Re: What kind of energy denotes E in Einstein's 1905 Sep 27paper?
- From: valls@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:22:04 -0700
On 29 sep, 16:35, Loui...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 29 Sep., 02:57, va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hello Louis, nice to know about you. For many years a file with your
Exactly 102 years ago (1905 September 27) Einstein wrote a very short
paper. Einstein starts referring to a body at rest with energy E. I
want to know what kind of energy is that E. Being the body at rest,
the kinetic energy is excluded. Then, what other kind of energy a body
at rest can have in 1905?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato, please read the following. You are welcome
with your comments.
Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-particles.
By Louis Nielsen, Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
m and where c is the velocity of light?
In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
consists.
My Uniton Postulate:
The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
quanta in the Universe.
All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
are consequences of
interacting unitons.
In my treatise I show that the total internal latent energy E inside a
given amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is
the velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the
TOTAL KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
understand that all matter,
regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
Einstein's famous equation.
Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis
Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark
name had been part of my computer information. As you know, Internet
is full of materials like yours. Even being my interest to know about
new ideas, it is almost impossible for me (or anyone) to follow all of
them. But surely I will read a little more about your work in the near
future.
About this thread, I am involved (already by some years) analysing
1905 Einstein's papers, finding that the today interpretation of them
doesn't correspond exactly to the epoch knowledge when they were
written. The more relevant example is the energy E of a body at rest.
In 1905, a body at rest considered as a whole entity can has only
potential energy U, having its kinetic energy K the value zero and
being his total energy E equal to its potential energy U. We have E=K
+U, the expression for the Principle of Energy Conservation known in
the epoch and used by Einstein in his 1905 Sep 27 paper. You can
obtain a version of it at
Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
With the notation used in the above link, we can read in the paper the
formula
H-E=K+C (or H=K+(E+C)), where H is total energy in the system S' where
the body is moving with v velocity and Kinetic Energy K, being C an
arbitrary additive constant (characteristic of potential energies, as
is well-known). Even then notice how no one had answered yet my
question about what kind of energy is E, included persons that know
very well what my intention is.
What is the problem? That today E is recognized only as "rest energy",
a body constant and intrinsic attribute, with no relation at all with
potential energies. But the "rest energy" concept doesn't exist yet in
1905, it is precisely the new concept developed in the paper we are
analysing! Then, has no sense at all to say that when Einstein writes
the energy E of a body at rest, he is referring to "rest energy". The
unique valid interpretation for the kind of energy E is the potential
one, even if Einstein doesn't use the word "potential" in his paper.
The management by Einstein of {the arbitrary additive constants of the
energies H and E} (using his own words between { }), is more than
sufficient to support this approach. In all Physics history the
potential is the unique kind of energy with an associated arbitrary
additive constant. As an added very important point, {The mass of a
body is a measure of its energy-content} implies that energy has no
more an arbitrary additive constant, because mass hasn't it. Then,
Einstein discovers an absolute and total potential energy measured by
the rest mass, corresponding to the energy of ALL force fields that
can be present, known or not.
By the way, your Uniton Postulate seems to be compatible with all of
this, because the universal relationship between mass and energy
discovered by Einstein is totally independent of any internal body
property, as Einstein points in his paper. The "external" energy of
the fields associated with the body and the "internal" energy of the
rest body seems to be one and the same thing.
Sincerily yours
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Institute of Cybernetics, Mathematics and Physics (ICIMAF)
Havana, Cuba
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Sagnac Fully Supports the BaTh.
- Next by Date: Re: einstein didnt knew his tensors
- Previous by thread: Re: What kind of energy denotes E in Einstein's 1905 Sep 27paper?
- Next by thread: Re: can universe make sense?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
