The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: E=mc^2 or E=mC^2 ?  (Read 1570 times)

Offline Dominus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
    • The physical creation of Time and Space
E=mc^2 or E=mC^2 ?
« on: 31/03/2011 21:12:21 »
Before entering into the argument proper, just a few words to specify two points. (1) we shall be dealing with mass-energy equivalence clearly formulated by the equation in question which came to be known as «the most famous equation» not because of the aforesaid equivalence, but because of its association to nuclear fission and its property of quantifying the missing mass into the released energy during fission. (2) although the equation was tested for energy release from nuclear reaction in 1933, and definitely associated to nuclear fission and rendered famous after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, from the outright start Einstein himself in his 1905 papers and in his 1913 papers had associated the equation with the nucleus of the atom when he suggested to test the mass-energy equivalence with radioactive decay.
Given the above facts, we all are now in a position to assess the most famous equation of them all in what may be seen as the right context. I am myself in a position to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that (I) physical science’s most famous equation was not formulated in accordance to its physical significance, (II) I shall introduce the most likely candidate to replace the offender; that is to say, the incongruent c2, and then, only then, (III) reformulate the most famous equation of them all. In the meantime here it is, the old girl in its full glory:
E = m c2

Electron microscopes use a particle beam of electrons to illuminate the specimen and have a greater resolving power than light-powered optical microscopes. This is because electrons have wavelengths shorter than visible light (photons) and as such attain a better resolution than optical microscopes (in the order of 0.3 as against 400 nanometres).
With wavelengths this short, we are allowed to move only in the outer shell of the atom; that’s a long way away from the nucleus, a long way away. We may now ask ourselves: why should Einstein be allowed to enter the nucleus with wavelengths much, much longer of those we see above. Don’t run to check them, here they are: the visible light falls in the region of 380-750 nanometres.
The speed of light inside the nucleus of an atom? How can the light’s wavelength enter the nucleus to prise open its core, to poke neutrons, and to split protons? The speed of light in the atom’s “sancta sanctorum”? The thought of it is simply absurd, it’s preposterous.
There never was, of course, the speed of light in the nucleus. What the great man put in there, unaware as he was, it was what I have called “the electromagnetic process for the making of time and space” or, better still, the beginning of it, the early stage of the process whose inner structure covers the gamma rays range of frequencies. This is the weapon that Einstein put inside the nucleus, this is the weapon that can and will split hundreds of protons because it has the strength to do it. The sharp thickly compacted vibrations have very cutting edges and can prise open two protons very easily. The great man knew about it. I recall to mind here that in 1921 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the photoelectric effect. He knew then that even within the visible spectrum range of frequencies, photons from the blue end of it had enough energy (sharper vibration edges) to free electrons from a metal plate whereas photons from the red end of the spectrum weren’t energetic enough to do the job.
As for that c2 above, its strength is given to it by its speed. More precisely, the squared speed of light in a vacuum multiplied by the mass of a body (ninentynine per cent of which is inside the nucleus) gives the potential energy entrapped in that body. The wavelength, which at first sight strikes us as being the more important, does not come into it because in the visible spectrum it is much too long and its energy is harmless. A little girl playing with a household mirror can do what she wants with a ray of light. Moreover, the speed of light, like any other electromagnetic radiation, runs orthogonal to the process and obviously retains the same speed of the process whose decreasing energy is progressively bonded for the physical creation of each and every wavelength. This is, then, where the almighty strength lies because this is the expanding and/or extending field or, if you prefer to see it the other way around, the mighty gravitational field.
Given the above facts, it seems to be clear that the equation under scrutiny will have to be adjusted. The most suitable candidate for it would be the first axiom of the theory herein expounded which reads: <time and space are physically created by an electromagnetic process in expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum>. The physical properties of this spectrum are well known. What is not known is that its gradation scale is embedded in space and one of its transverse sections is used by the speed of light.

As a matter of fact, the real McCoy is «the electromagnetic process» which I am representing here with a cone-like figure. For example, if we put the cone upright as seen above we can easily see all radiations running orthogonal to it. From the almighty little one at the bottom called gamma radiation... to the visible light confined half way through... to long radio waves. They all have the same speed of their maker, they all have a frequency range which belongs to their maker, they all have an inner structure coming from a transverse section of their maker.
There may be a better candidate, of course, perhaps one equally suitable. In all instances it must have two necessary requisites: (1) it must be able to move inside the nucleus and it must, therefore, have the radial speed of 3x108 cycles per second per metre to quantify the work done, and to honour the genius of Einstein who first formulated the equation, and (2) all or part of it must oscillate in the frequency range of 1019 cycles per second per metre and over, with wavelength less than 10 picometres to be able to prise open the nucleus and operate inside of it.
As the mathematically trained reader will have already resolved, to do the job of splitting two protons we need both, we need the speed and we need the energy. Think fast please, if the speed were the only thing needed, the third member of the equation could then be microwave radiation (same speed as “c”) or could be radio waves (same speed as “c”) or, on the higher energy side, could be X-rays radiation (same speed as “c”). How can we get energy out of dividing a length (space) by a mental abstraction (time)? Does it make any sense? For Physical Science and physicists it shouldn’t because a length of empty space it has no physical properties and a second of time is even more aleatory. It does, however, make sense if we put away that «mental abstraction» and accept that time and space are a product of nature and as such are themselves pure energy.
Back on track, am I then walking on scientific ground if I say that the only radiation allowed inside the nucleus is gamma radiation? Of course I am. The c2 of old must be read and understood as: <gammarays2> because that’s what makes the equation work, because gamma radiation is the only radiation inside the nucleus. Not even X-rays are allowed to get through to the nucleus. Gamma radiation is the only radiation possessing both requisites. Here they are:
(1) Energy: 1.24 Mega electronVolt just enough energy to split protons at will; anything less will not do.
(2) Speed: 3x108 cycles per second per metre = 3x1020 (frequency range) multiplied by 1 picometer, that is, 1x10−12 (wavelength range).


 

Offline Dominus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
    • The physical creation of Time and Space
E=mc^2 or E=mC^2 ?
« Reply #1 on: 31/03/2011 21:23:35 »
E=mc^2 or E=mC^2? (continued from previous page)
I would now like to think aloud and pass some useful comments. (1) the equation works, the many successful atomic fission blasts can testify to that, (2) it is the speed of that c2 and not the energy that translates itself into strength, (3) the speed translates itself into strength because it is radial (it must, since it is inside the nucleus and operates within nuclear energy) and not linear as intended by Relativity, (4) the current formalism, that is: physicists, or anyone else for that matter, refer to that c2 as the «speed of light in a vacuum» implying, at the same time, a linear speed... up up and away, (5) I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the speed and not the energy generates the power of the all-important parameter c2, (6) I have indirectly proven that there exists in nature a mighty strength (with the same speed as that “c2" able and capable of bursting in to the nucleus and split protons at will, (7) I have labelled this “mighty strength” the electromagnetic process for the expansion of time and/or the extension of space, and given to it the notation C2.
Yes, we know that the equation works. Yes, we know that the wavelength which characterizes the speed of light is much too long and cannot even get close to the nucleus, let alone inside of it. Yes, we have seen, and it was well known, that it is the speed of that c2 quantifying the nuclear fission taking place inside the nucleus. What then? Yes, it must be said that one cannot split protons sitting at the desk and playing with pencil and paper; to split protons one needs a mighty strength which, inside the nucleus, can only be given by gamma rays. Any first year student knows that to split protons it is needed a neutron and that the fission generates new neutrons in the form of gamma rays. What has the speed of light got to do with all this? Nothing, because although it has the right speed to do the job, it cannot enter into the nucleus since its wavelength is much too long. Further, in the impossibility-type postulate that the speed of light were to enter inside the nucleus, its energy which runs in the order of 2 to 3 electronVolts wouldn’t even tickle a proton, let alone moving it or pushing it into a corner. Actually, the whole idea, as I mentioned earlier, is simply preposterous.
It would be a different thing altogether if the guest were to be «the electromagnetic process» or, better still, its mighty little offspring called gamma radiation the photons of which have about 10.000 times as much energy as the photons in the visible spectrum. We can, then, understand and explain the workings of that C2, we can explain the why and the wherefore two or more protons are forced apart. Certainly, we can now thread our way through a crowd, we can blindly walk on familiar ground and we are, needless to say, at liberty to call it «C2» or give it any symbol that comes to mind in this glorious and eventful first blush of the morning.
Yes, the old girl will have to wear a new dress, the last term of the equation is incongruent. However, if there is a similar or better candidate for the job, as suggested above, I shall be the first to acclaim the new comer. In the meanwhile, let me recast the old equation and introduce what it could be a possible solution of it. Here it is:

E = m C2

where C2 is the electromagnetic process expanding in time and/or extending in space and, I may add, the most suitable candidate that I know of. I sense a rejection of it, the vibes are telling me that physicists that count are not happy with it. Be it so. Forget about my revolutionary concept of <world processor>. Replace the third member and its unscientific description [where c2 is the speed of light in a vacuum (measured in metres per second = linear speed)] with the right term and a proper specification such as [where C2 is the gamma rays range of frequencies (measured in cycles per second per metre = radial speed)].

   Conclusion
Looking back on past events, Einstein made good use of the speed of light which, in physical science, was and still is a very powerful tool to work with. Oftentimes, he used it as a standard candle or as a radial speed. See, for example, «time dilation», «gravitational potential» and, obviously, the case at hand. I must be thankful to Einstein for this. Actually, the simple fact that the speed of light equals length divided by time has given me a hint and a chance to prove on strict physical ground and on rigorous mathematical reasoning that there exists in nature an electromagnetic process the gradation scale of which is identifiable with that of the electromagnetic spectrum whose gamma rays are at home in the nucleus of an atom. All of this has no significance for Physical Science modern or otherwise; it is of paramount importance to the theory herein advanced whose 1st axiom gives time and space «body», gives time and space a physical structure. A length of space is not some ad hoc definition to suit the operator, a length of space has an inner structure interwoven with extending magnetic and electric forces and fields moving linearly; likewise, an instant of time is not an offspring of a mental abstraction to satisfy the philosophical approach, an instant of time has an inner structure interwoven with expanding magnetic and electric forces and fields moving radially. This is why, I may add, the speed of light can quantify a fission blast.
As a final note, I shall now raise a question: is the idea of a <process put there by mother nature> too far fetched? For the die-hards it certainly is; they may even go as far as tagging it ridiculous. As for me, the humble originator of it, the idea is physically and mathematically sound. If you care to do some brief mental exercises, you can set your seal to what I have just said.
In point of fact, if you accept that time and space are a product of nature created by an electromagnetic process in expansion and/or extension, you have found yourself with a clear picture of the inner structure of space. With this in mind, you will explain and put the word end (as I did) to all relativity paradoxes, to all quantum mechanics paradoxes, to the wave-particle duality, to the two-hundred year-old two-slit experiment, to the frightening concept of nonlocality and to all the rest. With a clear picture of the inner structure of space in mind, you will know what gravitation looks like, and you will explain the poorly understood origin of inertia. You will know the difference between energy and mass, and what makes mass distinct from weight. You will identify the electric charge and you will know why electric charges behave the way they do. After a hundred and twenty years of its discovery you will know what an electron looks like and what is its inner structure. You will know the photon’s inner structure and why at interacting with matter takes the semblance of a particle. You will explain to yourself the <ghostly> behaviour of an excited atom in a resonant cavity. If you can do this and much, much more, you have moved a bit closer to nature, and you can step forward with rapid strides towards your glorious achievements. The price to pay for all this? Well, that’s another story, and a long one.
To round off for the closing, I shall point out that by accepting the physical existence of the electromagnetic process, Science will have found (i) the energy required for the expansion of the universe, (ii) the negative energy missing to satisfy the cosmological equilibrium, (iii) the scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, (iv) the raison d’être itself, and (v) the missing roots of «being and becoming» because the process is an ongoing process from time immemorial.
« Last Edit: 31/03/2011 21:48:07 by Dominus »
 

Offline JMLCarter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
E=mc^2 or E=mC^2 ?
« Reply #2 on: 05/04/2011 22:30:20 »
So where does the so called "strong nuclear force" fit in to this, or does it not?
 

Offline Dominus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
    • The physical creation of Time and Space
E=mc^2 or E=mC^2 ?
« Reply #3 on: 06/04/2011 09:01:40 »
So where does the so called "strong nuclear force" fit in to this, or does it not?
Hello JML,
No one is touching the nuclear interactions, not me at any rate. JML, a couple of days ago I did reply to your speed of light post.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

E=mc^2 or E=mC^2 ?
« Reply #3 on: 06/04/2011 09:01:40 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums