David Thomson wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>> I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity
>> here.
>
>> Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is
>> generally considered to be the "seminal" paper on SR was "On The
>> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and it covers a great deal more
>> than the mass/energy equivalence -- in fact, it's a complete
>> derivation of special relativity, couched in terms of Euclidean
>> space with the Lorentz transforms written algebraically.
>
> There, you said it yourself, they are "Lorentz" transformations, not
> "Einstein" transformations.
Of course. The first thing named after Einstein in the whole
rigmarole of relativity, AFAIK, is the Einstein tensor. (There's also
Einstein's summation notation, which is very useful, but it's more
akin to a gadget than an insight.) He built on a structure which was
almost complete already; many mathematicians and physicists actually
contributed to the formation of relativity.
I'm no historian of science, but what Einstein appears to have
contributed to SR is the insight to realize that the math could be
made to stand on its own, without a hypothetical "ether".
Furthermore, as far as I know, the final formulation of Lorentz's
ether theory, which produces the same mechanics as Einstein's
relativity, was not made until after 1905. But I may be wrong about
that.
In any case, as far as I know, the first complete presentation of SR
in print, anywhere, was Einstein's 1905 electrodynamics paper.
Lorentz had derived the transformations -- or at least _one_ of the
two; I'm not sure he had the time transformation as well as the space
transformation -- but if he had published a coherent theory
integrating them I'm not aware of it. If you're aware of a paper by
him which covers this, and which predates 1905, I'd be interested in
it.
Einstein's contribution to GR appears to have been the realization
that Riemannian geometry could be applied to the problem of gravity,
along with a general notion of how to proceed. As I'm sure you're
aware Einstein wasn't the first to derive the Einstein field
equations. If I recall the story right, after hearing a lecture by
Einstein, Hilbert was inspired to work on the problem and actually
cracked it slightly before Einstein. But AFAIK Hilbert never objected
to Einstein getting the credit, as it was his intuition which led to
the path Hilbert followed.
> Lorentz developed a set of equations to explain Aether drift in a
> fluid Aether according to the non-null Michelson-Morley data.
> Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's work by writing a paper
> utilizing the transformation equations and not giving proper credit.
Oh, he didn't give him credit - I see. That's why he calls the
transformations "Lorentz transformations", to hide the source.
Get real. Einstein knew Lorentz wrote them first and never denied it.
Einstein's derivation was original, but he never claimed the
transformations themselves as his own. See:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Footnote 5: "The equations of the Lorentz transformation..." Gosh, he
admitted right there, in print, that they were Lorentz's...
> Nevertheless, if you want to claim the Lorentz transformations part
> of Special Relativity theory, then that is a demon you have to deal
> with personally. I'm not going to go there as I do not question the
> validity of Lorentz's work, nor do I attribute Lorentz's work to
> Einstein.
Do you refuse to use calculus because parts of it were attributed to
Newton when Leibnitz should have gotten the credit?
Do you even care?
If not, why not? Why does it make such a difference to you who got the
credit for relativity?
> The only original contribution of Albert Einstein to Special
>Relativity theory is his equivalence of mass and energy, hence the
>celebrated "equation," E=mc^2.
>
> In order to equate energy with mass, the rules of algebra had to be
> modified specially for Albert Einstein.
Care to explain that?
There are no algebraic problems in special relativity, AFAIK.
> I suppose this is why it is called "Special"
> Relativity theory.
Do you really not know why it's "special" relativity?
> Einstein's equation is not an equation at all, it is a formula.
> Thus E and m are just empty variables, which could just as easily be
> x and y.
>
> There are two completely unrelated processes of logic used to
> befuddle physics students into believing
OK I guess I see really clearly where you're coming from.
> E=mc^2 is an equation. First, it is pointed out that dimensionally
> E=mv^2 is a true equation, which it is for any one system of units.
> Then an unrelated bit of logic is applied saying that the maximum
> velocity of any object is the speed of light. So v in the
> dimensional equation is arbitrarily assigned the value of c, which
> breaks the rules of equality governing the dimensional equation (one
> side of the equation cannot be changed, without changing the other).
> But nobody seems to care about this sloppiness.
>
> To further muddy the waters, E is shown equal to m if c is
> arbitrarily assigned the value of 1. Once again, only one side of
> the equation is being changed, which violates the equality of the
> equation. The fact is, for any equation all variables must be in
> the same units. You cannot arbitrarily decide to multiply feet
> times kilograms without converting one of the units to the other
> system. Also, if E is equal to mc^2, then the following logic is
> true:
>
> E=mc^2
> mc^2=mc^2
> for c=1; m=m
OK, so if E=mc^2 and our units are such that c=1, then m=m. Is that a
contradiction? Do you want to say m is _not_ equal to itself?
It's not a derivation of e=mc^2, obviously -- but so what?
> There is no equivalence of mass and energy, except if you make
> special provisions for breaking the rules of algebra.
So I gather you feel e=mc^2 is false.
I have the impression that would come as a surprise to a lot of
particle physicists.
> Since E=mc^2 is not a true equality, then every equation and theory
> based upon using E=mc^2 as an equality is falsified. Einstein's
> house of cards falls because the foundation was false.
>
> It may turn out that useful numbers were squeezed out of Einstein's
> work, but it was just a fancy card trick. Its usefulness is limited
> to a very few special situations, which explains why SR and QM
> cannot predict the same outcomes.
Actually modern QM is based rather heavily on SR, or so I've been led
to believe in conversations with quantum physicists.
GR is out in the cold, of course -- never been matched up with QM.
> Further, with regard to SR, if we use the equation as it is given,
> then the energy of a photon should be zero, because it has zero mass
> (unless you try to fix the problem by inventing a new kind of
> "thought mass").
The photon has no _rest_ mass. It carries energy and can be said --
and is said, by some physicists -- to carry mass as well.
The "m" in mc^2 is the rest mass only when the body is at rest, and in
that case the "E" is the rest energy. If the body is moving the
equation is actually
E = gamma*m0*c^2
where I've used "m0" for rest mass.
The equation reads "E=mc^2" only if you use "m" to mean "relativistic
mass" (which is frowned on by most modern physicists). Kinetic energy
is then
E_k = (m - m0)c^2
AFAIK Einstein used "m" to mean "relativistic mass" but I'd have to
check the papers to be sure.
> Another big problem with the equivalence of mass and energy is that
> one is said to convert to the other in the case of nuclear mass
> deficit. The missing mass is said to have been converted to energy.
> But the equation shows that as mass decreases, the energy should
> also decrease. It is impossible that the same equation that equates
> mass and energy could predict that mass could be converted into
> energy, or that energy could be converted into mass. You can't have
> it both ways.
You don't seem to be making sense here. After a nuclear event which
gives off energy, the sum of the rest masses of the remaining nuclei
is smaller, the mass-equivalent went off as gamma rays or appeared as
kinetic energy. Where's the alleged disconnect?
The mass of an iron nucleus is less than the sum of the masses of the
nucleons, if we use hydrogen and helium for our "standard" to figure
out what nucleons weigh. Fusion releases energy, and the "ash" which
is left behind has less mass. Makes sense to me.
When you convert a lot of hydrogen to iron all at once, there's a
whalloping big bang.
> Now I have just presented you with rock solid fatal flaws in
> Einstein's mass/energy equivalence theory. There was no equation to
> begin with, and even when the so-called E=mc^2 equation is used to
> explain mass deficit, it predicts the opposite of what we are told.
Not as far as I can see -- you asserted it does, but your assertion is
senseless, as far as I can see.
> No amount of logic in the later applications of Special Relativity
> can fix the fact that the foundation is non-existent.
>
> Now either you will completely ignore what I have said and start
> spewing all kinds of "evidence" in favor of SR, or you will do
> something that few others do and admit that I'm right. I suspect
> you will do the former.
I'll actually say I don't understand what you're claiming with regard
to e=mc^2 being unable to predict an energy release when a nuclear
reaction takes place which leaves the aggregate remaining nuclei
"lighter" than the starting nuclei. At least I think that was your point.
Perhaps you should exhibit some arithmetic to explain your point more
clearly.
> And if you choose to believe in SR, then the discussion has degraded
> from one of science to one of religion and I will not violate your
> right to freedom of religion.
That's how the cranks always end it -- SR is your religion, you must
be just taking it all on faith because nobody could understand it.
