy of an object and not just its rest energy (or mass). And gravity pulls on any form of energy (photons have energy but no mass, but do get deflected in gravity fields).

    About understanding relativity based on the quantum behavior of electrons: for all practical purposes you and I (and everything around us) are clouds of electrons. What I mean is that the day-to-day physical reality we perceive (incl. all of chemistry, biology, etc.) is dictated by the behavior of electrons.

    On tachyons: they do fit into a single velocity description, but you have to assume a kind of 'inverted' space-time. But my simple advise is to forget about tachions, they are purely hypothetical anyway.
    hello sir,
    hope all is well there. thank you very much for your reply. it was very informative. but we must admit, your answer, albeit the realisation it gave us, also made us realise more about what we don't know. it has lead us, in a way, to even more doubts and questions. but we'd like to thank you for it, since we realise that in this lies the true beauty of science. thank you.

    We are ashamed to admit that we haven't read your blog on entanglement as of yet. but we shall surely read it as soon as possible, and hope that when we do so, you won't mind the doubts and questions we might come to ask.

    and also sir, we wished to ask you a doubt on matters a bit away from the current topic. we hope you wouldn't mind them. we wished to know sir, for starters, how the universe came into being. and also what your views are on the parallel universe theory. we hope to hear from you soon on the matter. we hope we do not annoy you with our stupid questions.
    thank you
    A.B.G.D.

    How the universe came into being?
    It means you are asking how did the material ( elements) that makes up the world came into being?
    It means there are materials that already exist ( eternals),before the universe could be made.
    Eternals means elements that have always existed,inother words,they have no beginning and no end.

    hello sir,
    i also had another doubt i had forgotten to ask. virtual particles too obey the uncertainty principle. so how come they get to go faster than light while electrons can't. i hope i am no wrong in assuming that vps travel faster than light. but it sure seems reasonable as a charged black hole influences other charged matter outside it. and this could only be possible if the virtual photon moves at a speed greater than that of light. this problem puzzles me greatly. i await your reply.
    thank you
    A.B.G.D.

    Wes D. Sturdevant
    Wow! I'm just about to read "Einstein's General and Special Relativity Theory" a second time and glad I have read this, will give me new perspective on what he had to say.  I know Einstein is a bit out dated but some still holds true and thought that would be a good place to start with physics and then told to read "The Quark And The Jaguar" which was recommended by a friend that's a physics major to begin learning about quantum theory... maybe after awhile I'll understand more of this, some of it seems like simple concepts that make plenty of sense, other bits are beyond me without more reading.  But I must say this was a great read including much of the comments and just out of curiousity I have a stupid question about quantum physics I'm told is being more about 'waves' and what 'waves' are exactly instead seeing things on a physical electrons and such level as we do in Newtonian Physics seeing everything as mass around us.  Is my friend wrong or bad at explaining this or are 'waves' a big part of for example the parallel universe theory?  An Explanation for a newbie would be greatly appreciated on this even though I'm sure this is kinda a dumb question but always told there was no dumb questions only questions you don't know the answer to yet. thanks Wes D. Sturdevant
    Johannes Koelman
    Hi Wes -- the question on quantum physics and the wave nature of particles (and vice versa) is too broad to answer here. A good book to get an appreciation of the strange behavior of the quantum world is 'QED' by Richard Feynman.

    You might also like this blog (highlights the utter weirdness of quantum physics).
    There is nothing wrong with E=Mc^2. However, this is not an empirical work of Einstein. It's a result of his intuition only.

    Amateur Astronomer

    Wes,

    I second the recommendation of QED by Richard Feynman.

    Anirudh,

    Einstein derived E=mc^2 from published data of experiments about Doppler shifts on high speed trains and a few other things. It is an exact mathematical calculation that is necessary to make sense of the data. The complete derivation of it was taught in the schools I attended a long time ago. Energy of creating particle pairs came later and has been offered as an independent confirmation.

    In his early career Einstein acknowledged that his equation is not valid at very high speeds, but he didn’t know how to fix it. Paul Dirac fixed it in a way that was acceptable to Einstein, and the triangle Johannes showed is derived from the work of Dirac.

    If you really look closely at the triangle, it seems like a high speed object has less than the total energy that was put into it. From that comes the ideas about increase of mass at high speeds. That works fine if mass is considered to be the ratio between force and acceleration.

    The difficulty occurs if the relativistic mass is creating a large gravitational field. That apparently doesn’t happen, because accelerators have driven particles to such high energies that the additional gravity would have been detected in the particle beam.

    The calculation of total energy has been verified by many experiments, but the explanation of it is not entirely satisfactory. One possibility is that the energy difference goes to modify space temporarily and reversibly at very high speeds. There are a lot of published theories about that.

    You are correct about Einstein’s equation as long as the particle is not moving quickly, and the intuition you mentioned is accounting for Einstein’s ability to make the calculations for the first time. Actually he got a lot of help from his friends.

    Wes,

    I highly recommend QED by Richard Feynman as well. It's one of the best books written for the layperson that I've ever read. You will learn a lot. For example, did you know that photons travel the path of least time, and this is how mirages are created? You'll learn all kinds of cool stuff like that! ;-)

    Anirudh,

    I had to rewrite what I had written because I hadn't seen what Jerry had written prior to writing what I had written, and he's right of the money in what he wrote. ;-)

    He did have a lot of help. And his very brilliant wife really did used to check his equations! LOL
    lumidek
    You're brave to contradict the influential hippies who think that science is democracy. By the way, they have some problems with E=mc2, too. ;-)
    http://blog.ted.com/2008/11/lee_smolin_on_t.php


    The reason why Pythogoras' theorem is important is that matter is spherical (ellipsoidal when moving) and Phythagoras' theorem is just the equation for a sphere.

    You can deduce the energy equations (and Newton's F=ma) from wave equations in an elastic wave medium (space). Thus matter and energy are equivalent because they are both due to waves in space - and everyone knows that waves are an oscillation of two energy states in a wave medium (kinetic and elastic). Waves are also always in motion - this is why matter can move.

    I wonder if the hammock physicist could apply his thoughts to this - it would be appreciated.
    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wave-equations-elastic-medium-space.htm

    Thanks for a very interesting site.
    Geoff

    Is E=MC^2 regarding the Universe - as Earth as the centre X or as a whole, either it refers too 3 parts that make that whole as 4 or a speculation that 1 is 1

    As X i would imagine that, X is under the influence of Gravity as a 1/3, if so it cannot be a straight line - but more an Arc or Energy via Gravity

    If light is a form of energy as is the heat/radiation it emits, how does it fit in the equation when it is part of both E and M.
    energy equals the mass of matter. But wouldn't you get 3 different equations from the formula.
    The sum of the matter for energy input, the sum of the matter produced from the energy and the sum of energy used to produce the matter left over?
    And if reality was taken in to account, you would have measure the total matter in the universe and energy emmitted from everything in the universe, let alone everything in the earth's atmosphere that affects the experiment, for any equation to be true.
    Remember one thing, no-one was about to see anything when the universe started so who truly knows at what rate anything happened at (the old tree falling in the woods riddle)?
    You square the speed of light because you want to see it. (If all were blind, at what rate would the formula travel at then)?

    Some corrections to the above comment, darkness matter would have to be calculated not just the light.
    There is more darkness in the universe than light (or would all the matter eg plantes, stars, comets, asteroids, living beings etc cancel all the darkness/light other out if all were single atoms/cells/molecules)?
    And do different pigments of light travel at different speeds?
    Just because you cannot see something does mean it doesn't exist (Red blood cells have no DNA but they exist and keep producing).
    All experiments associated with E=MC2 have some mass missing when performed so it hasn't truly been verified?

    If E=mc2, then to achieve the speed of light you would then divide the energy by the matter (E/m=c2)? it is the squaring of light which makes the equation questionable (beceuase could the observer see you travelling at this speed)?
    If any calculation is to be correct you should be able to acheive the results in all configurations of the sum.

    lumidek
    Holy crap, this is quite a counter-argument against E=mc^2. Any formula with squares is questionable (even if the squared velocity is inevitable by dimensional analysis). The Pythagorean theorem must be questionable thrice. And moreover, look at the deep comment about all the configurations of the sum. Why I have never thought about it? Maybe a lack of LSD is to be blamed. ;-)
    well if you don't start thinking out of the box, you'll never get out of it.

    lumidek
    Indeed, it's very important not to ever fall out of certain key boxes such as the box of sanity and the box of basic mathematical logic.
    January/Febraury 2010 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 13
    Some Experiments that Shook the World
    Sankar Hajra
    Calcutta Philosophical Forum, Salt Lake, AC -54, Sector-1, Calcutta - 700 064, INDIA
    e-mail sankarhajra@yahoo.com
    It is generally believed by the physicists that various experiments/demonstrations/applications – experiments
    of Hahn-Strassmann, Walton-Cockroft, Fermi’s Chicago Experiment, the explosion of the Little Boy
    and the Fat Man, the commercial reaction of nuclear fuel - prove i) conversion of gravitational mass into energy,
    and ii) usability of Uranium and other radioactive elements as proper fuels. We argue that these assertions
    have not been proved in any of those experiments/demonstarations/applications.
    Introduction
    To know whether a fuel is proper fuel or not is to determine
    whether the fuel gives off greater amount of energy when it is
    used than the energy involved in making the fuel from raw natural
    materials. A huge amount of energy is obtained when Hydrogen
    or thermite (a mixture of powdered Aluminium and oxide
    of iron) is burned. But energy obtained from combustion of
    those fuels is not greater than the energy spent to make them
    from natural resources. Therefore, Hydrogen and thermite cannot
    be treated as proper fuels. Electricity could be readily generated
    from combustion of those fuels, but, electricity made from
    those fuels must be more expensive than electricity made from
    coal or petroleum. According to Einstein’s E = mc2 formula, 1
    Kg of any material (preferably Uranium) will give
    9

    Aitch
    I always thought that the real interpretation of Einstein's formula was [E]nergy = [M]ass x [C]onfusion, squared Logical proof: There's always loads more confusion than energy put into trying to solve the problem by the mass ;-) Aitch
    But in experiments carried out, the atoms in the atmosphere and the magnetic forces of the earth are not taken into account, as there will be an abundance of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen just to name a few and the magnetic field that would also be in the reaction of the "explosion". Or would this be classed as the dark energy taken into affect?

    ok X has another Question, if Light is Bent by Refraction - ie; water and, such GASES how does Folding in Darkness work ???

    Uummm

    u still think 4 actually works, or maybe i'd have a better grip if i go too A4 books

    I'm sure a thousand other physics-savvy readers have already mentioned this, but E=mc^2 was never presumed to be correct.. the equation is E=gamma*mc^2...

    number one: E=mc^2 has almost nothing to do with relativity, Einstein found it by accident and did not care much for it.
    number two: does mass change as you approach c, no. But in theory it does when you add energy to a particle traveling at the speed of light so that E is greater than mc^2
    number three: E=mc^2 is a symbol of power. Actually E=the change in m times c squared. when a particle or atom loses mass enormous amounts of energy are sure to follow.
    number four: the atom bomb is much more likely to show up on a t-shirt than a triangle that you made up.
    number five: if you really take the time to look at it that triangle can be used on any equation whether it makes sense to use it as an example or not
    number six: read up on some nuclear physics you will see that equation much more often
    number seven: NEVER MIX CLASSICAL AND MODERN PHYSICS if you happen to find a classical equation in a modern physics equation that's great but don't count on it happening often. (hint:Pythagoras does not equal Einstein) ;-)

    Throughout much of this seems to run the semantic confusion of the word, "Mass." Mass as an entity or conglomeration of "matter" and "mass" as the variable attribute of matter which is probably best considered as a measure of the sum of the vibrational-rotational motions which are contained within the surface of the "Mass" under consideration.;

    It looks like that semantic confusion may be a problem in physics.....

    The relativity mug: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.5400

    I liked Koelman's reasoning and the physics seems well-demonstrated but there must be an error. The mass of a proton is the result of the rest-mass equivalence of the triadic potential energies of the color charges (weak, strong, and electromagnetic) plus the mass resulting from the sum of their absolute velocities (kinetic energy) in self-relation and nothing else. It is well-known that the rest mass of the color charges is inferred (actually on momentum grounds) to be quite a small proportion (approx. 10%) of the total mass of the proton. The remaining mass (90%) of the proton, therefore, is the result of the mass increase (owing to high velocity, nearly the speed of light, in fact) of the color charges in self-relation. The unavoidable conclusion, then, is that mass does increase with velocity in this case. The case is actually fundamental to the demonstration of the origin of all other mass. No Higgs boson is necessary and none therefore will be found.

    The author is really just making excuses for special relativity. Special relativity hasn't stood the test of time. From a scientific and logical viewpoint, it never got off the ground. It is only held aloft now by the cult of personality.

    The Speed Of Gravity – Why Einstein Was Wrong
    May 14th, 2010 michaelsuede Leave a comment Go to comments

    Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays down the law… Newton’s law ;)

    The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say

    Van Flandern T. ,Physics Letters A, Vol. 250:1-11 (1998)

    www.metaresearch.org…
    Abstract.

    Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2×1010 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.

    Numerous experiments have shown that the force of gravity MUST propagate faster than the speed of light. Such speeds violate the theory of special relativity, which explicitly states that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.

    If SR is wrong, so too must GR be wrong.

    Einstein was wrong.

    Newton’s gravity propagates at INFINITE speed, this is universally accepted as the basis for his theory, and it’s also the gravitational theory we used to calculate orbits and trajectories for the Apollo moon missions.

    Van Flandern raises some questions:

    Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth’s gravitational acceleration toward the Sun?

    Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon’s gravitational forces align?

    How do binary pulsars anticipate each other’s future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow?

    How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?

    For example, take the simple observation of the Earth in orbit around the Sun. If gravity was delayed to the speed of light, the Earth would fly off its orbit after a mere 1200 years.

    As viewed from the Earth’s frame, light from the Sun has aberration. Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds. The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago. The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arc seconds east of its visible position, and we will see the Sun in its true present position about 8.3 minutes into the future. In the same way, star positions are displaced from their yearly average position by up to 20 arc seconds, depending on the relative direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. This well-known phenomenon is classical aberration, and was discovered by the astronomer Bradley in 1728.

    If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. … the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years. There can be no doubt from astronomical observations that no such force is acting. The computation using the instantaneous positions of Sun and Earth is the correct one. The computation using retarded positions is in conflict with observations.

    There can be no doubt that gravity does indeed propagate at a speed faster than that of light.

    This blatant violation of Einstein’s theories is so clear even a 10 year old can grasp it.

    Einstein’s theories must be rejected.

    It’s time for new cosmologies that can actually explain what we see in space without the need for black holes, dark matter, dark energy, wimps, machos, multiple dimensions, worm holes, pulsars that spin around 67 thousand times per minute, and all other make believe fairy dust concocted by physicists.

    Plasma (electric) cosmology is one such cosmology.

    Read more about it here.

    Share and Enjoy:

    * Digg
    * StumbleUpon
    * del.icio.us
    * Facebook
    * Yahoo! Buzz
    * Twitter
    * Google Bookmarks
    * Current
    * NewsVine
    * Wikio

    Categories: Anti-Fascist Agitprop, Real Science Tags:
    Like Dislike

    *

    Community
    Disqus

    * Login
    * About Disqus

    Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?

    Facebook

    Twitter

    * Share
    * No thanks

    Sharing this page …

    Thanks! Close
    Add New Comment
    Image
    Post as …
    Showing 4 comments
    Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS

    *

    TGolz [Moderator] 5 months ago
    Gravity does not "propagate" at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.
    Flag
    Like Reply Reply
    *

    Michael Suede [Moderator] 5 months ago in reply to TGolz
    I see.

    Gravity really isn't a force, it's a motion.

    Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.
    Flag
    Like Reply Reply
    *

    Anirudh Kumar Satsangi [Moderator] 2 days ago
    Radhasoami Faith View of Modus Operandi of Creation of Universe

    Part - I

    There is cosmological evidence for God and the Universe existed before Big Bang please.
    Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.
    Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe.
    Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound (this was the first Big Bang). It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.
    These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.
    I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat Lok and region below to it only.
    Infinite expanse of gravitational force field is the region of dark energy.

    In Bible it is written that in the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
    According to Radhasoami Faith “Shabd (Word) is the beginning and end of all. The three loks (worlds) and the fourth Lok, all have been created by Shabd.” (Sar Bachan Poetry)

    Part-II

    Here the true Jaman (coagulant) was given. The spirituality coagulated as it were, and Surats (spirit entities), among themselves, brought the creation into being. Thereafter, another Jaman (coagulant) was given. Regions from Agam Lok (Inaccessible Region) to Sat Lok (True Region) were created during the first creational process. That creation is true. That region is eternal. There is no trace of evil and suffering. This was the creation for many Yugas and ages. Then there appeared a dark coloured current
    That current appeared like a dark coloured stone set in a white one and was absorbed in the Darshan of True Being. Then there appeared two Kalas i.e. currents (viz. Niranjan and Jyoti) and they together evolved the creation of five Tattwas (elements) four Khans (species, categories of life) and three Gunas (qualities). The three Gunas (qualities) brought about the expansion and proliferation . They created Rishis and Munis (sages and holy men), gods and godly human beings and demons. Egotism then increased much. Niranjan separated himself from the rest, putting the burden of looking after the creation on them. Nobody could know of Niranjan. Even the Vedas referred to Him as Neti Neti (Not this, Not this). They did not get Darshan (Vision) of Niranjan. They made conjectures. Then how can anybody have knowledge of Sat Purush (True Being), Source of Niranjan and all that exists.
    Scientifically here Jyoti represent three Fundamental Forces of Quantum Mechanics i.e. electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. NIRANJAN is the fourth Fundamental Force i.e. Gravitation Force. Scientific explanation follows in support of my views.

    Part-III

    Einstein struggled and failed to formulate this theory, but it has already been shown that at high enough energies electromagnetism and the weak force are the same force known as the electroweak force. It is theorized that if energies are increased even further and neutrinos acquire mass, which has now been fully documented, all the known forces will reduce to the same force thus providing the basis for the Grand Unified Theory. This high energy level existed only during the very early expansion of the Universe known as the Planck Epoch which existed up to 10 to the negative 43rd seconds after the Big Bang where the four fundamental forces – electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation – all had the same strength. After that point the energy level decreased and gravity separated from the other 3 fundamental forces and with condensation of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons) into matter formed the so-called Standard Model of today’s Universe. (Source: Comments by William H. Depperman posted at blog http://factoidz.com/scientific...

    Anirudh Kumar Satsangi
    Flag
    Like Reply Reply
    *

    Anirudh Kumar Satsangi [Moderator] 4 hours ago
    Van Fladern has raised highly significant questions. I am also trying to emphasize for long in my various comments that the speed of gravitational force is infinitely higher as compared to the speed of light on black holes that's why light can not escape black holes. In fact black holes are the infinitely condensed ball of gravitational force field .
    Flag

    I would argue that light speed is a property of space, not easily modified by anything that passes through space. Everything, not just light travels at light speed unless it has rest mass.

    Gravity waves can be constructed by superimposing two electromagnetic waves out of phase, such that the energy flow of the Poynting vectors are not canceled out when the electrical and magnetic components are canceled out. We don’t do this often because the power requirement is very large to make a very weak gravity wave. There is no expectation that gravitational energy travels faster then light. A phase velocity can be constructed mathematically FTL, but work with radar proves that no energy is carried by the FTL component.

    The comment about quarks in a proton neglected to mention the mass of gluons.

    If high speed particles had the relativistic mass that was originally claimed for them, they would have fallen through the bottom of containment fields in high energy accelerators. Not many experimental scientist support the increase of relativistic mass anymore. It has been taken out of newer text books. The preferred explanation centers on relativistic momentum, not relativistic mass.

    There is nothing wrong with special relativity or Einstein’s equation, except in the ways people try to use them. One of the wrong assumptions appears to be that mc^2 is a constant at high speeds.

    Energy and momentum equation represented in Johannes’ triangle can be solved with the equations of motion as Jerry Decker mentioned in his article on NASA 100 year star ship. The derivation is given in the 7th edition of his book on Radiant Glory, published last December. There is more than one solution, if you exclude all of the assumptions about what is constant and what is not. Jerry chose one solution that prevents anything from traveling faster than light, without requiring the mass to approach infinity. It leads to a prediction that both mass and light speed are variables under extreme cases of general relativity.

    Jerry argued that constant light speed would incinerate a black hole by blue shifting the background microwaves. That derivation was not in his book, so I asked him to explain it. He opened a standard encyclopedia of Physics and took out one small equation for gravity blue shifted frequency.

    ... df /dr = f g / c^2

    From this equation he derived his complete partition theory in half an hour including the Reissner Nordström metric and the gravitational equivalent of electromagnetic energy. The solution satisfies the Dirac equation and predicts that light speed and frequency go to zero at an event horizon. At high speed like in a starship the results predict that mass decreases as the speed increases. Maybe that explains why things the travel at light speed have no mass.

    So Jerry says black holes are black because no light goes into them.

    Johannes did in two pages with a triangle what it took Jerry 50 years to say in 356 pages of math.

    With Jerry’s 356 pages you also get the star ship with a magnetic engine and time travel, not necessarily what Johannes intended, but still derived from the same triangle.

    It’s Jerry’s version of green energy.

    A darker shade of green.

    e=mc^2 is WRONG. its e=+-(mc)^2.

    Hallo meneer Koelman,

    Allereerst mijn complimenten voor uw artikelen en reacties etc.. ik ben een dikke nitwit op het gebied van wiskunde en physics etc, maar heel erg geinteresseerd in het universum en quantum mechanics etc..

    Ik zag dat u vanaf een bepaald punt niet meer reageert op de reacties...is dit omdat u geen tijd meer had of omdat de reacties gewo0nweg BS zijn.. ik vroeg mij namelijk af wat u van de onderstaande reactie/uitspraken vindt: (als het echt vooral BS is dan volstaat een kort antwoord uiteraard ;-) ...

    Door mijn gebrek aan kennis kan ik het niet goed op waarde schatten, klinkt allemaal heel erg strak zijn verhaal, maar ik heb het gevoel dat er teveel dingen gewoonweg worden aangenomen/gespuwd (zoals dat gravity sowiezo sneller dan het licht propagates/gaat)....ben benieuwd!!!! :-) kga nu het artikel lezen over non-lokaliteit (telepathy and the quantum als ik het goed heb)...

    "The Speed Of Gravity – Why Einstein Was Wrong
    May 14th, 2010 michaelsuede Leave a comment Go to comments

    Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays down the law… Newton’s law ;)

    The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say

    Van Flandern T. ,Physics Letters A, Vol. 250:1-11 (1998)

    www.metaresearch.org…
    Abstract.

    Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2×1010 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.

    Numerous experiments have shown that the force of gravity MUST propagate faster than the speed of light. Such speeds violate the theory of special relativity, which explicitly states that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.

    If SR is wrong, so too must GR be wrong.

    Einstein was wrong.

    Newton’s gravity propagates at INFINITE speed, this is universally accepted as the basis for his theory, and it’s also the gravitational theory we used to calculate orbits and trajectories for the Apollo moon missions.

    Van Flandern raises some questions:

    Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth’s gravitational acceleration toward the Sun?

    Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon’s gravitational forces align?

    How do binary pulsars anticipate each other’s future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow?

    How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?

    For example, take the simple observation of the Earth in orbit around the Sun. If gravity was delayed to the speed of light, the Earth would fly off its orbit after a mere 1200 years.

    As viewed from the Earth’s frame, light from the Sun has aberration. Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds. The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago. The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arc seconds east of its visible position, and we will see the Sun in its true present position about 8.3 minutes into the future. In the same way, star positions are displaced from their yearly average position by up to 20 arc seconds, depending on the relative direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. This well-known phenomenon is classical aberration, and was discovered by the astronomer Bradley in 1728.

    If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. … the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years. There can be no doubt from astronomical observations that no such force is acting. The computation using the instantaneous positions of Sun and Earth is the correct one. The computation using retarded positions is in conflict with observations.

    There can be no doubt that gravity does indeed propagate at a speed faster than that of light.

    This blatant violation of Einstein’s theories is so clear even a 10 year old can grasp it.

    Einstein’s theories must be rejected.

    It’s time for new cosmologies that can actually explain what we see in space without the need for black holes, dark matter, dark energy, wimps, machos, multiple dimensions, worm holes, pulsars that spin around 67 thousand times per minute, and all other make believe fairy dust concocted by physicists.

    Plasma (electric) cosmology is one such cosmology."

    Respectvolle groeten,

    Ronald

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    'Numerous experiments have shown that the force of gravity MUST propagate faster than the speed of light. Such speeds violate the theory of special relativity, which explicitly states that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light'.

    'If SR is wrong, so too must GR be wrong. Einstein was wrong....Newton’s gravity propagates at INFINITE speed, this is universally accepted as the basis for his theory, and it’s also the gravitational theory we used to calculate orbits and trajectories for the Apollo moon missions. This blatant violation of Einstein’s theories is so clear even a 10 year old can grasp it.'.

    And even I can grasp it Ronald, this is all very interesting and seems quite logical.

    'Einstein’s theories must be rejected.... It’s time for new cosmologies that can actually explain what we see in space without the need for black holes, dark matter, dark energy, wimps, machos, multiple dimensions, worm holes, pulsars that spin around 67 thousand times per minute, and all other make believe fairy dust concocted by physicists.Plasma (electric) cosmology is one such cosmology."

    Do have any more good links for plasma cosmology please?
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    He's made a common but important misunderstanding.  Space can expand faster than the speed of light because it is not matter. 
    Hi Helen,

    Did you see the reply of mr koelman on the speed of gravity and that the force of gravity MUST propagate faster than the speed of light is BS!!!! Even 10 year old kids can grasp it, that cant be right, right!!!!

    Johannes Koelman
    Hi Ronald -- thanks for the compliments. Reason I don't follow old threads is just practical: with a growing number of blogposts and some of these attracting more than a hundred reactions, I don't have the time to respond to each of them. On Van Flandern's theory on the speed of gravity: I can be very short. Van Flandern is wrong. This is thoroughly explained here.
    Hi meneer Koelman,

    Well that is more than logical, and therefore I really appreciate that you replied on my question..

    Thanks for the answer, I am going to read that article...and for me the ideA of the speed of gravity being faster than the speed of light doesnt feel right (just intuition)..

    By the way, I am really intrigued by the concept of quantum non-locality!!! I recently saw an episode on Discovery Science, covering it (but really short).. do you have some links for me covering this subject????? That we really be great!

    Kindest regards,

    Ronald

    Johannes Koelman
    " I am really intrigued by the concept of quantum non-locality!!! I recently saw an episode on Discovery Science, covering it (but really short).. do you have some links for me covering this subject????? That we really be great!"

    Our strange non-local quantum world: a perspective from the hammock. Enjoy the read!

    Super! Bedankt! Heerlijk materiaal :-)

    Well Helen, I am not saying I cant grasp it, and second, if something seems logical doesnt mean it is, this is certainly the case if its logical to a layman..

    Im just asking for mister Koelmans opinion, my knowledge doesnt suffice to say if its bs or not...

    I read somewhere else: Gravity does not "propagate" at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious... this maybe can be linked to the comment of Hank Cambell..

    and last: "It’s time for new cosmologies that can actually explain what we see in space without the need for black holes" "and other make belive fairy dust bla bla... really??? ...you think that somethink like quantum non-locality is also fairy make believe......

    E=mc2 is more a philosophy than a theory. Science, one can hardly prove. We need a better theory.

    Gerhard Adam
    We need a better theory.
    Perhaps you just need a better understanding.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Yeah, you are hundred percent correct. What was Einstein's educational qualification. A clerk wrote a theory and everyone says it is the cardinal truth. I still believe that Einstein was perhaps the smartest person of last century and I don't even deny that I could not understand the theory in totality. You can add anything in MC2 or you can use momentum to prove it correct.This doesn't deny that the theory is philosophy. Just like his general theory that was based on philosophy of relativity. Energy can be converted into mass and this was happening in the world. Radioactive decay was known to the world. One of the greatest inventors of all times, Nicolo Tesla called this theory a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. He called Einstein a metaphysicist rather than a philosopher. Einstein was smart but this doesn't make his theory an ultimate truth. How many patents were in the name of Einstein. He told us that matter can be converted in to energy. Even the energy can be converted in matter. It is E= mx and x is the god particle.

    Gerhard Adam
    What was Einstein's educational qualification.
    This is a joke, right?  If you believe that statement, you are so far off into the weeds, that I can't help you.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Today if a clerk comes up and says that he can prove Einstein theory was wrong and he comes up with another super special theory of relativity. Would you believe him? The moment you start believing him and you dig his past. You come to know that the guy failed in an examination that his wife cleared. You will put a question mark on this guy. The educational antecedents of Einstein are not too illuminating. Take it as joke if you like. Even I will laugh with you. His theory is philosophy rather than science. For last 106 years, no human has exceeded his smartness. This is the truth. Other than that, Einstein and his theory says what was known. It was his smartness to theorize it cleverly. E=mc^2 on the wholesome is useless philosophy. How many patents are in the name of Einstein. What actually he did in Manhattan project other than advising some politicians. The author of the article is trying to find petty mistakes in the article. Even if you find hundred mistakes in Einstein's work, still his theory will stand. Someone needs to come with a better theory.
    Weed is not that bad. Try The emperor wears no clothes by Jack Herer. You can win some good amount if you prove that man wrong. No scientist has come forward to collect it.

    Gerhard Adam
    Today if a clerk comes up and says that he can prove Einstein theory was wrong and he comes up with another super special theory of relativity. Would you believe him?
    It would depend on if he had the education and credentials that Einstein did at the time.  You seem to be assuming that Einstein was working as a patent clerk because he couldn't get a job at McDonald's.  Einstein couldn't get a job as a physics teacher, so he wasn't just some schmuck sitting at home dreaming up new "theories" because he didn't have a Nintendo.

    You obviously don't know anything about Einstein, nor his theories, so I would suggest that you do a bit more research before persisting in this ridiculous nonsense about Einstein's work.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I don't have problem with Einstein, I have written again and again about his smartness. The problem is with his philosophy. His philosophy is Relativity and mine is Nihilism. You can come with hundreds of errors in his theories but you will never be able to surpass his philosophy. To surpass a philosophy, you have to come with a better one. I am afraid that you are not even willing to do that. When you find a mistake with a philosophy, you are not alone. Come with a better one and let the world judge you.

    Gerhard Adam
    OK, I've tried to point this out to you but you insist on remaining ignorant.  Einstein did NOT advocate a philosophy of relativity.  To continue insisting that Special and General Relativity are philosophies is not just a gross misunderstanding of physics, but it crosses the line into stupidity. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Thank you for enlightening me. Ignorance is a bliss. Einstein never advocated any philosophy. Point taken. He still called it a special or general theory of relativity. I feel sorry for you. I believe I have to live in my stupidity. This is more to do with the philosophy of science and metaphysics. One is not aware of his/her own philosophy.

    Gerhard Adam
    I give up.
    Mundus vult decipi
    good for you. By the way, what is your philosophy.

    Gerhard Adam
    ...what is your philosophy.
    What kind of a question is that?  Who possesses a "philosophy" which can be explained in a single blog post?  BTW, I presume that you actually mean "belief".

    In that context, a basic axiom is that the world is "knowable and understandable" through science.  While there may be much that isn't known, it is reasonable to believe that it can be known given enough time.  We also have to contend with living our lives with incomplete knowledge and in making psychological concessions [believing things without evidence or that we know aren't true] to our own worldview so that we can understand the world and our place in it.  In the latter instance, this specifically leads us to the area of "belief systems" and the need to live our lives despite our lack of complete knowledge.  However, the ultimate shape of our "belief system" will be determined by whether we accept that the world is "knowable" or whether we allow for "exceptions".

     
    Mundus vult decipi
    i have been reading all your comments on theory of relativity and it makes me exhaust. 1+1=2 =====e=mc2. who can prove that 1+1=2??

    don't forget that einstein had special brain and he was unique. all who claims enstein's fault...."had had you special mind, you would have done what einstein did. unfortunately, you can't. don't blame anyone, rather discover new thing like other famous scientists

    Hi guys. I stumbled across this site. Einstein was correct. I have written the Theory of gravity. The pressure at center of Earth is 1.315 10^10 Pa. I have a formula and should hold true for every planet in universe. I would send it to you but I cant add an attachment. I have it on ebay if you want to check it out or contact me I can get you a copy. Thanks, Andrew 1 401 709 2357. Pascal, Newton, Einstein, Kaiser. ℗.

    Interesting thoughts...I found some more fun science experiment ideas for kids at http://www.experiland.com

    I'm completely new to physics. I grew up concentrating on art and design. I got disenchanted at university and now, at the age of 23, I've swapped directions and now look to undertake studying physics.

    Maybe my lack of interest in physics did me a favour, now that I'm learning the more up to date science ... but once I learnt what the equation meant, the concept that E = mc^2 always made sense to me that it was referring purely to the conversion of the mass, with the speed of light as a "conversion rate", not taking energy of movement into account...