Ives Vs. Einstein: E = Mc^2 Belongs To Poincarè, Not Einstein.

[rhertz]

This topic is the simplest part of a long history of the fight between Ives and Einstein, which spanned for 16 years (1937-1953), and ended with the death of H. Ives in that year. Ives was the most important figure that criticized Einstein's 1905 relativity in the US.

 

Herbert Ives was a top scientist at AT&T Bell Labs for about three decades, where he retired in 1947 after being the Director of Electro-Optical Research Division. During his career, Ives was prolific inventing techniques and developing systems in fax, TV, videotelephony, color photography, color movies, 3D photography, etc., and also conducted basic research in the field of electro-optics. He was awarded with several prizes, granted several patents, wrote many scientific papers and was president of the Optical Society of America (OSA), where he kept publishing papers until shortly before his death.

Edited June 19, 2019 by rhertz

[exchemist]

This topic is the simplest part of a long history of the fight between Ives and Einstein, which spanned for 16 years (1937-1953), and ended with the death of H. Ives in that year. Ives was the most important figure that criticized Einstein's 1905 relativity in the US.

 

Herbert Ives was a top scientist at AT&T Bell Labs for about three decades, where he retired in 1947 after being the Director of Electro-Optical Research Division. During his career, Ives was prolific inventing techniques and developing systems in fax, TV, videotelephony, color photography, color movies, 3D photography, etc., and also conducted basic research in the field of electro-optics. He was awarded with several prizes, granted several patents, wrote many scientific papers and was president of the Optical Society of America (OSA), where he kept publishing papers until shortly before his death.

 

He was a supporter of the absolute relativity (Lorentz-Poincarè) and believed that Einstein's relative relativity was non-sensical and that generated a distorted vision of reality, particularly with the manipulation of time in such theory.

 

He also proved that Einstein's relativity was fallacious and that Einstein's published papers were falsified, in particular the one which Einstein developed an approximation to E=mc², which he proved at this publication:

 

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIvesDerivation.pdf

 

Derivation of Mass-Energy Relation

H. Ivess, 1952

Journal of the Optical Society of America

 

At this paper, one of his last, he credited Poincarè as the only developer of such relation by 1900, mentioned

the theory of F. Hasenohrl, published in 1904 and 1905 (E = 4/3 mc²) and discredited Einstein's 1905 approximation

as being fallacious because Einstein introduced (without being written) the expression that he wanted to prove by

means of a hidden mathematical trick. This is something that Planck, in 1907, criticized to Einstein for having a

circular reference (using what he wanted to prove, but hiding it) or a "petitio principii" fallacy.

 

After his death, his legacy was destroyed into bits by einstenians, and his scientific work was minimized. Critics were

sent to OSA for allowing Ives's publications, and his reputation (post-mortem) was diminished by labeling him as a "cranck".

 

Ives was a supporter of Lorentz-Poincarè relativity, which renders different results in experiments compared to Einstein's one.

As he believed in the existence of the ether, it's ironic that NOW this concept is esential (under a different form, Dark Matter)

to sustain the vigency of the Lambda-CDM cosmological model (the "scientifically" accepted model for cosmology as of today),

where an unknown matter-fluid-ether? fills the space and provide more than 40% of the matter of the universe, while visible

matter contributes with less than 5% (the rest is filled with another "conjecture" known as Dark Energy).

 

The link that I provided allow to download the paper for free, as the OSA site is based on subscriptions for scientists.

 

The explanation about E=mc² belonging to Poincarè (and without approximations), developed by using Maxwell's momentum

of light is at the beggining of the paper.

 

The detailed analysis of Einstein`s 1905 paper, proving that he falsified the results, is at the end of the document.

 

Besides this particular topic, it would be interesting to analyze at this site which are the major differences between the

Lorentz-Poincarè relativity (based on the ether) and Einstein's relativity (no ether, flexible manipulation of relative time).

 

Comments appreciated.

Yes some of us know of Poincaré.

 

There was, as usual in science, a whole bunch of them who had pieces of the relativity jigsaw: Poincaré, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Michelson and Morley, and indeed Maxwell himself, a figure on a level with Newton, Faraday and Einstein.

 

Einstein's contribution was to put in the last piece and bring all the findings together with his insight about length and time being observer-dependent. It was much the same with Newton, too (Kepler, Hooke etc).

 

I'm not sure why you are so keen to rubbish Einstein, but I accept this is something you are determined, for your own reasons, to do.    

Edited June 7, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

Ours is a history of implementers, the discoverers are but footnotes.

[exchemist]

1) Proving E = mc² using Hydrogen.

 

Mass of 1 electron = 0.511 MeV/c² = 0.91.10^-30 Kg

 

Mass of 3 uud quarks (baryonic mass of 1 proton) = 9.1 MeV = 1.62.10^-29 Kg

 

Baryonic mass of 1 H atom = 9.6 MeV = 1.71.10^-29 Kg

 

Mass of 1 H atom =   960 GeV   = 1.67.10^-24 Kg

 

Energy/Baryonic mass = 100,000 (OK, pure energy)

 

2) Using baryonic matter:

 

Mass of 1 electron = 0.511 MeV/c² = 0.91.10^-30 Kg

 

Energy/Baryonic mass = 0.00 (Can't be reduced to energy. E = mc² fails)

 

Did I do something wrong?

Yes. Quite a lot.

 

For a start you cannot obtain free quarks, so the concept of the mass of a free quark is of limited value. (I gather it has some validity in certain scattering experiments). Unlike the electrostatic force, which falls off with distance, the quark binding force is thought to increase with distance, so the apparent mass of the quark would go up and up as it separates, without limit. Most of the mass in the proton is due to the motion of the quarks under the influence of this force. So you cannot just look up free quark "masses" and add them up to get the mass of the proton.  More here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html#c6

 

So you have to just use the observed mass of the proton and take it from there.  This is 1.67 x 10⁻²⁷ kg or 938Mev/c². 

 

Your second post on this topic, which I won't reply to separately, seems to skip over the observed phenomenon of mass defect. Before you continue making assertions that deny the relevance of energy/mass equivalence to atomic physics, I strongly suggest you address mass defect, if only to avoid the risk of looking a fool.  

[exchemist]

But, but you forgot to mention the irreducibility of a bunch of electrons, didn't you?

 

With electrons, E=mc² fails miserably, isn't it?

How do you think you calculate the energy released, when an electron and a positron annihilate? 

 

And I'm waiting for you to take me through your explanation of the mass defect without making any use of E=mc²

 

Do you know what the mass defect is, or do I need to explain it to you? 

Edited June 8, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

No matter is converted into energy in a nuclear reaction. The gluon is the carrier of the strong force. It's not matter but it has mass when it's holding the nucleus together. Some are  freed by a splitting of the nucleus and that is a bound energy to unbound energy conversion. No quarks, protons, neutrons, or electrons are converted into energy. Einstein defined both energy and matter as "mass" even though energy has no mass from the Higgs field and the photon is a massless particle and it's energy but when you add energy to a particle, you add mass but not matter. Clear? E=mc2 is an analog formula where energy to matter conversion is digital E=hf. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

1) Just come back. I'm always online in my notebook. I didn't read that you was waiting for an answer about mass defect.

    In the example 1) for an H atom, which I used at my post, there is not defect mass for a nucleon, isn't it?

    Anyway, I conceded that 99.99999% of the mass of an H atom is expressed as gluonic energy (it's represented by the 1:10^-5

    ratio between baryonic mass and energy that I wrote right there. I said that I considered E = mc² verified in such case.

 

    Regarding the dilemma of knowing or not, with Internet such a thing is not longer valid for a person with an average intelligence.

 

    Here you have a detailed explanation for Copper nucleus. I only can accept what is taught to me, and is not my field of expertise,

    for which I can't deny it (only accept it):

 

    https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/howtosolveit/Nuclear/nuclear_binding_energy.htm

 

2) Regarding positrons, you can't use anti-matter here.

    Just break the electron with matter, if you can. You know that such a thing is not possible.

 

    In this case, it would be valid to use anti-protons to desintegrate the nuclei, wait 13 minuts for free neutrons to decay

    and produce again a shower of anti-protons and positrons to anhinalate the residuals.

 

    The problem if how do you get so easily 1 gram of antimatter to anhinalate 1 gram of matter completely.

 

     2 grams would render 2x20 KiloTons of energy (twice Nagasaki bomb, isn't it?).

 

     So, I stick with the Standard Model for Elementary Particles, where Baryons are irreducible (and that include quarks).

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

You know that you have much more knowledge on this matter, as a physical chemist (It's OK to say so?. I'm not familiar

with the composite degree).

 

So, forbidding the use of anti-matter (which can't be produced in quantity), my stance with electrons is valid for me.

Don't make me to use 1 Kilogram of electrons, or I'll go around collecting them in a box.

 

Meanwhile, try to collect 1 Kilogram with positrons. Chances are that I'll finish much more earlier than you.

 

Finally: Is it clear that this is a simple debate, not a war of words?

This is not making a huge amount of sense to me. The Higgs field has nothing to do with this discussion.  

 

Your challenge is that E=mc² is either wrong or useless when it comes to nuclear physics, specifically electrons, and I am pointing out it is how you calculate the energy released when two non-composite sub-atomic particles, such as the electron and its anti-particle, annihilate. You cannot tell me that is inappropriate:  It is a perfectly normal part of nuclear physics.

 

Now, what about the mass defect? How do you account for that without E=mc²?

Edited June 8, 2019 by exchemist

[exchemist]

Higgs field's thing is not for you, I was answering to ralfcis.

 

We are mixing topics here, and it's wrong. The original topic and my OP was about WHO developed E=mc², not its validity.

 

The topic was derailed by my post #6, where I introduced the issue of dis-information along history, since 1939 and the A bomb.

 

Because of that, I opened a second thread on this particular subject:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35917-history-of-physics-a-bomb-without-einstein-emc2/

 

Now, I refresh some points of the post #4, about the cult around relativity and the derivation of E = mc².

 

 

But still, the development of the cult persisted around him and many of his sub-theories:

 

1) E=mc² is written in stone. I understand WHY (it simplifies posterior expressions at physics and chemistry). It's easier to talk about MeV.

2) Time dilation is written in stone. I barely understand why, but it's useful to explain things that CAN'T find a logical explanation.

3) Length contraction and mass increase are abandoned concepts. Even Einstein himself, in his last days, repudiated the second concept.

    Relativistic momentum is the replacement for mass increase, while length contraction is something about you DON'T TALK anymore.

4) Space-time: Not an Einstein's conception (Minkowski), but embraced by him and his mate Grossman as one of the three pillars of GTR.

5) 3D space bending: This violation of rationality is the core of the GTR and its consequences (space dilation) is foundational for the

     cosmological model Lambda-CDM, supported by most of the cosmologists.

6) Light speed constancy and it's independence from the motion of its sources. I have no words for this. Every proof against it is supressed.

 

So, exchemist, there you have it. These are the main reasons by which I find amusing to poke Einstein's original theories.

I can't do the same with the ten of thousands of scientist that followed him, and supported his ideas. Too much work.

 

Read again my point 1). I'm accepting that expressing mass in MeV is very compact and convenient at nuclear physics, OK?

 

Regarding that I challenged E=mc² to be either wrong or useless when becoming to nuclear physics, this is something that you

made up by yourself.

 

What I'm saying is that E=mc² doesn't explain the energy liberated in nuclear fission, and that it is an historical falsification.

 

I don't care about mass defect. I understand that the stablishe values don't match and that such a concept has to be developed

in order to assign differences when counting mass-energy to some kind of energy, which is not gluonic.

 

Focus on what I'm talking about at the center of this complex issue: I'm telling you that the early explanation of the 200 MeV that

were liberated at the fission of U-235 and expressed in the article of Lise Meitzner from January 1939 is utter crap, because she

didn't know details of what Otto Hahn did at the lab, when she was in another country!

 

I also question that such amount (200 MeV) has been kept as valid for 80 years.

 

So, you are the one who own me an explanation: Tell me HOW did she knew about those 200 MeV; also tell me which was the

popular explanation about HOW those 200 MeV were composed (KE, gamma rays, etc,) and, finally, tell me if TODAY this

figure is still substained in nuclear physics and what modern science says about its decomposition in different types of energy.

But you'll have to be coherent enough to sustain those 200 MeV along 80 years of history, as if Lise was some kind of ET life

form, capable of having "remote vision" and telepathy, besides being the greatest scientist of the XX century for the exact

prediction of such amount of energy at a distance and without being part of the experiments by which Hahn won the Nobel.

 

The chain reaction of 200MeV plus three neutrons per fission of U-235 atom is, given a critical mass, the explanation for the

A bomb destructive power: N x 200MeV, where N is the amount of U-235 atoms involved.

 

If this is true, then a relativist thinking of a train moving at constant "v" and a platform with a point-like mass that emitted two

beam lights of L/2 energy each in 1905 (with all that he DIDN'T know) is the the REAL FATHER OF THE ATOMIC BOMB.

 

This is the point under discussion here, not nuclear binding energies that STILL REMAIN TO BE EXPLAINED (gluons, etc.).

 

If you prove that 200 MeV per U-235 atoms were calculated using E=mc² by a person who was almost a peasant by using

1945 standards of knowledge, then Einstein is NOT ONLY the greatest genius of the whole history of mankind but, probably,

the luckiest person at the entire Universe because he foresaw 40 years of development when was writing his WRONG paper.

 

And that was wrong is widely known, as he derived an approximation and never was able to develop the whole formulae for

the complete range of velocities between 0 and "c".

 

Now, if you answer this post, please refer only to this subject: 200 MeV, U-235 fission, E=mc² and the uranium A-Bomb.

 

Nothing else is under discussion for me at this thread, for now.

 

I repeat: I don't question the use of m = E/c² in nuclear physics, using eV. It's very handy, and I use it myself for calculations,

as it much easier than use 36.44548.10^-28 Kg or similar units.

On the contrary, E=mc² does explain, exactly, the energy liberated in nuclear fission, at least insofar as how it is predicted from the masses of the nuclei involved, via the binding energy curve. See also other thread, where I have explained how you do this. 

 

There is an explanation of your 200MeV figure in the passage below which I have copied from this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission  on nuclear fission:-

 

QUOTE

Typical fission events release about two hundred million eV (200 MeV) of energy, the equivalent of roughly >2 trillion Kelvin, for each fission event. The exact isotope which is fissioned, and whether or not it is fissionable or fissile, has only a small impact on the amount of energy released. This can be easily seen by examining the curve of binding energy (image below), and noting that the average binding energy of the actinide nuclides beginning with uranium is around 7.6 MeV per nucleon. Looking further left on the curve of binding energy, where the fission products cluster, it is easily observed that the binding energy of the fission products tends to center around 8.5 MeV per nucleon. Thus, in any fission event of an isotope in the actinide's range of mass, roughly 0.9 MeV is released per nucleon of the starting element.

UNQUOTE

 

 

[ralfcis]

My point is Einstein made all the wrong assumptions and still managed to stumble upon coincidentally right answers. E=mc2 is an analog formula derived from what happens if momentum is applied to a particle but the particle doesn't move. Where does all that kinetic energy go? He figured it was stored as mass in the form of potential energy. No actual matter was created because how could that potential energy be converted into half an electron or a quater proton lump. But Einstein was so lucky that his analog formula applied to gluons as particles. There is a discrete amount of energy released even though there is nothing in his formula that prevents fractions of gluons to "convert" into non-discrete packets of energy. This is the point of this thread, not that E=mc2 happens to predict the conversion of weighable energy particles but also predicts, from its first derivation, non-discrete amounts of energy convertible from any amount of "mass" and that prediction is a total bust. I'm curious why E=mc2 would have anything to do with nuclear reactions.  Am I speaking Cinese here? You went to Oxford? Jesus, I have indeed wasted my life.

Edited June 9, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

 Yes gamma radiation spontaneously creating positron/electron pairs is the reverse. LHC collisions aren't about smashing particles to see what comes out, it's about making an energy soup that cools down into stuff. I'd have to google for other examples.

[exchemist]

exchemist: even when I've told you that I don't know nuclear physics, don't be fooled by my sincerity. It only means that I didn't study nuclear physics. I don't even LIKE IT, because for me it's FULL of S**T (one of the reasons by which I dropped out a career as a physicist to study engineering, after wasting 1.5 years of my life). When I say that I know something, it's because I master the field. If not, I'll not have "strong positions" to defend. Your explanation about nuclear reactions (which I remarked in blue) are less than satisfactory (Wikipedia). As I've told you, and I made the calculations, E=mc² IS NOT related to A-Bomb nuclear fission.

 

I consider any publication (half of them fall into this category) which concedes E=mc² with U-235 A-bomb are falsifications of science and history. And I don't need to be a nuclear engineer and work in a 500 mn$ laboratory to prove it, as the information around is more than significant. It's a work of einstenians.

 

The other half, the normal people, negates that E=mc² is related in any way to nuclear fission.

 

ralfcis: I like what you wrote and, please, read and comment my post about how the special relativity could have been developed even 150 years, because it's un-scientific grounds are independant of modern knowledge which, by the way, was very limited when Einsteins copied and morphed under a shining candle.

 

I see a lot of comments about E = mc² (articles, videos, books, posts, etc.) with alleged proofs (easy to falsify, as it was to propose Dark Matter). What I don't see very often (not to say never) is  m = E/c²and experimental proofs about it.

 

When is it going to happen in the opposite way? When is science going to produce matter from energy, so we can certify the duality mass-energy convincingly?

 

As far as I know, it seems that E=mc² is the winner in popularity, respect with m = E/c². Is there a problem with the reversibility?

 

Because if the equation works only in one way, THEN it's not an equation (and there is NOT a theory behind).

 

It should be replaced with an EXPRESSION, like   E -> mc², instead of polluting and poisoning science around (just a one-way relationship).

 

I think that Gene Roddenberry was a dreamer, but his dream of a burger synthesizer will never became a reality.

 

What do you think about this?

I found a nice link here, giving the binding energy per nucleon for every isotope of every element: https://periodictable.com/Isotopes/036.92/index.html

 

This enables one to calculate the energy release from any given nuclear reaction. Cool. 

 

The binding energy data will have been compiled by measuring the mass of each nucleus and then applying E=mc². :)

[ralfcis]

Why do I continually peek at what Xchemist has to say. He continually misses any point of any discussion but will attach a smiley face as validation of his position on any matter. If Einstein had come up with a great recipe for barbequing meat but for some reason it also applied to making a workable fusion reactor, Einstein's recipe would have obviously been hailed as the solution to the energy crisis and most see nothing wrong with that conclusion.

 

It's interesting about what rhertz said about the herd mentality. It's more like a mental illness of ego. People want to hide the fact they know nothing by latching on to whatever crazy belief the herd is spouting. It seems the crazier the belief, the better because it allows them to hide behind unquestionable counter-intuitiveness. I noticed Victor posts the same cartoons of the universe expanding and the spacetime rubber sheet to prove dark energy is behind every scientific mystery and the answer to any topic on these forums. 006 uses complex equations in the same way as smoke bombs all to appear knowledgeable. The pursuit of truth is no longer part of science, it's now the pursuit of being able to chant dogma.

[exchemist]

XX century information manipulation, due mainly to MSM, which didn't have such a huge power in earlier times.

 

Some examples of the new tool to gain complete power to stablish any desired agenda (worldwide):

 

1) CIA Director William Casey (February 1981), allegedly said:

 

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

 

2) Evelyn Leopold, HuffPost Contributor and Veteran UN correspondent:

 

"My mother, a German refugee, used to say, derisively quoting Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, who quoted

  his boss: The Bigger the Lie the More People Believe It"

 

3) The industry of Fake News: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

 

Big lie. A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique.

 

Fake news is written and published usually with the intent to mislead in order to damage

an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically, often using sensationalist,

dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership.

 

Similarly, clickbait stories and headlines earn advertising revenue from this activity.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now, searching web news starting exactly with "Einstein proved right" or "Einstein proven right" give about

11,500 exact matches at Google. The subject can vary depending on the field: Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology.

 

It's an interesting exercize. Try this:

 

- "e=mc2" gives 3,450,000 results

- "e=mc^2" gives 513,000 results

- "e=mc2 proven right" gives 440,000+ results

 

- "einstein is right" gives 108,000 results

- "einstein is wrong" gives 75,200 results, but most of the times preceded by "why never", "what if" or similar.

 

Isn't it marvelous? The way it works with Google?

 

I'm going to prepare a thread disecting the original paper with E=mc2, proving that it's a falsification.

It can take me a while, as I want to make it by using images and Einstein's 1905 original (simple) equations.

 

The trick is to show that Einstein, at his very simple paper, purposedly omitted any mention to the original mass m₀,

and that's the key factor of deception. By using it correctly within his paper, no justification for mass decrement exist.

You are embarking on a fool's errand. I've shown you plainly how E=mc² is successful in accounting for the energy release in nuclear reactions and explaining why we get either nuclear fission or fusion between elements, depending on which side of the mass defect/binding energy curve they sit. We could equally well look up energy release from particle/anti-particle annihilation, which would show exactly the same. The formula is used for all these purposes  routinely at CERN and elsewhere.

 

So there's no room for any doubt as to its utility. The issues of how it originally arose and who should get the recognition for it are quite another thing. While interesting in their own way, they have no bearing on the fact that the formula is highly successful and of central importance to nuclear physics. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by exchemist

[exchemist]

OK. I'm saying that Einstein NEVER proved that E = mc2 or whatever you want to write it. He tried and tried, but always failed (6 or 7 times).

Since Planck, by 1906, EVERY scientist with an stature has publicly stated that Einstein never proved it, and that his mathematical derivation

is WRONG, FALLACIOUS and viciated by circular references, improper use of mathematical identities, etc.

 

Read and criticize at will my next OP about the "forensic analysis" of his 1905 sequel of relativity.

 

Once I finish it, if I find a good reason, I'll show you links to documents of the highest value, which handle the issue of E=mc² being unrelated

to the A-Bomb and Nuclear Power.

 

I didn't check every university around the globe. I'd like to know which bibliography is suggested at each course.

 

Don't worry for me to be perceived as an obnoxious fool. This is a hobby for me, in history of science. No more, no less.

 

I read uncountable documents about what I say. The problem is that I didn't save them (I didn't care to do so, also).

 

This is not a "Quijote" crusade. It's a challenge. The one who provides proofs that can't be refuted can keep its beliefs.

 

No harm done to anyone or anything here. Plus, it's an interesting intellectual debate with a MAJOR ISSUE.

I'm fine with all that. In fact I am already aware that the way Einstein came up with the formula was not a strict or general derivation, for all energy and and mass. As I understand it, it was really a kind of conjecture on his part to suggest it might apply to everything. He even suggested ways in which his conjecture might be tested, by reference to nuclear reactions, if my memory serves. Perhaps you will be able to fill me in on the details. 

 

However subsequent experience has shown his conjecture was right. So, what I will challenge is the suggestion that E=mc² is somehow wrong or inapplicable in certain cases. Some of your posts have suggested that, though you do not seem to have been consistent about it. But there is no evidence of circumstances in which it (or, rather, the longer form including the momentum term) doesn't apply, to my knowledge.

 

And please spare us the conspiracy theories: you have rambled about disinformation, the physics being "classified", "MSM" - and even at one point dragged in some anecdote about clairvoyance.  This is hogwash. It is perfectly normal, uncontroversial science, like anything else. I know you have a bee in your bonnet about Einstein being built up into a bigger figure than you think he was, and that's fine, it's always interesting to hear a revisionist view of history from time to time. But there is no conspiracy.     

Edited June 10, 2019 by exchemist