E=mc2, F= q(vxB), special relativity wrong.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello,

Quite recently, I made a finding that shows relativistic kinetic energy in E=mc² is refuted. The Lorentz magnetic force law F = q(vXB) is invalid.

The formulas of relativistic mechanics evaluate to figures of energy that are fictitious and not figures with real units of energy. This has been confirmed in 2009 by Chinese physicists who are members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They measured energy through direct calorimetry and their experiment conclusively repudiated the relativistic energy of special relativity. They concluded that the 7 TeV (10¹² electron volts) of protons purportedly reached by protons in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN have only real energy of about 650 MeV (10⁶ electron volts), off by a factor of 15000 - it is the same as what my new theoretical findings conclude.

The Lorentz magnetic force law had been experimentally refuted since 1901. The purported verification of relativistic mass were actually experimental repudiation of the Lorentz magnetic force law.

Further, the so called experimental proof of special relativity verifying the relativistic energy and momentum relation are illusions. Their theoretical basis is assumptions of variable mass, relativistic momentum and relativistic definition of force in Lorentzian reality. Their equipments, too. were all electronic sensors relying on electromagnetism that give figures that belong also to Lorentzian reality. It would be a miracle if such experimental setups would come up with data that fits the Newtonian kinetic energy of 1/2 mv² which belong to another world -Galilean reality.

A 14-page paper is available at my new website:
Title: "The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc² Fails."
http://www.emc2fails.com

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[scowie]

I came to the same conclusion about E=mc² being wrong recently, but from a different angle... by realising that the concept of mass defect must be wrong. According to the mainstream, splitting the atom releases energy because mass is lost, i.e. the heavier atom has the greater mass per nucleon. They also think that fusing lighter elements must release energy as they believe that as an atomic nucleus approaches iron in size the mass per nucleon goes down. After putting some thought into this recently I have come to the conclusion that this must be wrong and comes from the mainstream's mistake of thinking that by weighing something they are measuring the amount of mass there.

A few months back I made a post on how I believed the mainstream mass and density calculations for all the solar system bodies were wrong because they neglected electrostatic repulsion between bodies. I think I would now go further and say that we have never actually measured the mass of anything with great accuracy, including all the elements of the periodic table. This is because the weight of things is a result of not just their gravitational attraction to the earth but also their electromagnetic attraction/repulsion to/from the earth.

The reality is that it always takes an input of energy to fuse lighter nucleii into heavier ones. What changes depending on whether the resulting atom is lighter or heavier than iron, is what effect the increasing binding energy demand has on the weight of the atom. As the atom grows towards iron, the binding energy causes it to electromagnetically repel the earth to a greater degree (or maybe the EM attraction is reduced - the effect is the same), thereby reducing the weight per nucleon. Whereas for nucleii beyond iron, the extra binding energy results in greater electromagnetic attraction to the earth and an increasing weight per nucleon.

You could say that the binding energy creates an effective EM mass that can be positive or negative (what the mainstream call the mass defect). Of course this is not real mass and it isn't necessarily proportional to the amount of binding energy per nucleon. I suspect that the actual gravitational mass of an atom (the true measure of the amount of matter present) is simply proportional to the number of nucleons. This would mean that protons and neutrons have the same gravitational mass, but different EM masses. The proton is lighter than the neutron, not because it has less actual mass, but because it is electromagnetically repelled by the earth more (or attracted less). I reckon the electron has no gravitational mass at all, only an effective EM mass.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello scowie,

I think there is a lot we don't understand because of the hundred years of distractions; nuclear physics and binding energy are examples. To understand binding energy and the missing mass may be a lot more difficult than to disprove relativistic kinetic energy as it is not a simple case from an obviously invalid theory.

Not too long ago, I too wanted to find out more about this missing mass. But the current particle physics is rather complicated. They now have the table of mass of all nuclei to 8 figures. I have to assume that those masses would figure accurately in predicting energy of nuclear interactions since they are confident about the 8 figure values. I have only a vague idea that the first method to measure such elementary mass is the mass spectrometer that relies on magnetic deflection; it seems they do have confidence in their technique.

I have read many who explain that the e=mc² for mass-energy equivalence for invariant mass has no relation with special relativity; early attemps were made starting with J.J.Thomson to explain mass as electromagnetic in origin. If we distrust the explanation, we could even take it as an experimental law for the time being. So this mass deficit observation is probably the focus of many dissident physicists who ask questions and want a full theory for it.

Only recently that I realized that, even now, our SI calibration of the kilogram is still by using weighing scales - i.e as weights just as 300 years back in Newton's time. So mass and "quantity of matter" is still a mystery. It is again closely related to our binding energy theory. It is not an easy problem to find a nice and complete theory; then you may also be having another breakthrough in nuclear physics different from our present fanciful version.

I like the idea that mass is absolute, as a quantity of matter (charge is invariant, why not mass?). It would be nice to just add up the nucleon count as the mass, then the weight and the other mass defect would be treated outside of mass.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[webolife]

Nucleon count is a great approximation for the "mass ratio". MASS is IMO just a ratio, ie. a relationship between particles, objects, planets, galaxies... We watch this relationship play out as centropic acceleration, orbital dynamics, charge-based spectral shifts, etc. What we observe as mass is more often in practical experience DENSITY, that is to say, we observe matter only in relation to the space it occupies; so for example in the observation of heavy isotopes we find paradoxically that the space occupied may be less than the average massed atom. We refer to the mass/space/energy relationship as a FIELD. At the [atomic] centroid of the field are found the fundamental particles of MATTER, protons and electrons [and their aggregate neutrons], the unifying elements of mass and charge.
For me, this amounts to the realization that mass is a manifestation of the squeezing pressure [commonly mistermed "attraction"] of the universe that is also responsible for gravity and charge, and I would say also for the phenomenon of light. As objects/particles approach the local centroid their vector density increases, and the resulting relationship between those objects becomes the basis for measuring what we call "mass". SR is unnecessary, counterintuitive, and inadequate to explain this, supposing that "light" is understood also in terms of this centropic field relationship. Example: as a field is squeezed by centropic pressure, the observer's retina, or other photo-resonant device detects this as a vector in the direction of the field centroid... LIGHT. The interplay of potential energy [the squeezing pressure], and kinetic energy [the motions resulting from a combination of that centropic pressure and the transverse/angular momentum vectors] play out as the foundations of physics [incl. optics] as well as chemistry.
In a nutshell.
From a nut.

[Pi sees]

Nucleon count is a great approximation for the "mass ratio". MASS is IMO just a ratio, ie. a relationship between particles, objects, planets, galaxies... We watch this relationship play out as centropic acceleration, orbital dynamics, charge-based spectral shifts, etc. What we observe as mass is more often in practical experience DENSITY, that is to say, we observe matter only in relation to the space it occupies; so for example in the observation of heavy isotopes we find paradoxically that the space occupied may be less than the average massed atom.

One of the best definitions of mass that I have come across is that "mass is a mess". Not only does it point out the confusion about what mass is, but imo it has literal truth: mass is the obstruction of space. Density tells you how much space is obstructed in a given volume.

For me, this amounts to the realization that mass is a manifestation of the squeezing pressure [commonly mistermed "attraction"] of the universe that is also responsible for gravity and charge, and I would say also for the phenomenon of light.

There does appear to be a gradient of obstruction of space, but to what extent is this gradient an artifact of our limited observational faculties? How does this squeezing pressure arise? Perhaps it is the case that the obstruction of space is a result of some underlying fabric of physical reality wrapping/cycling around itself, and that actual space is an absence of this effect (but then what is the underlying fabric and how does it arise)?

SR is unnecessary, counterintuitive, and inadequate to explain this, supposing that "light" is understood also in terms of this centropic field relationship.

Are you referring to the idea that photons travel in a spiral path?

[webolife]

No, my photon's don't travel because they are not things. Here some thoughts for starters about my model:
A "photon" if we must use the term is an increment of light action, a "tug" [but really a push, there is no "attractive" mechanism] in the direction of the collapsing field centroid. Located at a field centroid surface, an electron "jumping" to a lower energy state is such a collapse; our retina/photosensor is the peripheral point/surface in the field that responds to the centropic pressure vector, "seeing" the light action. This action is a manifestation of universal centropic pressure, relating it directly to gravitation and electrical potential/voltage. Now there is [?] an orthogonal "magnetic" component to this action that may manifest as Poynting vectors or a spirally configuration; particles in the vicinity of this magnetic field may be accelerated by this action, and this motion be confused as a "light speed" phenomenon [?]... but as I opened, light is not moving things [nor waves] in this model.
Light action can be modulated in a regular fashion [eg. radio signals, Sansbury's subtron fluctuations, etc], and our reception of this modulation over time is representable as a wave function, but that doesn't make light a wave, any more than a rotating wheel or swinging pendulum is a wave, yet their actions are represented graphically as wave functions...
Plenty more of my musings in other threads...

[JouniJokela]

I agree. It's Wrong. Basically everything in Physics is wrong.
We can't prove anything to be right. At this video at 4:00->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw Feynman tells you this.

So it is not to about to say what is Wrong. As everything is Wrong!
The point is to develop something which is LESS WRONG, which can replace this wrong theory. -> 8:45 said at the Video.

I looked your E=mc^2 paper, and it presents Valid points;

The force in the relation: force∝ d dt ( mv/ 1- v 2 c 2 ) may not be in the unit of newton, the SI unit of force.

and

The formula E=m c 2 does not evaluate to a value with a real defined unit of energy.

Then your second paper claim that speed of light is not a universal constant.
I don't agree with that.
With the title of your third paper, I agree fully; "Physical Reality Has Only Absolute Space and Time"
At your last paper, you detect correctly the problems of Lorentz transformation, mainly Time dilation.

I am nobody to tell what is right and what is wrong. But I have got an Idea which seems to be Less wrong, and it's even more simple.

Take mass out of everything. I mean here the "kilogramm" not "matter" itself. There is matter, but we should not define it through "mass" in some kilograms, which we even cant define by any other way than as only a "prototype".

This is easy said, but you notice soon that you become a lot of troubles, in old physics, as the Mass in kilograms is all over. F=ma etc.

My paper about this can be found here.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Everything

E=mc^2 is correct, when "E" has "m" written inside it; but as there is no "universal-mass", then E=mc^2 must be wrong, or not completely wrong, rather it's valid only locally.

[Chan Rasjid]

Dear scientists,

Mainstream physics believes particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light. It is true as they have found; i.e within their particle accelerators.

Using the time-of-flight measurement for speed, the William Bertozzi experiment in 1964 did find that his electrons did not go beyond the speed of light. But his electrons were propelled by electrostatic and electromagnetic means,by a linear accelerator. On the other hand natural beta decay electrons are propelled by their internal binding energy which may mean very different physics then the linear accelerators. Calorimetric measurements seems to have confirmed beta particles are capable of acquiring energy beyond 1 MeV. If the 1/2 mv² formula applies, then the speed of beta particles may reached 2c - twice the speed of light!

But so far, it seems no experiment has yet been done to measure the maximum speed of beta particles by the direct time-of-flight method. It would be interesting to do such an experiment with beta decay electrons, not electrons propelled by linear accelerators, to see if the speed of light is indeed a speed barrier for beta particles.

The situation is reminiscent of Aristotle's theory for 2000 years - that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Everyone assumed it to be true and no one cared to check by a simple experiment - until Galileo cared to check. So now, we believe beta particles cannot travel faster than light. Is it true?

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Zyxzevn]

Good idea for experiments. Chan.

I had another experiment involving charged particles and magnetism.
Relativity states that magnetism is a pseudo-force of the electric force
and is caused by relativity's length/time changes.
This means that the electrostatic force is still active when two charged particles
are travelling with the speed of light. And this would mean that any bundle
of charged particles would disperse very quickly.

But this does not seem the case in ion-beams or electron-beams.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focused_ion_beam
They can be pretty consistent.

In astronomy, we can look at the cosmic jets for an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet
If I look at these jets it seems as if the particles are not dispersing, but
are staying together for many light-years in distance.
We see again that the charged particles do not disperse that easy.

It seems as if the magnetic force keeps the particles very long together.
That would mean that the magnetic force is not a result of relativity and the electric force.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
But I think this needs more investigation.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Zyxzevn,

I only have a vague idea about SR explanations about magnetism, somehow related to or subservient to the electric force. It seems the Maxwell's EM wave too has the electric part and the magnetic part sort of "creating" each other - strange to me.

It seems the formalism of the magnetic field is not good. The earliest electrodynamics of Ampere,Gauss and Weber did not have magnetism. Other serious physicists have tried to have an electrodynamics without magnetism. It may be better.

In the case of electron or ion beams, I am not sure of the SR treatment. But if we take them as parallel currents, then they would attract thus balancing the electrostatic repulsive forces. I am not too sure.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Zyxzevn]

.. then they would attract thus balancing the electrostatic repulsive forces.

Unless you see magnetism as a result of relativity.
(there are some pages on wikipedia on relativity and electromagnetism
Or look at Stackexchange - Does special relativity make magnetic fields irrelevant?
Veritasium explains it easier

The idea behind the relativity effect:
(the video explains it a lot better).
A wire with a current has static ions and moving electrons.
Because the electrons move so fast, they see the "relative distance" between the ions as compressed.
This makes the other wire seems charged positive, and the electrons go towards the other wire.

But let's look deeper:
Einstein used the maxwell theories to derive his idea of relativity.
He saw that electric and magnetic fields go hand in hand forming wave.
This wave has the speed of light, because it is light.
He thought that the speed of light had to be constant in all conditions,
because that is what maxwell equations seem to show.
His relativity idea is that this speed of light had to be constant for all "observers".

And in another discussion we already questioned that idea. It could be constant for
all "interactions", producing exactly the same thing without time/space magic.

But let's look at the electron:
Direct observation of the electron show that they have no size.
( According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.)

But they also have have a magnetic momentum. It is even an important part of quantum physics, where
spin-up and spin-down appear as quantum properties.

The observation of an electron being magnetic, makes it impossible for magnetism to be only the
result of moving electromagnetic charges.

Things can get even weirder if you look at static electric fields (or static magnetic fields).
There are no electromagnetic waves, so there are no photons exchanged.
But there is certainly a force.
I think "they" use virtual photons to explain this.
Particles that jump in and out of existence to make up an explanation for something that is wrong to start with.

The problem with the physics on this subject is that it seems right if you look at it in parts.
But if you look at it as a whole it is a big mess.


The scientists that believe that there is nothing wrong with this stuff,
are simply not capable of understanding the whole.

[JouniJokela]

About the speed of light; (its unit is Length/Time, m/s)

You can make two approach on the same issue;

1. Either Length contraction is true, and the velocity is constant,
2. or Length is constant, but velocity is increasing - to infinity.

As I don't like to calculate with infinities, I prefer to choose Zero length, as it's very comprehensive compared to infinite velocity.

Anyhow, I am not going to start an academical fight about this issue, as it's physical content is the same.

[Zyxzevn]

You can make two approach on the same issue.

Only two?
There are endless ways to model the same observation.
Dynamic aether,
http://www.extinctionshift.com/ ,
Relativity related to sender instead of observer,
relativity related to the transmission,
etc.

The electromagnetic forces between two objects are usually at the speed of light.
So that means that anything caused by these forces can not go faster than that.

I think Chan listed a possible observation of beta-particles going faster than light,
which might be due to the reason that the responsible forces are not electromagnetic.
That is an interesting idea to test.

[webolife]

JouniJokela,
Many of your presented ideas in your linked paper ring true to my own view of the nature of light, gravitation, and nuclear dynamics, not to forget electrodynamics.
I have not the time nor energy right now to expand my ideas here although many are available elsewhere in TB threads, but take your photon pressure concept and consider the possibilities that:
1. c = 0
2. Light is not emitted (neither ejected particles nor propagated waves), rather it is a force/pressure toward the source as a sink -- therefore there is no c speed. It is not infinite speed but zero speed across distance.
3. Light, gravitation, nuclear force, electromotive pressure -- all are manifestations of a single/unified pressure field
4. This pressure is force vectors directed/radiated toward the field centroid, rather than radiating away
5. What is measured as mass is an areal consequence of this field which is definable as a ratio dependent on field radius -- this applicable for atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters
6. Vector density is the operational quantity rather than mass, defining and observed as potential and kinetic energies, in a dynamical equilibrium with rotational/angular momentum.
7. Centropy (the centrally directed field pressure) is the same as Entropy -- in all disequilibrium engendering interactions the centropic vectors dominate, resulting in net system compression, collapse, decay... entropy.