Origin and escalation of mass-energy equation E=mc2

Ajay
Sharma
Community Science Centre. DOE. Post Box 107 Shimla 171001 HP
INDIA
Email ,

PACS : 03.30.+p, 01.70.+w, 01.65.+g, 01.55.+b

Einstein's 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/




Abstract

E=mc2 existed before Einstein's derivation in Sep. 1905.
Isaac Newton, S. Tolver Preston, Poincaré , De Pretto and F.
Hasenöhrl are the philosophers and physicists who have given idea of
E =mc2. Einstein derived existing E =mc2 starting with
result of relativistic variation of light energy, but finally obtained
L =mc2 under applying classical conditions (vc). After
Einstein, Max Plank also derived the same independently. Max Born has
expressed surprise over non-inclusion of previous references by
Einstein in the derivation of E=mc2.




1.0 Contributors of equation E
=mc2

Before Einstein, among other physicists, Isaac Newton [1], English S.
T. Preston [2] in 1875, French Poincaré [3,4] in 1900, Italian De
Pretto [5] in 1903, German F. Hasenöhrl [6,7] made significant
contributions in speculations and derivations of E =mc2 .
After Einstein Planck [8] has also derived E =mc2 independently. J J
Thomson in 1888 is also believed to have anticipated E= mc2
from Maxwell's equations.
(i) Issac Newton (1642-1727)
The Great Sir Isaac Newton [1] has quoted "Gross bodies and light are
convertible into one another...", 1704). In 1704 Newton wrote the book
"Optiks". Newton also put forth Corpuscular Theory of Light
(ii) S. Tolver Preston
S. Tolver Preston [2], who made predictions which are based
essentially upon E =mc2. Preston in his book Physics of the
Ether proposed in 1875 that vast amount of energy can be produced from
matter. Preston determined that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton
object up to a height of 1.9 miles. This deduction yields the essence
of equation E = mc2.
(iii) Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912)
Poincaré in 1900 [3,4] put forth an expression for what he called the
"momentum of radiation" M_R. It is M_R = S/c2, where S represents
the flux of radiation and c is the usual velocity of light.
Poincaré applied the calculation in a recoil process and reached at
the conclusion in the form mv = (E/c2)c. From the viewpoint of unit
analysis, E/c2 takes on the role of a "mass" number associated with
radiation. It yields E =mc2.

(vi) Olinto De Pretto
An Italian Industrialist Olinto De Pretto [5] suggested E
=mc2, in concrete way. Firstly this article was published on
June 16, 1903. Second time on February 27, 1904 the same was published
in the Atti of the Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze. Thus De Pretto
published E =mc2 about one and half year before. In 1921 De
Pretto was shot dead by a woman over a business dispute. When De
Pretto was killed he was trying to publish the complete book of his
scientific ideas. This paper is in Italian; hence it remained away
from accessibility of wider scientific community. However Einstein was
affluent in Italian language also.
(v) F. Hasenöhrl
In 1904 F. Hasenöhrl [6,7 ], gave first derived expression for
mass-energy conversion. He investigated a system composed of a hollow
enclosure filled with "heat" radiations and wanted to determine the
effect of pressure due to radiations. His calculations lead him to
conclude that
"to the mechanical mass of our system must be added an apparent mass
which is given by
m = (8/3)E/c2"
where E is the energy of the radiation. Further in later paper he
maintained that improve result for mass exchanged is
m = (4/3)E/ c2,"
Ebenezer Cunningham [9] in 1914 in his book The Principles of
Relativity showed that F. Hasenöhrl, has made a slight error in his
calculations. F. Hasenöhrl, did not take characteristics of the shell
properly. If errors are removed then
m (mass exchanged) = E/c2
or E = (mass exchanged) c2
This is the same result as quoted by Einstein. It implies that E=mc2
is contained in F. Hasenöhrl's, analysis. Moreover Hasenöhrl's work
was published in the same journal in which Einstein's method to derive
E =mc2was published one year later.
(vi) Albert Einstein
In 1905, Einstein [10] derived L = mc2, and then speculated
from here E =mc2, analogously without actual proof. Einstein
derived already existing E =mc2, strangely did not acknowledge
his predecessors like de Pretto and Hasenöhrl. Both have suggested E
=mc2 just one and half year before Einstein's derivation.
However two years after i.e. 1907 when Max Plank [8] derived E
=mc2 independently, Planck acknowledged derivation of
Einstein. Planck even pointed out the conceptual and mathematical
limitations of Einstein's method of derivation. In derivation
Einstein used result of relativistic variation of light energy

l* = l [1- cos] / (2)
where l is light energy of plane wave of light in co-ordinate
system (x,y,z)., which is at rest. The ray direction i.e. wave normal
makes angle  with the x-axis of the system (x,y,z). This light
energy as measured in system (X,Y,Z), which is in uniform translation
w.r.t. (x,y,z) along x-axis with velocity v is l*. But while deriving
final result i.e. L =mc2 Einstein interpreted the equation
under classical conditions (vc) as below.
(a) Although Einstein started to derive L =mc2 using
relativistic variation of light energy as in Eq.(2), yet he derived
final results under classical condition. Einstein interpreted the
results using Binomial Theorem which is applicable if vc.

(b) Einstein never considered the any relativistic increase in mass
of body as given by
mmotion = mrest/(1-v2/c2)1/2
This equation was first justified by Kaufman [11] in 1900.
Further Einstein speculated E =mc2 for all energies from
L=mc2 without justifying that eq.(2) i.e. holds good for
sound, heat, chemical , electrical energy etc. If eq.(2) holds good
for sound and heat energies, then L =mc2 will be analogously
transformed as
Sound energy = mc2 (3)
or Every type of energy = mc2 (4)
The results from eq.(3) are exciting as
sound energy can be converted in mass. Einstein did not justify that
how eq. (2) holds good quantitatively for heat energy, sound energy
etc, but regarded it as is true for all. In nuclear Physics E
=mc2 is used as standard and all data is consistent with this.
Also Einstein derived rest mass energy (Eo= mrestc2 ) from
relativistic form of kinetic energy [1]
Total Kinetic Energy = mmotion c2 = KE +moc2
as Eo= mrestc2
(vii) Max Planck
In 1907, Planck [8] made an in-depth investigation of the energy
"confined" within a body, but he did not use Einstein approach at all.
Plank presented his findings in
Planck derived an expression
m-M= E/c2
and interpreted that
" The inertia mass of body is altered by absorption or emission of
heat energy. The increments of mass of body are equal to heat energy
divided by square of speed of light"
Then in a footnote at page 566 Planck writes, "Einstein has already
drawn essentially the same conclusions". Planck maintained Einstein
derivation as approximation.
(ix) Recent developments.
In 1907 Planck [8] even pointed out the conceptual and mathematical
limitations of Einstein's derivation. In 1952, H E Ives [12] stressed
that Einstein's derivation of the formula E = mc2 is fatally
flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed.
Sharma [13] in 2003 extended E = mc2 to E
=Ac2m , where A is conversion co-efficient and can be equal,
less or more than one, depending upon inherent characteristics of
conversions process in nature. The value of A is consistent with
concept of proportionality factor existing since centuries. Energy
emitted in celestial events Gamma Ray Bursts (most energetic events
after Big Bang) is 1045 Joule/s. It can be explained with value of A
equal to 2.571018. Similar is the case of Quasars. Like wise
kinetic energy of the fission Fragments of U235 or Pu239 is found
20-60 MeV less than Q-value ( 200MeV), Bakhoum [14] The similar
deviations in experimental results are also quoted by Hambsch [15],
Thiereus [16] etc. It can be explained with value of A less than
one. Till date E =mc2 is not confirmed in chemical reaction
due to technical reasons, but regarded as true.
Also a particle Ds (2317) discovered at
SLAC [17] has been found to have mass lower than current estimates
based upon E =mc2. Incidentally, there are proposals for both
theoretical and experimental variations (increase or decrease) in
value of c [18-19]; as fine structure constant ( = e2/ c) is
reported to be increasing over cosmological timescales, implying
slowing down of speed of light, c. The proposals for variations of
speed of light definitely affect status of E =mc2, indirectly.
2.0 Einstein and priority of
E =mc2
Einstein did not mention Hasenöhrl's work (who gave first derived
expression for mass-energy equation) in any of his paper on this
subject from 1900 - 1909. However Hasenöhrl has published in 1904 the
paper in the same very journal in which Einstein later published his
derivation of E =mc2 in 1905.
Einstein [20] applied his E =mc2 derivation in
1906. In this paper he gave reference of Poincaré' s work [3, 4].
Einstein gave credit to Poincaré for mass energy equivalence at least
for electromagnetic radiations.
But, even with Planck's complete derivation
and this Poincaré acknowledgement, Einstein later refused to accept
any other priority for this notion. Stark [21] stated that Planck gave
first derivation of E =mc2, in fact Planck and Stark were
convinced that Einstein derivation of E =mc2 is inconsistent.
Then Einstein [22] wrote Stark on 17 Feb 1908, "I was rather disturbed
that you do not acknowledge my priority with regard to the connection
between inertial mass and energy." Max Born [23], co-originator of
Quantum Mechanics stated, "The striking point is that it contains not
a single reference to previous literature".
Einstein [24] in 1907 spelled out his views on
plagiarism: "It appears to me that it is the nature of the business
that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors.
Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from
a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic
survey of the literature..."
Here Einstein can be contradicted on two
two counts. He has commented that
I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the
literature..."
The work of De Pretto in 1903-1904 and that of F. Hasenöhrl in
1903-1904 cannot be called pedantic (obscure, sophistic,
hair-splitting etc ). J L Baird is credited with discovery of
television.
The definition of "to plagiarise"
from an unimpeachable source, Webster's New International Dictionary
of the English Language[25] "To steal or purloin and pass off as one's
own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to
use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of
another".
Undoubtedly Einstein's predecessors who contributed in concrete way
in understanding or origin of E =mc2 deserve credit of
discovery as should be mentioned in literature.

Acknowledgements
Author is highly indebted to Prof. E.G. Bakhoum many others for
critical discussions.
References

1 Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, p. CVX
2 Preston, S. T. Physics of the Ether, E. & F. N. Spon, London,
(1875).
3 Poincaré, J H, Arch. neerland. sci., 2, 5,232 (1900)),
4 Poincaré's J H , In Boscha 1900:252
5 De Pretto, O. (1904), "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita
dell'universo", Reale Istituto Veneto di
Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp.
439-500.
6 Hasenöhrl, F. Wien, Sitzungen IIA, 113, 1039 (1904)
7 Hasenöhrl,F. Ann. der Physik, 16, 589 (1905)
8 Planck, F. Sitz. der preuss. Akad.Wiss., Physik. Math. Klasse. 13
(June, 1907)
9 Cummingham, E. The Principle of Relativity, Cambridge University
Press, 1914, p. 189
10 Einstein, W, A Ann. Physik 18, 639 (1905)
11 Kaufmann, W. Nachr. K. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 2, 143 (1901)
12 Ives, H.E. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543 (1952).
13 Sharma, A. Proceedings of International Conference on
Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering 2003 World
Scientific Co. Singapore, 585-586 (2003)
14. Bakhoum, E. G. Physics Essays, Vol.15, No 1 2002
(Preprint archive : physics/0206061)
15 Hambsch, F.J. Nucl. Phys.A, 491,p.56 (1989)
16 Thiereus, H. Phys. Rev. C, 23 P 2104 (1981)
17 Palano, A. et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 90 (2003) 242001
18 DAVIS T.M. et al., Nature 418, (2002) 602.

19 WANG .L. J. et al.,
Nature 406, (2000) 277
20 Einstein, A. Ann.der Physik 20(1906):627
21 Stark, J Physikalische Zeitschrift 8(1907):881
22 Einstein, A Vol. 2, J. Stached Ed., Princeton University Press,
1989.
23 Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London,
p. 193 (1956).
24 Einstein, A. (1907 ", Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384, 1907
(quote on p. 373).
25 Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878