SURIGAO STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

Surigao City, Main Campus

MAEd-101History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics

Name: Ms. WENDIE B. ESCANER Date: October 28, 2017

Course: MAEd- Gen. Science Professor: Dr. Emmylou A. Borja

CRITIQUE PAPER

Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?

SYNOPSIS

This article is all about the discovery of relativity formula in which scientists ranging from James
Clerk Maxwell and Max von Laue to a string of now-obscure early 20th-century physicists have been
proposed as the true discovers of the mass–energy equivalence now popularly credited to Einstein's
theory of special relativity. These claims are accusing Einstein of plagiarism, but many are spurious or
barely supported. One of the more plausible precursors to E = mc 2 is attributed to Fritz Hasenöhrl, a
physics professor at the University of Vienna. In a 1904 paper Hasenöhrl clearly wrote down the equation
E = 3/8 mc 2. Fritz Hasenöhrl in 1904 created a thought experiment involving heat energy in a moving
cavity. In the first he imagined a perfectly reflecting cylindrical cavity in which the two end disks—which
served as heaters—were suddenly switched on, filling the cavity with ordinary heat, or in physicist lingo,
blackbody radiation. A simple application of the “work–energy theorem,” which equates the difference in
work produced by the forces to the cavity’s kinetic energy, allowed Hasenöhrl to conclude that blackbody
radiation has mass m = ( 8 ⁄ 3) E / c 2. In his second paper Hasenöhrl considered a slowly accelerating
cavity already filled with radiation and got the same answer. After a communication from Abraham,
however, he uncovered an algebraic error and in his third paper corrected both results to m = ( 4 ⁄ 3 ) E /
c2 . Hasenöhrl approached the problem by asking whether a black body emitting radiation changes in
mass when it is moving relative to the observer. He calculated that the motion adds a mass of 3/8 c 2
times the radiant energy. The following year he corrected this to 3/4 c 2.

POINTS OF AGREEMENT/DISAGREEMENT

In the very first history of physics, Einstein was being credited as the genius who discovered
relativity and equates energy to the object’s mass with the speed of light, and this will only work without
the presence of gravity. But according to the history of physics, around the time Einstein became
interested in physics, electricity, magnetism, and the phenomenon of light were all under intensive study.
A number of scientific theories and mathematical equations had already been worked out. There was even
a type of relativity theory in existence, called the relativity principle, which had been formulated centuries
earlier by the astronomer Galileo. This article suggests that Hasenöhrl was probably the leading Austrian
physicist of his day, only that he had been killed in the First World War. The relationship of energy and
mass was already being widely discussed by the time Hasenöhrl considered the matter. Henri Poincaré
had stated that electromagnetic radiation had a momentum and thus effectively a mass, according to E =
mc 2. German physicist Max Abraham argued that a moving electron interacts with its own field, E0 , to
acquire an apparent mass given by E 0 = 3/4 mc 2. All this was based on classical electrodynamics,
assuming an ether theory. Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, Abraham and others suggested that there must be an
inertial mass associated with electromagnetic energy. However, no-one has properly studied Hasenöhrl's
derivation to understand his reasoning or why the prefactor is wrong, claimed Bough and Rothman,
"because they are written from an obsolete world view, which can only confuse the reader steeped in
relativistic physics." Even Enrico Fermi apparently did not bother to read Hasenöhrl's papers properly
before concluding wrongly that the discrepant 3/4 prefactor was due to the electron self-energy identified
by Abraham. "What Hasenöhrl really missed in his calculation was the idea that if the radiators in his
cavity are emitting radiation, they must be losing mass, so his calculation wasn't consistent", says
Rothman. "Nevertheless, he got half of it right. If he had merely said that E is proportional to m , history
would probably have been kinder to him."

The question here is, did Einstein know of Hasenöhrl's work? I am reasonably certain that
Einstein must have done, and just decided to do it better, but he just failed to cite Hasenhorls work. "In
any event, Einstein asserted his priority for the mass–energy relationship when this was challenged by
Johannes Stark who credited it in 1907 to Max Planck. Both Hasenöhrl and Einstein were at the famous
first Solvay conference in 1911, along with most of the other illustrious physicists of the time. "One can
only imagine the conversations", say Boughn and Rothman.

If Hasenöhrl started studying the equivalence of energy to the mass with the speed of light but
failed to be recognized because he died in the First World War before correcting errors of his work,
Einstein, considering that he knew Hasenöhrl’s work succeeded to publish his work but failed to cite
Hasenöhrl, then the famous equation will be credited to Hasenhorl. But if Einstein, without knowing the
work of Hasenhorl, formulated this theory and equation by himself, then it is still be credited to Einstein.
Only history can tell.

INSIGHTS

Several theories scientists or even historians are competing who is really the first, what is really
the first, what is real? After these questions are answered, do these affect our lives? Hasenhorl or Einstein,
or whoever is to be considered the first, that’s the work of history, and only historians care. The present
times and the present people must be thankful to all who discovered things that made the living easier and
more comfortable. Einstein, Hasenhorl, Galileo, Maxwell and thousands others contributed much to the
world of science. It’s not the issue of who is the first, but knowing that they serve as igniters of
development and modernization, they are all equally considered great and genius.

Science really is falsifiable. What we know today is true, may not be true and acceptable in the
future. But it doesn’t matter as long as knowledge given by science is used in a good way in which people
can benefit and the world will turn out better. The truth about life may not be what we've been told. The
truth about life may be very different than what most learned people believe. We don't always need proof,
evidence, or the agreement of others to embrace a new "truth" if we have good reason to believe in it's
utility.