A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Going back to the Einstein’s question.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 23rd 09, 10:01 AM posted to alt.astronomy
socratus[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Going back to the Einstein’s question.

Going back to the Einstein’s question.

In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”

As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”

It means what SRT must be connected with E= Mc^2 .
It means what must be connection between Lorentz’s
transformation and E= Mc^2.

April 2009.

The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of a light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”

Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.”
When new question arise: ” How is possible to understand the
connection between E=Mc^2 and (for example ) with E= hf. ?”

On my opinion " The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass" (according to one single light quanta /electron )
gives answer to this question..

The problem is that now nobody wants to ask yourself that
„The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to one single light quanta / photon /electron.
============== . .
P.S.
Many years M. Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls
in area of absolutely black body ( Kirchhoff’s Vacuum
radiation /Max Laue / ) and does not radiate back,
then “ terminal dead “ comes. In order to save the
quantum of light from death Planck decided that
it is possible that quantum of light will radiate this
quantum of light back with quantum unit h=Et.
Physicists say, that Planck’s unit is one: h=1.
Having this unit h=1 photon flies with speed c=1.
This unit doesn’t come from formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced unit h phenomenologically
So, where does the Planck’s constant ( h) come from?
#
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have
no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture
that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
========== . .
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is a time question; I'll bet (Einstein) didn't know about laser pointers esmartguy Amateur Astronomy 3 November 16th 06 06:29 AM
Apollo 9 question (was: Will we ever get this group back on topic?) OM History 1 May 14th 04 10:49 AM
question about back of a mirror in progress brocpuffs Amateur Astronomy 3 November 10th 03 08:44 PM
Back now with a LM question adam bootle History 5 September 8th 03 04:28 PM
Question to Tom Back (an apo designer) ValeryD Amateur Astronomy 42 August 27th 03 04:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.