The formula E = mc^2 estimated as one of the top ten of most beautiful formulae at any epoch, but the its demonstration at firth contained mistake by just Great Einstein! The lack of logical fundamental of the Einstein had advised by Aivs in Journal of the Optical Society Of America, 42, 540 543. 1952. After that, nobody take author demonstration no more, but use dependent of inertial mass from velocity of a body:
m = mo(1-(V/c)^2)^-1/2 = mo. (1)
together with the Newtons 2 law:
F = d(mV)/dt (2)
for calculation that formula. But, the new mistake appear and, perhaps, in this situation, not could be recovered!!!
First, the itself formula (1) had estimated for only moving uniform straight-line body with the constant velocity V in an inertial reference frame (IRF) and having the inertial mass mo in reference frame in which it is at rest. That mind:
+ If a body moving with the velocity V1, then we have: m1 = mo.1;
+ If a body moving with the velocity V2, then we have: m2 = mo.2;
.....
+ If a body moving with the velocity Vn, then we have: mn = mo.n;
....
where V1, V2, ... Vn are value of unchanging velocity in a time interval, corresponding to uniform straight-line move of a body, but not value of an instantaneous velocity; similar to that, the m1, m2...mn are value of corresponding inertial mass calculated in IFOR1, IRF2, ... IRFn correspondingly, but not value of mass m as function of velocity with usual understanding above a function: m = m(V), in which V is a variable, because any upheaval of a velocity V lead condition of a IRF is broke Lorenzs transformation no longer effective and then how can we have the formula (1)? That right, replace Eq. (1) in to Eq. (2) is unpossible for derivation, because V dont change, so m must be dont change too. And this derivation must be equal to zero!!! That the formula E = mc^2 never have been proved ???

Cincirob: Oh AAF, anyone who can't understand the simple (and beautiful) theory of special relativity, shouldn't try to comment on anything as complex as Quantum theory.



AAF: Actually, Cinci; the theory of Relativity is far more complicated than the Quantum theory! Einstein's Relativity appears simple to you only because you're more familiar with it. However, Relativity has one standard version of it officially recognized, while the Quantum theory has a number of official versions and interpretations (e.g. Heisenberg's, Schrödinger's, Bloom's, Bohr's, etc.). Also, Einstein has succeeded in generalizing and abstracting his theory to the highest level possible and made it easier to look at his creation in one glance. By contrast, the Quantum folks have continued to work theoretically and do detailed calculations at very low levels with little or no effort at all to generalize and summarize their theory. And because of that readers get the false impression that the theory of Relativity is simpler and easier than the Quantum theory, which is not true.



Cincirob: Ah, so you don't understand QM and relativity. Right, that's how we know QM is more complicated than relativity. You can't explain that QM is simpler than relativity by explaining how complicated QM is.



AAF: Look, Cincirob! At the working level, all physical theories are complicated and very likely to confuse you and make you commit a lot of mistakes. It's, at this low level of doing business, that the assumptions and computations of Relativity become much harder and more complex than the assumptions and calculations of the Quantum theory at the same working level. The point is that, even though it's messy and unsystematized, the Quantum theory is simpler than Einstein's Relativity. As a matter of fact, the former one is little more than applying the math of probability to physical phenomena.



Karl: Karl: I'm beginning to feel that one of the big holes in physics lies in the field of optics relating to the explanations relating to dispersion, phase/group velocities, and ultimately to the acceptance of the wave nature of light over the particle nature when explaining dispersion and indices of refraction. It seems to me that refraction is correctly described as a wavefront phenomena involving wavelength. I'm not so sure however, that the index of refractions are really functions of velocity and not also of wave length when it comes to dispersion which is my main interest. At this point I really need some collaboration. How strong are you in optics? best, karl P.S. I'm going to look up and send to you a web address to a foreword to a book on stocastic QM. It's easy short reading but covers the practicalities and I think you will enjoy it.



Cincirob: I don't pretend to understand QM except very generally. I'm reading a book by Charis Anastopolous called "Particle or Wave". I'm to the part where he explains: It follows that it is not straightforward to talk about the position of a massless particle. From one point of view a massless particle does not look like a particle at all - it cannot be localized at a specific point of space. One may describe it equally well as a sheet that moves along the light cone with a spinning motion." He says this is a function of the fact that the degrees of freedom of a massless article are intertwined with spin. This doesn't clear much up for me but it suggests that thinking about photons as single points is probably not a good idea.



AAF: Here we go again; you're really taking mainstream physics very seriously, Cincirob! Look at this 'massless particle' idea; the whole damn thing is a logical contradiction of the most obvious kind. 'Particles without Mass'; what an empty concept; what a stupid playing around with empty words!

AAF: Here we go again; you're really taking mainstream physics very seriously, Cincirob! Look at this 'massless particle' idea; the whole damn thing is a logical contradiction of the most obvious kind. 'Particles without Mass'; what an empty concept; what a stupid playing around with empty words!


cinci: Always trying to outdo me AAF. OK, I admit it, you know less about QM than I do.
***************************

huytoan: The formula E = mc^2 estimated as one of the top ten of most beautiful formulae at any epoch, but the its demonstration at firth contained mistake by just Great Einstein! The lack of logical fundamental of the Einstein had advised by Aivs in Journal of the Optical Society Of America, 42, 540 543. 1952. After that, nobody take author demonstration no more, but use dependent of inertial mass from velocity of a body:
m = mo(1-(V/c)^2)^-1/2 = mo. (1)
together with the Newtons 2 law:
F = d(mV)/dt (2)
for calculation that formula. But, the new mistake appear and, perhaps, in this situation, not could be recovered!!!
First, the itself formula (1) had estimated for only moving uniform straight-line body with the constant velocity V in an inertial reference frame (IRF) and having the inertial mass mo in reference frame in which it is at rest. That mind:
+ If a body moving with the velocity V1, then we have: m1 = mo.1;
+ If a body moving with the velocity V2, then we have: m2 = mo.2;
.....
+ If a body moving with the velocity Vn, then we have: mn = mo.n;
....
where V1, V2, ... Vn are value of unchanging velocity in a time interval, corresponding to uniform straight-line move of a body, but not value of an instantaneous velocity; similar to that, the m1, m2...mn are value of corresponding inertial mass calculated in IFOR1, IRF2, ... IRFn correspondingly, but not value of mass m as function of velocity with usual understanding above a function: m = m(V), in which V is a variable, because any upheaval of a velocity V lead condition of a IRF is broke Lorenzs transformation no longer effective and then how can we have the formula (1)? That right, replace Eq. (1) in to Eq. (2) is unpossible for derivation, because V dont change, so m must be dont change too. And this derivation must be equal to zero!!! That the formula E = mc^2 never have been proved ???


cinci: All very interesting but unclear. Does this meantht nuclear power plants will stop producing electricity, nuclear weapons will stop exploding, and allthe experiments that show
m = mo/(1-(v/c)62)^.5 will suddenly show something else?
***********************