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

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:54:42 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
<snip>

We know that E = mc² to about the 10^-7 level.
>
If the equation is found to be off at some level of significance,
that would be an extremely important result, not the end of science.
>

Worse than proving that the speed of light in vacuum, across large
distance, IS NOT A CONSTANT.

>
Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle
test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that
it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at
some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere:
>
| "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are
| approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a
| violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a
| violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this
| range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from
| other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts
| to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive
| detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost
| towards unification."

These are the values of the 1932 experiment with NIST 2024 data:
Lithium7 amu   7.0160034366
Hydrogen amu   1.00782503223
          8.02382846883
Helium amu   4.00260325413
Helium amu   4.00260325413
          8.00520650826
Difference (amu)  0.01862196057
Difference (eV) 17.3462464706347E+06
Difference (J)   2.7791750783E-12
Is this the level of precision that you claim to exist with E = mc²?
Check this out:
HISTORY OF THE RECOMMENDED ATOMIC-WEIGHT VALUES FROM 1882 TO 1997:
A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES FROM CURRENT VALUES TO THE ESTIMATED
UNCERTAINTIES OF EARLIER VALUES
https://www.ciaaw.org/hydrogen.htm
For Hydrogen, they don't go further than 5 decimals. Not to mention Li7,
which seems to pose some problems since ever, even with the best mass
spectrometry instrumentation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
Atomic mass units (AMU) are a unit of mass used to measure atomic
masses, while atomic weight is the average weight of an element's
isotopes:
Atomic mass units: A unit of mass used to measure atomic masses. One AMU
is equal to 1/12 the mass of a carbon-12 atom in a grounded state. AMU
is also known as a Dalton.
Atomic weight: The average weight of an element's isotopes, taking into
account their relative abundances. Atomic weight is measured in AMU.
---------------------------------------------------------------
So, how can NIST publish up to 10 decimal digits, if those who ACTUALLY
measure atomic weight and amu of elements uses 5 decimal digits?
These guys, from CIAAW, recollect and distribute data. NIST uses it.
https://www.ciaaw.org/members.htm
CIAAW is part of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC), which publishes revised tables of RECOMMENDED atomic-weight
values.
Collision, collusion. Which is the difference?