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

On 12/02/2024 10:07 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

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?

One imagines not, necessarily, since for example that
having "dark energy and dark matter" has long ago
falsified theories without such non-scientific non-explanations.
In "Electron Physics", O.W. Richardson decribes that the "electron's"
"relativistic mass" as it may be as almost entirely relativistic
in explanation, vis-a-vis its "mass", per se, while for example
long since Lienard-Wiechert's original experiments or this was
about a century ago, these days it's "electron-holes" which sort
of only represent a bit of back-and-forth what propagates, current.
How about the 1995 if not the 2024 "atomic weight" values?
Of course it's well known that NIST CODATA Particle Data Group
releases new values for constants every few years.
"Modern measurements" _decrease_.
Of course everybody knows that the usual e=mc^2 is only
derived from K.E. Taylor series first term, the rest
infinitely-many truncated (not even having matching
units), and that SR's arrival at e = mc^2 is circular.
Then there's also "Einstein's second mass-energy equivalency
derivation", yet it's sort of, formally un-linear.
Anyways if you leave out "dark matter" then "relativity"
or the "classical in the limit, Newtonian", in the limit
it attains to is long ago falsified.
Then, about things like electron self-energy and various
quite a few things about the stack of derivations and
what the "linearisations" have made so great and lost,
have that it's the mathematics that needs more than
a "partial" account.
Anyways the actual laws of mechanics even indeed
have things to fix and repair since before Galileo.