Re: Potential energy in Einstein's 1905 Relativity

On Mar 23, 4:12 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx ha escrito:





On Mar 21, 7:09 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx ha escrito:

On Mar 19, 6:04 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 17 mar, 18:43, x...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 16, 8:47 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

xxein: We have a database to go beyond present theories. Why are you
still arguing concepts of the past?- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

When you write "concepts of the past" you mean "wrong concepts"? In
any case, they are not my concepts, but Einstein's ones (or used by
Einstein in 1905). I am referring to an historic fact, Einstein use
PoR and PoE to derive the mass-energy relationship. Are any of the
premises (PoR and PoE) considered wrong today? Or perhaps the derived
mass-energy relationship? But if all is O.K. in Einstein's paper, we
can continue making deductions from it, as the one I mentioned about
being rest mass an absolute measure of all kind of potential energies.
RVHG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What in the explanation that you received earlier about the
inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't
understand? Ah, you are somebody so idiotic as to live in Cuba in
these days ......

I have no problem at all ( I think so) understanding Relativity
development since 1905 until our days, including its contradictions
with the today well-established Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's
unsuccessful efforts trying to put electromagnetism inside GRT.
Precisely trying to find a way to resolve these problems I went to the
root, finding that Potential Energy is present playing an important
role in the considered 1905 paper.
We are talking about a 1905 paper, analysing its content in the
context of the scientific knowledge of the epoch. I make explicit
reference in my first post to rest mass, demanding attention precisely
to the difference between what today is considered rest mass and how
it is handled in the paper. If now we say that potential energy can't
be used in Relativity, I want to know then how we can justify that
Einstein uses it to derive what is considered among the more important
achievements of Relativity, the mass-energy relationship. He uses the
Principle of Energy (PoE, energy conservation one) in the 1905 way,
total energy equal to kinetic plus potential ones. And from my
knowledge, Quantum Mechanics is developed since 1924 with the
Potential Energy concept among the basic ones, using the PoE in the
same 1905 way. As an example (only a first one) of what can be done
following 1905 Einstein, see the following derivation (in an answer to
Eric in this thread I included it also).
Consider a material point of mass M with the gravitational potential -
GM/r (r radial distance from the point, potential energy U(inf) for a
body of mass m_om considered 0 at infinite=inf). Changing the zero
potential point to the ABSOLUTE one discovered by Einstein, we have
the following. U(inf)=m_0m c^2. At a distance r the body has rest mass
m_0 with potential energy U(r)=m_0 c^2. We have then U(r)= m_om c^2 -
(GM/r)m_0 = m_0 c^2, from where we can obtain m_0=m_om(1+GM/rc^2). I
suppose you can recognize the characteristic General Relativity factor
(but now obtained using only 1905 Relativity). If m_0m is the free
electron rest mass, the Pound&Rebca experiment is explained using only
1905 Relativity (because emitted frequency is proportional to electron
rest mass, now the variable m_0).
What is wrong or obsolete in Einstein's paper? The PoR? The PoE? The
derived universal mass-energy relationship? Can you explain to me how
it is possible to derive from that paper results that were obtained
for first time many years later after the development of the General
Relativity Theory? I consider the Potential Energy&1905Relativity
debate only starting. My preliminary assumption is that relativistic
mechanics was initially developed only for a constant potential
condition (with a constant rest mass not related with any field). Is
my believe that putting out that condition and realizing that rest
mass is an absolute measure for all potential energies, the road is
open to resolve Relativity&Quantum Mechanics contradictions (including
fields unification).

RVHG
(If you like politics, we can talk about it, but better in another
enviroment).

I could recommend you a good college book on relativity. I am sure
that you can get this in Cuba, after all you commies value education.I
am also quite sure that your local university does offer a modern
class on relativity. Either will answer all your questions and clear
all your misconceptions. "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler
will set you straight. As an aside, you cannot discuss what you don't
understand, get educated first, you have too many misconceptions. One
that I'd like you to understand is that modern relativity is based on
invariants: potential energy is not frame invariant (it is frame
dependent) so it does not have any room in modern relativity.
The other one is E=mc^2. If you want to see a modern derivation, that
does not use potential energy, look here:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity:_Dynamics

As an aside, contrary to your claim, Einstein did not use the concept
of potential energy in his TWO papers that derive E=mc^2.
Your confusin must come from the fact that he makes some reference to
"potential difference" in note 2 at the end of his first paper:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Like I said, get educated.

We are talking about 1905 Relativity. Any reference to modern
relativity is useless here if it doesn't refer to that epoch. My
possible misconceptions are not interesting at all, but Einstein's
ones in 1905 (if any). Let's go now to your valid references to the
1905 papers.
You say that Einstein did not use the concept of potential energy in
his two papers (fortunately we are using the same copy of them
obtained atwww.fourmilab.ch, what makes more easy our talking). From
my knowledge "potential" is defined as potential energy per mass unit.
As a result, if Einstein refers to a "potential difference" in his Jun
30 paper (I read the paper to confirm your reference), he is using the
"potential energy" concept.


No, persistent cretin, that is just a footnote. Einstein DID NOT use
any potential energy in the DERIVATION.



<rest of your idiocies are snipped, I already showed you proof of a
1905 derivation that doesn't use any potential energy>

Go kiss Castro's ass some more, he might even give you a medal for
your efforts of finding an error in the works of the "degenerate
capitalist", Einstein. Have you tried publishing in the Cuban Journal
of Physics?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
    ... formulae" you are referring that "does not apply to relativity" are ... "On the inertia of energy required by the relativity ... Einstein start referring to its 1905 Sep 27 paper and then writes the ... developed with rest mass measuring an absolute and total Potential ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Potential energy in Einsteins 1905 Relativity
    ... relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, ... Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, ... measuring rest mass its potential energy. ... inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Potential energy in Einsteins 1905 Relativity
    ... relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, ... Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, ... I am referring to an historic fact, Einstein use ... inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Potential energy in Einsteins 1905 Relativity
    ... relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, ... Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, ... measuring rest mass its potential energy. ... inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the mass of a free falling body increasing?
    ... GR extended the PoR to non-inertial frames, ... 1905 Relativity is my challenge. ... mass and energy was derived from Relativity. ... Rest mass measures potential energy, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)