How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

[Fixed Cross]

I'm traveling quite a bit this month. Hopefully I'll have time in a few weeks (and remember) to go through the proof and James' statements.

Still looking forward to it.

[Fixed Cross]

I'm traveling quite a bit this month. Hopefully I'll have time in a few weeks (and remember) to go through the proof and James' statements.

Still looking forward to it.
I think we got some unresolved questions here.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

E = mc2, equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body.

© MinutePhysics (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities. Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value. In special relativity, however, the energy of a body at rest is determined to be mc2. Thus, each body of rest mass m possesses mc2 of “rest energy,” which potentially is available for conversion to other forms of energy. The mass-energy relation, moreover, implies that, if energy is released from the body as a result of such a conversion, then the rest mass of the body will decrease. Such a conversion of rest energy to other forms of energy occurs in ordinary chemical reactions, but much larger conversions occur in nuclear reactions. This is particularly true in the case of nuclear fusion reactions that transform hydrogen to helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy. Stars like the Sun shine from the energy released from the rest mass.

[James S Saint]

E = mc2, equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body.

Who ever wrote that erred. It is not true.

First E=mc² had nothing to do with relativity. Secondly, the equation does NOT state that mass and energy are made of the same stuff. The equation merely says that you can derive the amount of energy involved in a moving mass situation. It doesn't even imply that mass and energy are the same thing.

© MinutePhysics (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities.

That is because they ARE distinct things. Energy is not Mass. Energy is the ability to accomplish or affect. Mass is the ability to possess inertia (or for some, the ability to gravitate).

They are both made of affectance. But the equation does not have anything to do with what anything is made of.

Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value.

Also false. Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have. It is not arbitrary.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value.

Also false. Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have. It is not arbitrary.

Please re read. They were saying the opposite, they were stating a prior false belief.

[James S Saint]

Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value.

Also false. Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have. It is not arbitrary.

Please re read. They were saying the opposite, they were stating a prior false belief.

It was not a belief .. or not by anyone significant.

[surreptitious57]

Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have

Energy is defined as the ability to perform work and when a system can no longer perform any more it will
have reached a state of maximum entropy. So there is an inverse relationship between energy and entropy

[James S Saint]

Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have

Energy is defined as the ability to perform work

That is the same thing.

and when a system can no longer perform any more it will
have reached a state of maximum entropy. So there is an inverse relationship between energy and entropy

There is a lack of precision in that thought. Entropy involves the degree of order, not the degree of energy. An extremely high energy state, such as found in the center of stars and black holes, or even in the fields of dark-matter, also have an extremely high entropy level. Entropy and Energy, although often interrelated, are different concerns.

[Fixed Cross]

First E=mc² had nothing to do with relativity.

Mass–energy equivalence arose originally from special relativity as a paradox described by Henri Poincaré.[1] Einstein proposed it in 1905, in the paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?, one of his Annus Mirabilis (Miraculous Year) papers.[2] Einstein was the first to propose that the equivalence of mass and energy is a general principle and a consequence of the symmetries of space and time.

If you are trying to break the world record number of false statements, I believe you can rest easy.

[James S Saint]

There was a better example from a photo that phyllo had found, but since I can't seem to find that one at the moment, this will have to do:

The paper mentioned in that Wiki article was NOT Einstein's paper on Special Relativity. The title of the paper is:

Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?

In that paper, he calculates the energy content of a body at rest as well as a body in motion. Realizing that "c" is a limit to the motion and comparing the two calculations, he concludes that the energy content of a mass is directly related to c².

This is the Paper:

Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?

A. Einstein
Bern
(Received 1905)

The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced.

I based that investigation on the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space, together with the Maxwellian expression for the electromagnetic energy of space, and in addition the principle that:

The laws by which the states of physical systems alter are independent
of the alternative, to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform motion
of parallel translation relatively to each other, these alterations of state are
referred (principle of relativity).

With these principles as my basis I deduced inter alia the following result:

Let a system of plane waves of light, referred to the system of coordinates (x, y, z), possess the energy l; let the direction of the ray (the wave-normal) make an angle φ with the axis of x of the system. If we introduce a new system of co-ordinates (ξ, η, ζ) moving in uniform parallel translation with respect to the system (x, y, z), and having its origin of coordinates in motion along the axis of x with the velocity v, then this quantity of light-measured in the system (ξ, η, ζ) — possesses the energy

$$l^* = l·\frac{(1-v/Vcosφ)}{\sqrt{1−(v/V)^2}},$$
where c denotes the velocity of light. We shall make use of this result in what follows.

Let there be a stationary body in the system (x, y, z), and let its energy referred to the system (x, y, z) — be E0. Let the energy of the body relative to the system (ξ, η, ζ), moving as above with the velocity v, be H0. Let this body send out, in a direction making an angle φ with the axis of x, plane waves of light, of energy L/2 measured relatively to (x, y, z), and simultaneously an equal quantity of light in the opposite direction. Meanwhile the body remains at rest with respect to the system (x, y, z). The principle of energy must apply to this process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity) with respect to both systems of co-ordinates. If we call the energy of the body after the emission of light E1 or H1 respectively, measured relatively to the system (x, y, z) or (ξ, η, ζ) respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain...

He continues to conclude that mc² must represent the same quantity as the energy (which is different than the idea that mass is "made of energy"). And it has nothing to do with the Special Relativity issues of time dilation and length contraction. He calculated relative energy based upon the motion limit set by the speed of light (from Maxwell and Hertz).

Just because it mentions the speed of light (introduce by Maxwell) and relative motion (introduced by Galileo), doesn't mean it is based upon Special Relativity (which is good since that would make it an invalid conclusion). This issue is more related to General Relativity, although not formulated at the time.

[James S Saint]

At the end of his Special Relativity paper,

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By
A. EINSTEIN
June 30, 1905

He does mention the kinetic energy of an electron and its relation to its mass by using a momentum conversion in consideration of the speed limit of light:
$$W = \int eXdx=m\int_0^v β^3v dv$$
$$ = mc^2 \left\{\frac{1}{1−v^2/c^2}−1\right\}$$

Since with a constant force applied to a mass, the acceleration diminishes, it can be concluded that the mass increases (given former Newtonian ontology, F = ma). Again, this has nothing unique to do with Special Relativity other than it being mentioned in the paper (and as having been already determined). This increase in mass effect is directly from Maxwell's speed of light limit, c, and is unrelated to observer relative references (aka "Special Relativity").

James Clerk Maxwell was the true genius of that era. And his aether ontology was actually more correct, but merely incomplete due to misunderstandings of experimental data.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes, General Relativity is what I refer to when I say Relativity.

SR is just a surface-issue.

E=mc^2 contains the real issue, the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.

VO addresses, among many, many other issues, the supposed discrepancy between GR and QM, by showing they both comply with the same logical necessity. Namely, that all perspectives bend reality to themselves in order to exist - be they subatomic or black-hole sized.

Einstein presupposed a homogenous, "neat" and continuous fabric of space time. The fact is that that fabric is made entirely out of intensely contrasting situations, each of which resists the reality of the other.

This is why macro and micro will never relate directly.
And yet, why they will aways fall into similar patterns.

[James S Saint]

the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.

.. between light and inertia or momentum.

VO .. all perspectives bend reality to themselves.

"perspectives bend reality"?? Solipsism?
Don't you have to have reality before there can be a perspective of it (not to mention the bending of it)?

..continuous fabric of space time.

There is a "substance of spacetime", if you want to call it that. There is no "fabric" of spacetime.

You will have to do some seriously deep explaining in order to relate E=mc² to VO.
Frankly just relating energy, E, to VO could be quite an accomplishment.

[Fixed Cross]

the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.

.. between light and inertia or momentum.

VO .. all perspectives bend reality to themselves.

"perspectives bend reality"?? Solipsism?

Im sure you are aware of time space curvature.

Don't you have to have reality before there can be a perspective of it (not to mention the bending of it)?

No, they exist at the same time.
Both are logically required for each other.

..continuous fabric of space time.

There is a "substance of spacetime", if you want to call it that. There is no "fabric" of spacetime.

Semantics.

You will have to do some seriously deep explaining in order to relate E=mc² to VO.
Frankly just relating energy, E, to VO could be quite an accomplishment.

As it would seem for RM.
But in fact with VO it is rather easy, since it is inferred from the laws of energy.

[Fixed Cross]

I already applied VO to Einsteins conundrum for example, which is a matter of energy distribution.
And it is instantly resolved by simply applying it. Once we apply sv logic to the matter of god and his dice (the fact that QM suggests ontological uncertainty which for a mathematician like Einstein was unacceptable), there simply isn't an issue.
The bottom up structuring of time space happens by the same logic as the top down structuring, but not in the same physical matrix.

He, like most anyone still does, conflated the way logic of necessity causes things into being with how the laws of physics do that.
The former creates parallel paradigms, the latter only a lineair array.

[James S Saint]

the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.

.. between light and inertia or momentum.

VO .. all perspectives bend reality to themselves.

"perspectives bend reality"?? Solipsism?

Im sure you are aware of time space curvature.

I am aware of it as a broken ontology. For something to be "curved", there must be an original un-curved. If spacetime is what is to be curved, what is it that is un-curved?

Don't you have to have reality before there can be a perspective of it (not to mention the bending of it)?

No, they exist at the same time.
Both are logically required for each other.

Okay, I'll buy that, as long as you don't throw in an observer.

..continuous fabric of space time.

There is a "substance of spacetime", if you want to call it that. There is no "fabric" of spacetime.

Semantics.

"Fabric" with its different meaning than "substance" has led to some bizarre theoretical physics proposals. A fabric is interwoven strains, "strings". A substance of spacetime, is much more like an aether (a forbidden subject in physics).

You will have to do some seriously deep explaining in order to relate E=mc² to VO.
Frankly just relating energy, E, to VO could be quite an accomplishment.

As it would seem for RM.

It is pretty trivial with RM:AO (which you should have known long before now).

Just a quick reminder:
In the following video, there is an equation fully explained:
$$Ad = \frac{1-Ab}{1 + 4π(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)}$$
That "Ad" is "Affectance density" and is what modern physics would call "energy content of a mass particle". It is actually even more precise than E=mc² (which is only an estimate).



James Maxwell was on the right track and if he had realized this, he would have seriously altered the course of physics and mathematics. Einstein's later contributions might not have been relevant, but could still have possibly assisted in making such calculations simpler.

But in fact with VO it is rather easy, since it is inferred from the laws of energy.

Then do enlighten us.

Exactly how is VO related to kinetic energy, 1/2 mv², and/or elastic potential energy, 1/2 kx², and/or gravitational potential energy, mgh, and/or mass energy content, mc²?

[Fixed Cross]

I appreciate your math, and I still understand AO -
VO is however not expressible in the sense of such pressurized systems.
It is an emergent system, so entirely fractalized.

Do you have the math of fractals at your command? I don't, so that would be useful.

[James S Saint]

I appreciate your math, and I still understand AO -
VO is however not expressible in the sense of such pressurized systems.
It is an emergent system, so entirely fractalized.

Do you have the math of fractals at your command? I don't, so that would be useful.

Are you sure that you want to get into complex numbers (half imaginary)? And I am pretty certain that the VO ontology would not be able to remain rational down on an infinitesimal scale using fractals. Fractals, although built of similar relations, require an originating assembly of dissimilar ontological constructs. That means that you have to separate out your "self-value" to be 3 separate entities; subject, valuing, and object. You never named any subject or object other than "self" (representing both).

[Fixed Cross]

I appreciate your math, and I still understand AO -
VO is however not expressible in the sense of such pressurized systems.
It is an emergent system, so entirely fractalized.

Do you have the math of fractals at your command? I don't, so that would be useful.

Are you sure that you want to get into complex numbers (half imaginary)? And I am pretty certain that the VO ontology would not be able to remain rational down on an infinitesimal scale using fractals. Fractals, although built of similar relations, require an originating assembly of dissimilar ontological constructs. That means that you have to separate out your "self-value" to be 3 separate entities; subject, valuing, and object. You never named any subject or object other than "self" (representing both).

Thats perfect, actually.
Cause there is no "self", as I think you know, "self-valuing" refers to a valuing that indirectly values itself. (just in case)

So a self-valuing always consists of what in normal, "dead" language, has to be divided up in these three things, which can not exist or be conceived of separately. This separation of integrally related observations kills understanding of what is actually happening, reduces our capacity to cohere phenomena in an event.

[Fixed Cross]

No reply?

You weren't bluffing, were you?

[James S Saint]

Without contrasts or dimensions, VO has nothing to do with fractals.

Everything in the universe is made of Yellow, so I want a fractal of Yellowness.

What is between one self-valuing and another? Nothingness? How much? How big? How dense? How does it move?

[Fixed Cross]

Could you answer my question?
I could answer yours afterwards if you manage.

"Yellow" is not that i can tell a logic. But good try.

[James S Saint]

Could you answer my question?
I could answer yours afterwards if you manage.

"Yellow" is not that i can tell a logic. But good try.

I was going to answer your question concerning fractals, but you can't get it through your head that a single proposed substance does not form an ontology and certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with fractals. You are just spewing egocentric stupidity these days, embarrassing yourself.

[Fixed Cross]

Could you answer my question?
I could answer yours afterwards if you manage.

"Yellow" is not that i can tell a logic. But good try.

I was going to answer your question concerning fractals, but you can't get it through your head that a single proposed substance does not form an ontology and certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with fractals. You are just spewing egocentric stupidity these days, embarrassing yourself.

No, you weren't. It had been sitting there for a long time waiting for you.
It is taking you 6 years not to get it through your head that VO describes a logic, not a substance.

You are behind, a century in physics, old friend.
And your insults have been the same for six years.

Obviously you don't know anything about fractals, it seems you even have no idea what you are saying wit RM.

Perhaps you even think "affectance" is a substance.

[URUZ]

Yes. Logic is basic, first philosophy. Onto-logy is simply the logic of being.

The logic of self-valuing is also basic. What could exist which does not hold itself in existence by using that which it is as a standard of selection for its interactions?

Some beings try to hold themselves in existence by failing to select, by entirely being selected by other beings. Nietzsche had a name for that too: the will to nothingness.

A wave is a self-valuing as vector velocity, unable to select except in so far as it happens upon something that can value it, can use it (absorb the wave). The smallest particles are self-valuing as fundamental selection, me vs others. Waves just pass through each other, particles do not.

Then those small particles, "quarks", select one another and form protons, and protons then select electrons and neutrons (which cannot exist unless they are selected by a proton, as neutrons on their own decay into protons anyway, lol), forming matter and eventually all of the elements. The value-selecting of even a simple element is deeply complex, irreducible even, which leads to the formation of an active will to power. Irreducible inner tension, a daemonic nature. From this, the universe and all life has come into being.