Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:44:33 +0000, rhertz wrote:

SOME CORRECTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS POST:
>
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:36:16 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
<snip>
>

From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932):
>
>
Lithium7 amu 7.0104
Hydrogen amu 1.0072
        8.0176
>
Helium amu 4.0011
Helium amu 4.0011
        8.0022
>

>
Difference  Δamu = 0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 MeV ± 2.8 MeV. To this, it
has to be added an extra energy of 2.7 MeV
>
Δamu varies between 0.0124 amu and 0.0187 amu.
>
The total change in energy ΔE varies between 14.3 MeV and 19.8 MeV.
>
>
It corresponds to equations:
>
ΔE = 2/3 Δmc²  for 14.3 MeV
>
ΔE = 7/5 Δmc²  for 19.8 MeV
>
Authors claimed that momentum was accounted and conserved.
>
>
>
These values are written, after hundred of experiments, following the
relationship:
>
7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy
>
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133
>
This corresponds to the equation:
>
Considering that momentum is conserved and the energy of the proton is
0.6 MeV, the final values are closer to Hassenohrl than to Einstein.
>
>
Hardly an experimental verification of ΔE = Δmc², as relativists have
claimed as this being the first experimental proof of such equation.

Modern measurements are much more accurate. For example,
https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a
The full paper is also available online.
Many more measurements are consistent with E=mc^2, even if the
measurements are not from experiments specifically designed to
test the prediction. For instance, electron-positron annihilation
is routinely observed to result in 0.511 MeV gamma rays.
Do you honestly believe that some sort of conspiracy exists to
suppress measurements inconsistent with relativistic predictions?