Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
12Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Physics - Derivation of E = Mc2

Physics - Derivation of E = Mc2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,977|Likes:
Published by Lokesh

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Lokesh on Sep 24, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
On the Derivation of E = mc
2
Vesselin C. Noninski
vesselin.noninski@verizon.net
Abstract
Analysis is presented of the derivation in [1] of what is popularly knownas E = mc
2
. It is emphasized that once a relationship, describing a phenomenon in the stationary system, is known exactly and with certainty,any theory that would derive a different relationship regarding the same phenomenon in terms of the same stationary system should be rejected outof hand.
In a series of papers problems in the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) [1]were discussed [2-5]. Probably the most important in this series is the paper “On the Simultaneity of Two Events” which, curiously, does not contain asingle formula. In [4] a simple
 gedanken
experiment is presented whichappears to present a powerful enough argument to pinpoint the mostsignificant, crucial problem in STR – the determination in STR to presentthe seeming as real.This paper is dedicated to the analysis of the derivation claimed in [1]of the inertial mass equivalent of energy. The derivation in question,unfortunately, is found to suffer from the consequences of the mentionedcrucial problem in STR – the determination to present the seeming as real.Indeed, on p.61 of [1] it is clearly assumed that in the stationarysystem K the law of motion of an electron (say, the x-axis component) is
22
d m dt 
ε
=
where
denotes the coordinate of the slow moving electron,
is the x-axiscomponent of the electric field,
is the mass of the electron and
ε
is thecharge of the electron.According to the First Postulate – “The Principle of Relativity” – theabove law of motion will have the form
22
'
m
ξ ετ 
=
in the moving system k (electron’s own system), where
ξ 
and
τ 
are the
 
2
coordinates of the abscissa and time in the moving system k and
'
is thetransformed component of the electric field.So far all is well and good – once the First Postulate is assumed tohold good there could be no objection to writing the law of motion of theelectron in k in this way (
cf. Addendum 1
).Surprisingly, however, the further proposal in [1], namely, to applythe Second Postulate (through the application of Lorentz transformations) to“transform the above equations of motion from system k to system K”, thatis, to represent the transformed equation
22
'
m
ξ ετ 
=
, valid in k, interms of the coordinates of the stationary system K, leads to a paradoxicalresult. Thus, after application of the Lorentz transformations on
22
'
m
ξ ετ 
=
the form of that equation in terms of the coordinates of thestationary system K is claimed to be
*)
:
232
d m dt 
β ε
=
However, as already clearly emphasized above, the relationship between
,
22
d dt 
,
ε
and
can be expressed in no other way but as
22
d m dt 
ε
=
. Notice that each one of these components in the latter equation, namely
,
22
d dt 
,
ε
and
, clearly refer to the stationary system K and are not notationsfor anything else but the mass, acceleration and charge of the electron in thestationary system K in the presence of electric field in the stationary systemK. Furthermore, their magnitudes are fixed and are as defined at the outsetwhen we wrote
22
d m dt 
ε
=
.Therefore, any claim that the relationship between
,
22
d dt 
,
ε
and
can be anything else but
22
d m dt 
ε
=
should be rejected out of hand andthe theory that would bring about such claim should be discarded as invalid.Thus, a theory whose application leads to a relationship between
,
22
d dt 
,
ε
 
3
and
of, say, the form
232
d m dt 
β ε
=
while considering
3
1
β 
(derived by STR) should be discarded. In addition, obtaining
232
d m dt 
β ε
=
for 
3
1
β 
instead of 
22
d m dt 
ε
=
obviously is in aclear violation of the First Postulate – “The Principle of Relativity”. Thus, because
232
d m dt 
β ε
=
for 
3
1
β 
incorrectly describes the relationship between
,
22
d dt 
,
ε
and
, deriving, carried out in [1] (
cf. Addendum 2
), onits basis the expression for the energy of motion of the electron
, namely
2222
1
mc W mc 
=
(popularly known as E = mc
2
) is unacceptable.If, however, in an attempt to save STR, one accepts that
3
1
β 
=
thenthe desired relativistic expression for the energy of motion of the electron
2222
1
mc W mc 
=
cannot be derived (
cf. Addendum 2
).So, here we are faced with the same problem as in the case with thesimultaneity of two events, discussed in [4] – results of derivations based ontwo postulates lead to a relationship in obvious contradiction with thetruthful relationship, established as such at the onset.One can play devil’s advocate and object that in the transformedequation
22 3
d dt
εβ 
=
the form of the second derivative
22
d dt 
is the wayan observer in the moving frame k is seeing it and not the way an observer inthe stationary frame K sees it. But then, it should be definitively pointed outthat the observer in the moving frame k “sees”
22
d dt 
as
3
εβ 
and not,correctly, as
ε
only due to STR and this means that the said observer deceives himself by using STR because the form of 
22
d dt 
obtained by STR isincorrect. Any theory that claims to have physical meaning requires the

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
ahsbon liked this
spogyam liked this
Dillon Allen liked this
Dillon Allen liked this
saasira liked this
Zainal Abidin liked this
vijayang liked this
bersant liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->