ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.

Now if you will look up "superposition" you will see how waves group
together to reinforce and cancel each other.

And if you will look up Gaussian waves you will see how these waves
form standing waves and group waves (that have mass).

Is it surprising that a group wave, having mass, would act as a
particle -- and wave at the same time? Note that when a photon is of
high enough energy, it becomes so massive it can actually become an
electron.

So where's the mystery?

"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.

This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.

Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.

Now we can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.

The larger n is, the more fields there are and the more massive the
photon. The more massive the photon, the more energy and momentum it
has. And the more particle-like it becomes

I have determined theoretically the mass of 1 Hz : 7.3720385 x 10^-48
gr. The number of Hz times this figure gives the mass of the photon --
call it m_p.

m_p X c = momentum of the photon = h nu/c -- and m_p X c^2 = mc^2 = h
nu.
Thus we deduce that the kinetic energy of the photon may be expressed
by E = mc^2 .

There are those who believe E = mc^2 applies to ponderous matter also.
This can be shown as not true. Kinetic energy of material particles
does NOT convert to mass.

In this equation, E is kinetic energy and should be written Ke. It is
for radiation only.

For massive particles, the two correct equations for Ke are (where R
is the Lorentz transform.)

(1/R - 1)mc^2 and

mv^2/(R + R^2)

That, alone, should be convincing --- but let's go further.
The equation m = L/c^2 (where L is RADIANT energy) was given by
Einstein in his second paper of 1905.

My supposition is he used L instead of E to avoid confusion --- The
reason: L is radiant energy, i.e., radiant kinetic energy. That means
he was differentiating between the kinetic energy of a photon and the
kinetic energy of a ponderous particle.

The Ke of a photon can be converted to mass as shown by m = L/c^2.

Let us examine the process more closely.

Perhaps the misconception of E = mc^2 being a conversion of energy to
mass got started when a photon was observed to collide with an electron
as in Compton scattering.

If you analyze it CORRECTLY you will find that when a high energy
photon collides with an electron it undergoes an elastic/inelastic
collision. Part of the mass of the photon is transferred to the
electron as in
an inelastic collision -- and the kinetic energy of the photon is also
transferred. So when the experimenter sees the energy disappear and
the mass of the electron gain, he assumes the energy was converted to
mass.
This because he thinks the photon is mass-less.

The fact is, mass from the photon is transferred to the electron -
and that mass carries the kinetic energy that accelerates the electron.

This is the same process as in a typical soft clay inelastic collision.
The moving clay ball unites with the target and transfers its kinetic
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.

The elastic portion of the photon/electron collision is where only PART
of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with
less energy than the original.

There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.
You can find it he http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.

wrote in message
oups.com...
ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Not at all - study Maxwell's equations.

Bill

wrote:
ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.

Now if you will look up "superposition" you will see how waves group
together to reinforce and cancel each other.

And if you will look up Gaussian waves you will see how these waves
form standing waves and group waves (that have mass).

Is it surprising that a group wave, having mass, would act as a
particle -- and wave at the same time? Note that when a photon is of
high enough energy, it becomes so massive it can actually become an
electron.

So where's the mystery?

"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.

This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.

Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.

Now we can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.

The larger n is, the more fields there are and the more massive the
photon. The more massive the photon, the more energy and momentum it
has. And the more particle-like it becomes

I have determined theoretically the mass of 1 Hz : 7.3720385 x 10^-48
gr. The number of Hz times this figure gives the mass of the photon --
call it m_p.

m_p X c = momentum of the photon = h nu/c -- and m_p X c^2 = mc^2 = h
nu.
Thus we deduce that the kinetic energy of the photon may be expressed
by E = mc^2 .

There are those who believe E = mc^2 applies to ponderous matter also.
This can be shown as not true. Kinetic energy of material particles
does NOT convert to mass.

In this equation, E is kinetic energy and should be written Ke. It is
for radiation only.

For massive particles, the two correct equations for Ke are (where R
is the Lorentz transform.)

(1/R - 1)mc^2 and

mv^2/(R + R^2)

That, alone, should be convincing --- but let's go further.
The equation m = L/c^2 (where L is RADIANT energy) was given by
Einstein in his second paper of 1905.

My supposition is he used L instead of E to avoid confusion --- The
reason: L is radiant energy, i.e., radiant kinetic energy. That means
he was differentiating between the kinetic energy of a photon and the
kinetic energy of a ponderous particle.

The Ke of a photon can be converted to mass as shown by m = L/c^2.

Let us examine the process more closely.

Perhaps the misconception of E = mc^2 being a conversion of energy to
mass got started when a photon was observed to collide with an electron
as in Compton scattering.

If you analyze it CORRECTLY you will find that when a high energy
photon collides with an electron it undergoes an elastic/inelastic
collision. Part of the mass of the photon is transferred to the
electron as in
an inelastic collision -- and the kinetic energy of the photon is also
transferred. So when the experimenter sees the energy disappear and
the mass of the electron gain, he assumes the energy was converted to
mass.
This because he thinks the photon is mass-less.

The fact is, mass from the photon is transferred to the electron -
and that mass carries the kinetic energy that accelerates the electron.

This is the same process as in a typical soft clay inelastic collision.
The moving clay ball unites with the target and transfers its kinetic
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.

The elastic portion of the photon/electron collision is where only PART
of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with
less energy than the original.

There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.
You can find it he http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.
----------------------
Hey Vergon
you forgot to mension me as the copyrighter of
'energy is mass in motion'
when was it th efirst time you claimed it ??
if you prove you was before me i take back my claime

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

Bill Hobba wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Not at all - study Maxwell's equations.

Bill

VERGON

You don't understand tongue in cheek, do you?

Y.Porat wrote:
wrote:
ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:

We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.

Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.

Now if you will look up "superposition" you will see how waves group
together to reinforce and cancel each other.

And if you will look up Gaussian waves you will see how these waves
form standing waves and group waves (that have mass).

Is it surprising that a group wave, having mass, would act as a
particle -- and wave at the same time? Note that when a photon is of
high enough energy, it becomes so massive it can actually become an
electron.

So where's the mystery?

"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.

This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.

Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.

Now we can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.

The larger n is, the more fields there are and the more massive the
photon. The more massive the photon, the more energy and momentum it
has. And the more particle-like it becomes

I have determined theoretically the mass of 1 Hz : 7.3720385 x 10^-48
gr. The number of Hz times this figure gives the mass of the photon --
call it m_p.

m_p X c = momentum of the photon = h nu/c -- and m_p X c^2 = mc^2 = h
nu.
Thus we deduce that the kinetic energy of the photon may be expressed
by E = mc^2 .

There are those who believe E = mc^2 applies to ponderous matter also.
This can be shown as not true. Kinetic energy of material particles
does NOT convert to mass.

In this equation, E is kinetic energy and should be written Ke. It is
for radiation only.

For massive particles, the two correct equations for Ke are (where R
is the Lorentz transform.)

(1/R - 1)mc^2 and

mv^2/(R + R^2)

That, alone, should be convincing --- but let's go further.
The equation m = L/c^2 (where L is RADIANT energy) was given by
Einstein in his second paper of 1905.

My supposition is he used L instead of E to avoid confusion --- The
reason: L is radiant energy, i.e., radiant kinetic energy. That means
he was differentiating between the kinetic energy of a photon and the
kinetic energy of a ponderous particle.

The Ke of a photon can be converted to mass as shown by m = L/c^2.

Let us examine the process more closely.

Perhaps the misconception of E = mc^2 being a conversion of energy to
mass got started when a photon was observed to collide with an electron
as in Compton scattering.

If you analyze it CORRECTLY you will find that when a high energy
photon collides with an electron it undergoes an elastic/inelastic
collision. Part of the mass of the photon is transferred to the
electron as in
an inelastic collision -- and the kinetic energy of the photon is also
transferred. So when the experimenter sees the energy disappear and
the mass of the electron gain, he assumes the energy was converted to
mass.
This because he thinks the photon is mass-less.

The fact is, mass from the photon is transferred to the electron -
and that mass carries the kinetic energy that accelerates the electron.

This is the same process as in a typical soft clay inelastic collision.
The moving clay ball unites with the target and transfers its kinetic
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.

The elastic portion of the photon/electron collision is where only PART
of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with
less energy than the original.

There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.
You can find it he http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.
----------------------
Hey Vergon
you forgot to mension me as the copyrighter of
'energy is mass in motion'
when was it th efirst time you claimed it ??
if you prove you was before me i take back my claime

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

VERGON

Quit massaging you poor little ego.

You can't copyright a definition.

energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we
would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.

The elastic portion of the photon/electron collision is where only PART
of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with
less energy than the original.

There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.
You can find it he http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.
----------------------
Hey Vergon
you forgot to mension me as the copyrighter of
'energy is mass in motion'
when was it th efirst time you claimed it ??
if you prove you was before me i take back my claime

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

VERGON

Quit massaging you poor little ego.

You can't copyright a definition.
-------------
and how about your little ego??
is your posting no ego motivated??

yet it is not a leagal question
it is a decency question or an ethics question
it is ethically to mension people who first initiated or published
ideas
how about that ??
and now to our case
was i the first one to claim that there is only one kind of mass- at
least in this ng/

is it right that a few yrears ago you claimes that the mass of the
photon is relativistc mass?

is it right that i was the first one here that claimed
:
energy is mass in motion

in spight fearce objections of other members here ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

Y.Porat wrote:
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we
would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.

The elastic portion of the photon/electron collision is where only PART
of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with
less energy than the original.

There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.
You can find it he http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.
----------------------
Hey Vergon
you forgot to mension me as the copyrighter of
'energy is mass in motion'
when was it th efirst time you claimed it ??
if you prove you was before me i take back my claime

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

VERGON

Quit massaging you poor little ego.

You can't copyright a definition.
-------------
and how about your little ego??
is your posting no ego motivated??

yet it is not a leagal question
it is a decency question or an ethics question
it is ethically to mension people who first initiated or published
ideas
how about that ??
and now to our case
was i the first one to claim that there is only one kind of mass- at
least in this ng/

is it right that a few yrears ago you claimes that the mass of the
photon is relativistc mass?

is it right that i was the first one here that claimed
:
energy is mass in motion

in spight fearce objections of other members here ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

VERGON

Sorry but I won't lower myself to discuss this bull **** with you.

Take a hint and get off my back. I will simply ignore you from here on
out.

I'm interestd in physics, not "Oh look at me, how smart I am". From now
on, I don't even see your name.

wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.

Y.Porat wrote:
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we
would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.

The elastic portion of the photon/electron collision is where only PART
of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with
less energy than the original.

There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.
You can find it he http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.
----------------------
Hey Vergon
you forgot to mension me as the copyrighter of
'energy is mass in motion'
when was it th efirst time you claimed it ??
if you prove you was before me i take back my claime

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

VERGON

Quit massaging you poor little ego.

You can't copyright a definition.
-------------
and how about your little ego??
is your posting no ego motivated??

yet it is not a leagal question
it is a decency question or an ethics question
it is ethically to mension people who first initiated or published
ideas
how about that ??
and now to our case
was i the first one to claim that there is only one kind of mass- at
least in this ng/

is it right that a few yrears ago you claimes that the mass of the
photon is relativistc mass?

is it right that i was the first one here that claimed
:
energy is mass in motion

in spight fearce objections of other members here ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

Who cares? The statement is meaningless nonesense.

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================



1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?

E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
Einstein's 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?

The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
derivation and not on speculation.

3. Is Einstein's derivation of L =mc2 correct?

The derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or true in special conditions
only. Einstein took just handpicked parameters out of numerous
possible, to obtain the equation. Einstein was aware of the reality so
he left in midway after getting the desired result. If all valid
values of parameters are taken, then results are contradictory in
nature.

4. What are contradictory results?

Some UNDISCUSSED predictions of Einstein's 29 Sep. 1905 derivation
blatantly contradict Law of Conservation of Matter. I have
scientifically confirmed the same. No limitation can be bigger than
this in science.

5. Was E=mc2 or similar ideas existed before Einstein?

Yes, E=mc2 existed before Einstein. An Italian Olinto de Pretto
published E=mc2 in valid scientific journal Lettere ed Atti, Feb. 1904,
two years before Einstein. But Pretto died in 1921, before its
experimental confirmation in nuclear physics.

6. Einstein speculated E=mc2 from L=mc2. What is the problem here?

Firstly derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or under special conditions
only.
For examples there are many variables in Einstein's derivation e.g.
number of light waves emitted by body, magnitude of light energy, angle
at which light energy is emitted and relative velocity v. Einstein just
took handpicked values of variables.
If general values of variables are
taken then results are contradictory to experiments.
Secondly Einstein originated E=mc2 on the basis of speculation only
without any conceptual and mathematical basis. Basically Einstein
replaced L by E in equation L=mc2 to get E=mc2.

7. Then how did you derive new equation, dE =Ac2dm (or DE = Ac2 DM )?

I have derived new equation between mass-energy conservation by simple
calculus method. In dE =Ac2dm, A is a co-efficient of proportionality
like numerous others in science. It is dimensionless variable.

Sharma June 2004 paper is available
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf

8. How do you compare these two equations?

Firstly dE =Ac2dm is based upon a conceptual and mathematical
derivation. On the other hand E=mc2 is a speculation, it is bitter
truth. Secondly dE =Ac2dm is a general equation and E=mc2 is its
special case. Energy emitted by new equation can be less, equal to or
more than predicted by E=mc2.

9. How did you justify your equation experimentally?

In Nuclear Physics there are some anomalous results which cannot be
explained by E=mc2 . Like this there are some instances in
astrophysics where my equation is extremely useful.

10. Is your work recognized by international scientific community?

Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals.

11 Have you got any recognition certificate from the scientific
community?

The only way to get scientific recognition is that to get the work
published in peer review international journals and conferences. My
research papers are either published in international journals from
America, England and Canada or being published. I have got invitation
from at least 55 International Conferences to present my work. I have
presented my research in international conferences in USA, England,
Germany, Taiwan Ukraine etc. I have invitation from France and Italy
to present my work this year.



13. How do you counter the opposition of the people which has come in
you your way?
Science is the international language. For this, I take seriously the
logical conclusions of the critics. I completely ignore the
irresponsible critics, as they don't exist.
The critics when understand the things become my supporters.

14. What about your book, 100 Years of E=mc2?

This book is being published soon.
It will bring clear and unbiased picture of the facts. Science today
is not the same in 16th or 17th century. We should aim at 22nd or 23rd
century scientific scenarios.




Interviewer Rajesh Thakoor Email


References of Einstein's work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein's 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma's work

My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
I will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA