This conversation is closed.

E=mc² is only conditionally valid. While mass can turn into energies, an energy alone may not be equivalent to a mass.

Although E=mc² has been accepted as unconditional since the atomic bomb, investigation shows that this formula is only conditional according to general relativity. The book E = mc² by David Bodanis (Walker, 2000) discusses only cases of where mass converts to energy. Many failed to notice that the mass would convert to a combination of energies. Therefore, a single type of energy may not be converted into mass. It is surprising that the scientific community almost missed this. The investigation started from a conclusion that there are no dynamic solutions for the Einstein field equation unless the coupling constants for energy-stress tensors can have different signs. This leads to questioning the general validity of this formula. In fact, there is a conflict from electromagnetism because the trace of an electromagnetic energy tensor is traceless. Also Einstein failed to extend the proof of the formula beyond the case of photons. (Photons actually include non-electromagnetic energy.) The invalidity of E = mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally by a reduction in weight of a charged metal ball (2005). However, E=mc² would predict an increase in weight, as Einstein would assert. This can be explained with a new repulsive force between charge and mass for a static case in general relativity. Moreover, weight reduction is observed when a capacitor is charged (1960) or when a piece of metal is heated up (2010). However, these cannot be explained with a four-dimensional theory, but can be explained in term of a five-dimensional relativity that has an additional general charge-mass interaction. Thus, mass can be converted to energy according to E = mc², but energy may not be converted to mass in terms of m = E/c². Now, energy is conserved in a closed system, but mass may not be. For example, although the photons have no mass, they can increase the mass of a matter, after it absorbs them. These findings have been published in the professional journals and the internet.

  • thumb
    May 6 2013: Sorry Sharon. I am sticking with Albert on this one. He said energy was simply fluid mass. You can falsify that?
    • May 6 2013: Thank you for your comment. Please tell me what the definition of "fluid mass" is as you understand it. To avoid misunderstanding, sometimes a term in physics must be understood with the related statements. Please point me to the reference. Einstein, as reported in his book "Ideas and Opinions, by Albert Einstein, p. 339, defined mass as: "Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the body (heavy mass)." I do not see any definition given for "fluid mass". Please enlighten me on this.
      • thumb
        May 6 2013: There is nothing more annoying than arguing with someone who knows what they are talking about. In this conversation I am NOT the one who knows what I am talking about. As a10-year-old punk I heard on the news that Albert Einstein had died. That was the first time I heard his name. Ever since I have been interested in his astonishing ability to theorize how the Universe functions. My education and career path led away from Physics but my hobby has been Cosmolgy and Cosmogony. I am a Sciolist. Regretably my only response to your request for technical citation in support of the fluid energy statement is the pusillanimous announcement that I remember reading it somewhere. Of course you are justified to erase my comment and disregard any future comments. I will, however, monitor your provocative post. Thank you Sharon.
  • May 15 2013: You may reject GR. However, you cannot reject experiments. The experiment on charged metal ball shows that it becomes lighter after charged. Since a charged metal ball has more energy, the electric energy cannot be equivalent to mass.
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 14 2013: Ok, gr is bogus.
  • May 13 2013: Thank you for commenting. The experiments referenced didn't measure mass. They measured weight and presumed the equivalence to measuring mass. This is why I've focused on the concept of gravitation. Gravity, and by consequence, weight are quantum effects as I've described them. Using weight to gather data broadens the scope to include quantum behaviors. Moreover, according to the Einstein equation in general relativity, mass and electric energy are different because the existence of electric energy can change the Ricci tensor R(a, b) but not R.
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 12 2013: The conservation of mass requires no "material" take a form which is undefined chronologically. Particle types observed displaying quantum behaviors are not constrained to time. Composite particles are accountable because the superimposed probabilities of the constituents.

    The Oatmeal Theory of gravitation in summary states that gravity is flux of composite particles. In the cases of heating and charging, the probability of some other particle moving throughout the objects decreases the probability of the gravitation composite particle having path within the objects.

    C.Y. Lo's experiment increases the thermal temperature. The increase in kinetic energy of the material particles also increases the probable number of locations within the material a given particle of that material may inhabit at a given time. That action decreases the number of probable paths for gravitation.

    D.R. Buehler's experiment inundates a material with charged composite particles. This action also decreases the number of probable paths for gravitation.
    • May 12 2013: Thank you very much for your response. The interpretation of quantum behaviors is often subjective and this is beyond the scope of our discussion, based on experimental facts. What we claim is only that there are some types of energy that by itself alone is not equivalent to mass. The electromagnetic energy is an example. While you have raised an interesting issue, this is however beyond the limited scope of our discussion at the present time..
      • thumb

        B Ross

        • 0
        May 12 2013: All models are subjective. This one describes otherwise anomalous behavior with simplicity.

        The experiments referenced didn't measure mass. They measured weight and presumed the equivalence to measuring mass. This is why I've focused on the concept of gravitation.

        Gravity, and by consequence, weight are quantum effects as I've described them. Using weight to gather data broadens the scope to include quantum behaviors.
      • thumb

        B Ross

        • 0
        May 12 2013: If there were a way to measure the mass of the items by observing other consequential behaviors besides weight, I presume E = mc² will appear valid.

        I would investigate the results of kinetic collisions using heated and charged objects with objects of known mass.
  • May 11 2013: Thank you very much for your information. However, it is not clear how these data support your theory from the coupling of charge-mass interaction. We know that the new coupling implies the weight reduction of the capacitor is proportional to the square of the capacitor potential difference as the experiment shows. So, we wonder whether your theory predicts this characteristic. Please also read T. Musha's paper as in the reference provided. In comparison Musha's data are more accurate than Buehler's.
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 11 2013: Gravitational Drag Force, Egd=(-Cg) mc^2
    Cg = Coefficient of Gravitational Drag

    Charging these objects generates a "magnetosphere" lower the coefficient of gravitational drag for the items. This is actually decreasing the potential energy of the items as defined by the thermodynamic arrow of time.

    I would repeat D.R. Buehler's experiment performed in 2004. This time I'd carefully probe for gravity disturbances in the regions immediately surrounding the capacitor. I'd also also probe for time dilation within the capacitor and the surrounding region. Lastly, I'd search for regions definable as either laminar or turbulent.
  • May 11 2013: Thank you for your response. I wish you could explain the experimental facts to establish your view; otherwise you would leave the impression that your views have been defeated by experiment. We are talking about physics not philosophy. Any view in physics must stand on the ground being supported by experiments. Gravity will be discussed after the issue of E=mc² being conditionally valid is resolved in this discussion; otherwise it would be difficult to address some existing confusions. A theory in physics must be supported with experiments. Unfortunately, stories instead of solid theories are abundant, particularly in cosmology. For instance, the singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose, though popular, are actually irrelevant to physics because it is based on an invalid implicit assumption (unique sign for all coupling constants). Such an assumption has been proven invalid in physics because it leads to the non-existence of dynamic solutions for the 1915 Einstein equation as Gullstrand, Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee (1922-1929). conjectured .
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 11 2013: Spacial void is the superposition of several fields. The field associated with momentum interacts directly with nothing and is at rest (maximum entropy). The field associated with gravitation is made up of composite particles. This particle is not an atom, but it apparently has enough components to be restricted to the time domain. These particles, according to the thermodynamic arrow of time, seek areas of lower energy. The arrow points toward matter. These composite particles puddle around matter. These composite particles "fall" into matter in a single file line. Matter "chews" this particle swallowing one part energy for atomic work while spitting out the rest as orthogonal e and b fields. Each of these components is now free from the time domain and enjoying that lower energy state as defined by the thermodynamic arrow.

    I just explained gravity, time, and e/b field.

    Gravity is not an attractive force. Gravity is the atomic consumption of spacial void. This happens at the speed of light, c. As you sit where you are, stuck to this planet, you do so because space rushes through you toward earth's center of mass. Being on the earth's surface, the weight you experience is analogous to fluid viscosity.

    This is my understanding of gravity with the guidance of Einstein. You're experiments are redirecting this flow and somewhat freeing these objects from earth's gravity.
  • May 11 2013: Thank you for your comments and we appreciate your interest. We are discussing physics that is based on evidence. A philosophical argument is usually favored by the one who believes it, but without evidence to support this, it would be beyond a scientific discussion. To establish your belief you must show with the support of your evidence that the presented experimental data are incorrect. However, this is impossible. These experiments have been performed and repeated by well-established scientists from different countries and/or different occasions. For instance, based on E=mc², Einstein predicted a piece of heated up metal would be heavier. However, experiments have shown that a piece of heated up metal is lighter. Please show how you can interpret this experimental fact with E=mc².
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 10 2013: "Time" is a construct of atomic interaction and is a mathematical function of gravity.
    "Time" is undefined & meaningless sub-atomically. (Schrödinger's cat, wave-particle duality)
    Velocity = dL/Dt
    E x B tensor will be defined once correcting the notion of "Now".
    Properly interpreting {E = mc²) relies on proper assumptions regarding entropy, potentiality, & rest states.
    E (still) = mc²
  • May 8 2013: Thank you for responding. I am keeping my opinion public to bring these findings furthering Einstein’s brilliant work to world attention. There have been several experiments showing weight reduction; when charges are added to a metal ball, when a capacitor is charged, and when a piece of metal is heated up. This is the opposite of what Einstein predicted. In fact, the last effect is so considerably large, even a worker in a cast factory can observe it. It is necessary not only to take into account the charge-mass repulsive force, but for some cases, to analyze things in a five-dimensional space. This weight reduction for a charged capacity was not understood although such phenomena were observed for over half a century.
    The following are data for you to look at supporting these statements:
    1) A charged metal ball becomes lighter. [1, 2].
    2) A charged capacitor reduces its weight [3-8].
    3) Heated up metal also decreases its weight [9]. and six kinds of metal are tested within the range of 600 degrees. This is in direct conflict with Einstein's claim in 1946.

    References:
    1. R. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 35, 875 (1930).
    2. D. Yu. Tsipenyuk, V. A. Andreev, Phys. Interpretations of the Theory of Relativity Conf. (Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow 2005).
    3. T. Musha and T. Kanamoto, Proc. of the 38th Space Science and Technology Conference, JSASS, 1994, pp. 31–32.
    4. T. Musha, Proc .of the 37th Conf. on Aerospace Propulsion, JSASS, 1997, pp. 342–349.
    5. Takaaki Musha, “Theoretical explanation of the Biefeld-Brown Effect”, 3-11-7-601 Namiki, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama 236-0005 Japan.
    6. T. Valone, Electro Gravitics II (Integrity Research Institute, Washington DC, 2008).
    7. D. R. Buehler, J. of Space Mixing 2, 1 (2004); see also electrogravitics in Wikipedia.
    8. W. Q. Liu, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China (personal communication, 2007).
    9. Fan Liangzao, Feng Jinsong, Liu Wu Qing, Engineer Sciences vol. 8, No. 2, 9-11
  • May 6 2013: Thank you for your speedy response and your interest in general relativity. In dealing with the frontier physics, unlike the physics of common sense, one should expect a participant may not know what he is talking about. Thus, the only requirement should be only a desire to understand the problem. In other words, we accept any one to participate in this discussion. You are certainly welcome!
    We asked where you learned about “fluid energy” because we were concerned that you may have been misled and we would want to help clarify this for you. In fact, we have googled the internet, but did not find the term “fluid energy “in connection with E = mc2. However, there is a term called “electromagnetic mass” defined as E/c2, i.e., the electromagnetic energy divided by c2. However, such a definition is inconsistent with the inert mass that Einstein and many other physicists defined.
    Einstein was a brilliant theorist but, like all of us, he was not perfect. Thus, it is necessary to carry-on and to extend Einstein’s work in general relativity. It is our intention that through this conversation, we can improve our understanding on the physics of gravitation. If you want some more detailed information, we would recommend you to read a recent paper, “C. Y. Lo, The Invalid Speculation of m = E/c2, the Reissner-Nordstrom Metric, and Einstein’s Unification, Phys. Essays, 25 (1), 49-56 (2012)”. The earlier version of this paper, is also posted on the internet website, www.scribd.com, which can be found by googling “c_y_lo”. It appears that sometimes fundamental assumptions are incorrect and then get perpetuated in general relativity although the theory as a whole is very valuable. Moreover, many believe in the so-called authority instead of relying on agreement with experiments and rigorous logic. Our aim is to further progress in physics by sharing our work in identifying and rectifying errors we have discovered. We expect also to learn from this conversation. Thank you for helping us in this endeavor.
    • thumb
      May 7 2013: You are very kind. I visualize Albert sitting with you, Max Planck, and Lo in Starbucks. C.Y. says, "Energy divided by c squared cannot possibly equal mass!" "Und vy iss dat?" asks Albert. . . Anyway, I doubt I can understand Mr. Lo's papers but thanks for the link and I will try. All the best. PS- When replying directly to a person use the red REPLY button to the right of their avatar. Do not start a new thread unless it is intended for everyone.