dChan
Anonymous ID: 72da49 March 14, 2019, 4:03 a.m. No.5675820   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5856

Scratch a Jew find a thief shill

slide.

 

https:

//www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-in-1903-the-Italian-scientist-Olinto-De-Pretto-published-that-E-mc-2-two-years-before-Einstein

 

"Is it true that in 1903, the Italian scientist Olinto De Pretto published that E=mc2, two years before Einstein?

He published a paper which stated that the potential energy of a particle in motion is given by mv2, and then asserted that this motion could be equated to the mass vibrating at speed c in the Luminiferous Aether, leading to a statement that E=mc2.

 

He did this in 1903, two years before Einstein published special relativity โ€” seemingly pipping Einstein to the post!

There are several problems with this.

First of all โ€” where the hell did the factor of 12 go?! I can see no justification for why he dropped the factor of 12 from the kinetic energy โ€” everyone knows E=12mv2 โ€” yet he throws the half away*!

Second of all โ€” he had no theoretical basis for asserting that v=c. None at all. He (seemingly) randomly asserts that particles vibrate at c in the aether โ€” huh?!

When you include the negative results in the search for the Luminiferous Aether two decades earlier (Michelson & Morely, 1887), it begins to look a pretty dodgy assertion.

Yes โ€” he wrote down the equation E=mc2. As far as I can tell, however, he had no theoretical basis for doing so โ€” it is only through hindsight that this result is at all remarkable.

If you are going to start pointing fingers at Einstein, then you need to take into account the fact that there were many attempts pre-Einstein to equate mass and energy.

 

Lorentz wrote the following:

 

m0=4E3c2

 

Where E was the electromagnetic energy. And unlike De Pretto he had a pretty solid theoretical basis for doing so โ€” the Lorentz machinery makes up a large part of SR, after all!

Heaviside and JJ Thompson both made some very similar efforts (from which Lorentz derived a lot of his work), as well โ€” so this idea had been bouncing around for a long time.

If you're going after the general idea of mass-energy equivalence, then we can see that Newton said in 1717:

Are not the gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition

Which is a primitive statement of mass-energy equivalence.

So yes โ€” maybe somebody wrote down the equation before Einstein.

For the wrong reasons!

Einstein isn't famous for E=mc2 โ€” he is famous for the mathematical formalism which predicts it!

For heaven's sake E=mc2 doesn't even appear in the first paper of special relativity โ€” and only appears in the form ฮ”m=ฮ”Lc2 in the second one!

Mass-energy equivalence is about 5th on the list of things Einstein is famous for in the physics community โ€” it is just that E=mc2 is really pithy and memorable!

The full, useful equation is actually:

 

E=m2c4+c2p2โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆ’โˆš

 

And Einstein definitely derived that โ€” there's no question that that is Einstein's result.

 

All in all โ€” the equation E=mc2 is mostly unremarkable to physicists. It is only notable for its โ€œpop-sciโ€ connotations.

 

Now โ€” if this guy had written

 

Rฮผฮฝโˆ’12gฮผฮฝRฯƒฯƒ+gฮผฮฝฮ›=8ฯ€Gc4Tฮผฮฝ

 

In 1903, then I would be impressed!