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

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/08/2024 12:35 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 5:42:07 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 21:35:57 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

I'm sorry, but this is not the right answer,

>
So what are you saying, then? Are you saying that, because of the
definition of E=mc^2, it is totally required that 1 gram of electrons
annihilating 1 gram of positrons completely to electromagnetic
radiation must NECESSICARILY yield the same amount of energy as 1 gram
of protons annihilating 1 gram of antiprotons completely to electro-
magnetic radiation? That the equality of these two values is a matter
of definition, not something to be established by experiment?
>
Are you saying that because the current definition of c is
299,792,458 meters per second regardless of wavelength, that questions
as to whether gamma rays travel faster than visible light rays are
totally nonsensical?

>
In fewer words:
>
No experiment can measure a difference between the amount of energy
released by the complete annihilation of 1 g of (electrons + positrons)
versus the complete annihilation of 1 g of (protons + antiprotons).
True or false?

>
False, see previous.
>

No experiment can measure a difference between the speed of visible
light photons versus the speed of gamma rays. True or false?

>
False, already answered several postings back.
A class of experiments relevant to this question
are experiments that set an upper limit on the photon mass,
(the most plausible mechanism for such an effect)
>
Why for heavens sake would you even get such an idea?
>
Jan
>
>

 
O.W. Richardson's "The Electron Theory of Matter" has
really a great account of various considerations of
what "c" is with regards to electromagnetic radiation
as opposed to the optical range of not-electromagnetic
radiation and as with regards to wavelength versus
wave velocity.
 
Sort of like "photons" are overloaded and diluted these
days, so are waves, and so is "c".
 
The wave model is great and all and the energy equivalency
is great and all, yet it's overloaded and diluted (i.e.,
tenuous and weak).
 
The popular public deserves quite an apology from the
too-simple accounts that have arrived at having nothing
at all to say and no way to say it about the wider milieu
and the real-er parts of the theory.
 
So, for a pretty great example when these differences
were not just ignored and furthermore pasted over,
wall-papered as it were, "The Electron Theory of Matter"
is a bit antique yet it's perfectly cool and furthermore
greatly expands a usual discourse on radiation that travels
through space, _and_, the space-contraction (FitzGeraldian).

Not at hand, but this 1914! book, while perhaps a classic
is no doubt completely obsolete.
From the available reviews it would seem
that it is mostly a rehash of Lorentz' 'Theory of Electons',

Jan