In March 1905, six months before Einstein, the Austrian physicist Fritz Hasenohrl published his third and final paper about the relationship
between mass and radiant energy in the same journal Annalen der Physik
that received and published his papers about relativity.
His final paper, a review of his former two since 1904, was an
elaborated thought experiment to determine if the mass of a perfect
black body radiation increased, from rest, while it was slowly
accelerated (the same hypothesis used by Einstein in his SR paper, to
deal with electrons). The final result was that this relationship:
m = 4/3 E/c² , which can be expressed as E = 3/4 mc²
which he found to be independent of the velocity of the cavity.
His work received much attention from the physics community, and won the Haitinger Prize of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In 1907 he
succeeded Boltzmann as professor of theoretical physics at the
University of Vienna.
This is the translation of his first paper, in 1904, where he derived m
= 8/3 E/c². In the next two papers, he corrected some mistakes,
publishing the last one in March 1905, six months before Einstein's
paper deriving E = mc².
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies#cite_note-21
Prior to Hassenohrl, and since 1881 paper from J.J. Thomson, different
works were published correcting Thomson and relating mass increase and changes of the electrostatic energy of a moving charged sphere (later
the electron) by Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Larmor, Wien and (finally) by
Abraham in 1903. The work of Hassenohrl was based on Abraham, but with
the fundamental change of using radiant energy from inside a perfect
black body moving. This alone was considered a breakthrough in physics,
and Einstein took note of it and simplified the thought experiment of Hassenohrl (a closed system) for other in an open system, which has theoretical deficiencies, which Einstein was never able to solve, giving
up in 1942 (7th. attempt).
The remarkable work of Hassenohrl showed, beyond doubts, that any energy (electrostatic or radiant) is related to mass increase, when moving, by
the relationship m = 4/3 E/c².
This fact, known for almost a decade since FitzGerald, couldn't be
explained correctly until 1922, when Enrico Fermi focused on the
problem.
All these works are considered today as pre-relativistic, even when
ether is barely mentioned.
Hassenohrl himself used two references (Einstein jargon didn't exist
yet): A fixed reference frame and a co-moving reference (along with the cavity). The popularization of relativity and the easiness of having a relationship E = mc² (even with restricted use of velocities) made it
much more appealing to the scientific community than having to deal with
E = 0.75 mc².
Even more, in the next decades, using c = 1 became popular, and so the
direct use E = m, as it was shown in the calculations done by Chadwick
(1932) to justify that he had proven the existence of the neutron. A different world would exist if E = 0.75 mc² had been adopted, which is a proof of what I've sustained for years about that such a simple equation
was adopted for convenience and colluded consensus (like many other
constants and formulae. GR?).
Hassenohrl's work proved that his equation is independent of the
velocity, and that mass is an invariant property of matter. On the
contrary, E = mc² has a limited range of applicability, forcing its use
to rations v/c << 1. This is because its derivation comes from using the first term (the cuadratic one) of an infinite McLauring series used on
the expansion of the Gamma factor minus one:
γ - 1 = 1/√(1 - v ²/c²) - 1 = 1/√(1 - β²) - 1 = 1/2 β² + 3/4 β⁴ + 15/24
β⁶ + 105/192 β⁸ + ..
Einstein used L (γ - 1) ≈ L/2 β² = 1/2 (L/ c²) v², from where he extracted m = L/ c² as the mass in the kinetic energy equation. Nor him neither von Laue (1911) nor Klein (1919) could solve this very limited approximation for uses on closed systems. Yet, the equation stayed (for consensus due to its convenience).
The work of Hassenohrl, based on his thought experiment, is very
detailed. Much more than the loose arrangement of Einstein's paper. He
did care to present his closed system with severe restrictions:
- A perfect black body cylindrical cavity, with the walls covered with a perfectly reflective mirror, exterior temperature of 0"C, and two
perfect black body caps on the ends, tightly fixed and having zero
stress from the forces of radiation and motion.
- A very small acceleration, in order to cause smooth changes in
velocity of the cavity.
- The black body radiation is taken from its intensity i (he never
mentioned Planck), which he described as a "pencil of energy", which
formed an angle θ with the vector of velocity.
In modern terms, it's the Monochromatic Irradiance or Spectral Flux
Density: Radiance of a surface per unit frequency or wavelength per unit solid angle.
- This directional quantity differs from Planck's Spectral Radiant
Energy formula by (c/4𝜋), which he accepted when integrating along the volume of the cavity, giving original Planck's density u of radiation
energy.
With the above considerations, and many others, Hassenohrl wrote his
final paper, for which he gained recognition and a prize. But the
problem for him, and for physics, is that it was a pre-relativistic work where absolute reference at rest was used (as in all the other works
from legions of physicists during the centuries). Relativity
cannibalized all the classic physics, except when it's not convenient to
do so: a blatant hypocrisy (take the merging of reference frames in
particle physics, or just the Sagnac effect).
The problem that Hassenohrl's work poses for physics is his enormous complexity, which has consumed a lot of manpower since 1905 up to these
days, in order to be understood.
This paper
Fritz Hasenohrl and E = mc²
Stephen Boughn
Haverford College, Haverford PA 19041
March 29, 2013
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7162
is one of many modern papers that try to understand Hassenohrl's work by using relativity and Planck, which simplify the complex work of the
Austrian physicist. Even this paper poses some doubts about the validity
(or not) of Hassenohrl's work in these days, where a notion of absolute reference frame is gaining momentum within physics. The paper try to
explain (but fails) which were Hassenohrl's mistakes (of course under
the light of relativity), but it serves as a guide to analyze
Hassenohrl's work.
However, the author is highly biased, because he focused on the first
1904 paper and not in the final publication in Annalen der Physik, where Hassenohrl had changed substantially his first proposal. For instance, introducing the idea of a slowly accelerated cavity (which is essential
to prove the independence of the gain in mass with respect to the
velocity).
I'm sorry not being able to get the March 1905 paper to cite it here. It seems that efforts to erase Hassenohrl's work (or Abraham's work with electrons) from the history have been successful. You have to resort to
find books from the '50s to get some info, like the one cited by Stephen Boughn.
Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? Which one would the physics community
adopt?
Hmmm....
rhertz wrote:
In March 1905, six months before Einstein, the Austrian physicist Fritz Hasenohrl published his third and final paper about the relationship between mass and radiant energy in the same journal Annalen der Physik
that received and published his papers about relativity.
His final paper, a review of his former two since 1904, was an
elaborated thought experiment to determine if the mass of a perfect
black body radiation increased, from rest, while it was slowly
accelerated (the same hypothesis used by Einstein in his SR paper, to
deal with electrons). The final result was that this relationship:
m = 4/3 E/c² , which can be expressed as E = 3/4 mc²
which he found to be independent of the velocity of the cavity.
His work received much attention from the physics community, and won the Haitinger Prize of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In 1907 he
succeeded Boltzmann as professor of theoretical physics at the
University of Vienna.
This is the translation of his first paper, in 1904, where he derived m
= 8/3 E/c². In the next two papers, he corrected some mistakes,
publishing the last one in March 1905, six months before Einstein's
paper deriving E = mc².
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies#cite_note-21
Prior to Hassenohrl, and since 1881 paper from J.J. Thomson, different works were published correcting Thomson and relating mass increase and changes of the electrostatic energy of a moving charged sphere (later
the electron) by Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Larmor, Wien and (finally) by Abraham in 1903. The work of Hassenohrl was based on Abraham, but with
the fundamental change of using radiant energy from inside a perfect
black body moving. This alone was considered a breakthrough in physics,
and Einstein took note of it and simplified the thought experiment of Hassenohrl (a closed system) for other in an open system, which has theoretical deficiencies, which Einstein was never able to solve, giving
up in 1942 (7th. attempt).
The remarkable work of Hassenohrl showed, beyond doubts, that any energy (electrostatic or radiant) is related to mass increase, when moving, by
the relationship m = 4/3 E/c².
This fact, known for almost a decade since FitzGerald, couldn't be explained correctly until 1922, when Enrico Fermi focused on the
problem.
All these works are considered today as pre-relativistic, even when
ether is barely mentioned.
Hassenohrl himself used two references (Einstein jargon didn't exist
yet): A fixed reference frame and a co-moving reference (along with the cavity). The popularization of relativity and the easiness of having a relationship E = mc² (even with restricted use of velocities) made it
much more appealing to the scientific community than having to deal with
E = 0.75 mc².
Even more, in the next decades, using c = 1 became popular, and so the direct use E = m, as it was shown in the calculations done by Chadwick (1932) to justify that he had proven the existence of the neutron. A different world would exist if E = 0.75 mc² had been adopted, which is a proof of what I've sustained for years about that such a simple equation was adopted for convenience and colluded consensus (like many other constants and formulae. GR?).
Hassenohrl's work proved that his equation is independent of the
velocity, and that mass is an invariant property of matter. On the contrary, E = mc² has a limited range of applicability, forcing its use
to rations v/c << 1. This is because its derivation comes from using the first term (the cuadratic one) of an infinite McLauring series used on
the expansion of the Gamma factor minus one:
γ - 1 = 1/√(1 - v ²/c²) - 1 = 1/√(1 - β²) - 1 = 1/2 β² + 3/4 β⁴ + 15/24
β⁶ + 105/192 β⁸ + ..
Einstein used L (γ - 1) ≈ L/2 β² = 1/2 (L/ c²) v², from where he extracted m = L/ c² as the mass in the kinetic energy equation. Nor him neither von Laue (1911) nor Klein (1919) could solve this very limited approximation for uses on closed systems. Yet, the equation stayed (for consensus due to its convenience).
The work of Hassenohrl, based on his thought experiment, is very
detailed. Much more than the loose arrangement of Einstein's paper. He
did care to present his closed system with severe restrictions:
- A perfect black body cylindrical cavity, with the walls covered with a perfectly reflective mirror, exterior temperature of 0"C, and two
perfect black body caps on the ends, tightly fixed and having zero
stress from the forces of radiation and motion.
- A very small acceleration, in order to cause smooth changes in
velocity of the cavity.
- The black body radiation is taken from its intensity i (he never mentioned Planck), which he described as a "pencil of energy", which
formed an angle θ with the vector of velocity.
In modern terms, it's the Monochromatic Irradiance or Spectral Flux Density: Radiance of a surface per unit frequency or wavelength per unit solid angle.
- This directional quantity differs from Planck's Spectral Radiant
Energy formula by (c/4𝜋), which he accepted when integrating along the volume of the cavity, giving original Planck's density u of radiation energy.
With the above considerations, and many others, Hassenohrl wrote his
final paper, for which he gained recognition and a prize. But the
problem for him, and for physics, is that it was a pre-relativistic work where absolute reference at rest was used (as in all the other works
from legions of physicists during the centuries). Relativity
cannibalized all the classic physics, except when it's not convenient to
do so: a blatant hypocrisy (take the merging of reference frames in particle physics, or just the Sagnac effect).
The problem that Hassenohrl's work poses for physics is his enormous complexity, which has consumed a lot of manpower since 1905 up to these days, in order to be understood.
This paper
Fritz Hasenohrl and E = mc²
Stephen Boughn
Haverford College, Haverford PA 19041
March 29, 2013
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7162
is one of many modern papers that try to understand Hassenohrl's work by using relativity and Planck, which simplify the complex work of the Austrian physicist. Even this paper poses some doubts about the validity (or not) of Hassenohrl's work in these days, where a notion of absolute reference frame is gaining momentum within physics. The paper try to explain (but fails) which were Hassenohrl's mistakes (of course under
the light of relativity), but it serves as a guide to analyze
Hassenohrl's work.
However, the author is highly biased, because he focused on the first
1904 paper and not in the final publication in Annalen der Physik, where Hassenohrl had changed substantially his first proposal. For instance, introducing the idea of a slowly accelerated cavity (which is essential
to prove the independence of the gain in mass with respect to the velocity).
I'm sorry not being able to get the March 1905 paper to cite it here. It seems that efforts to erase Hassenohrl's work (or Abraham's work with electrons) from the history have been successful. You have to resort to find books from the '50s to get some info, like the one cited by Stephen Boughn.
Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? Which one would the physics community adopt?
Hmmm....
You mean...in those days they never heard of...footnotes?
In what is considered as the first experimental proof of Einstein's 1905
E = mc² paper, 27 years after (1932), the English physicist John
Cockroft and the Irish physicist Ernest Walton produced a nuclear disintegration by bombarding Lithium with artificially accelerated
protons.
They used beams of protons accelerated with 600,000 Volts to strike
Lithium7 atoms, which resulted in the creation of two alpha particles.
The experiment was celebrated as a proof of E = mc², even when the
results were closer to E = 3/4 mc², BUT NOBODY WANTED TO NOTICE THIS!
For this paper, Cockcroft and Walton won the 1951 Nobel Prize in Physics
for their work on the FIRST artificial transmutation of atomic nuclei,
not for proving E = mc², a FALSE CLAIM still used by relativists.
Cockcroft and Walton NEVER HAD IN MIND to prove E = mc², as it can be
shown in his 1932 publication, nor they mentioned Einstein even once:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133
Yet, relativists hurried to celebrate the experiment as a triumph of Einstein's theories, because they needed such accomplishment to
celebrate the veracity of their pseudoscience.
The equation for their experiment was the following:
7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy
From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932):
Lithium7 amu 7.0104
Hydrogen amu 1.0072
8.0176
Helium amu 4.0011
Helium amu 4.0011
8.0022
Difference 0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 ± 2.7 MeV
The difference in energy using E = mc², with 2024 NIST values, varies
from -2.1% to -49.7%, AVERAGING almost -25%.
CURIOUSLY, the average error over hundred of measurements is EXACTLY the factor 0.75 of the Hassenohrl's formula E = 3/4 mc².
What happened with the history of this experiment. Was it re-written
since THIS single experiment, NEVER EVER REPEATED, to hype Einstein?
---------------------------------------------------
These are the values with NIST 2024:
Lithium7 amu 7.0160034366
Hydrogen amu 1.00782503223
8.02382846883
Helium amu 4.00260325413
Helium amu 4.00260325413
8.00520650826
Difference 0.01862196057 amu
17.36590E+07 MeV
************************************************************
INTERESTING: 92 years after the 1932 experiment, NIST managed to correct
the amu of the elements, so the difference FITS with E = mc².
WORSE YET: In the Manhattan booklet "Los Alamos Primer", written by
Serber & Oppenheimer in 1943, to instruct scientists recruited for the project, the calculations WRITTEN THERE were based on electrostatic
repulsion of split atoms, which ALSO DIFFER IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT with the infamous 200 MeV computed by Meitner and her nephew in 1939.
Serber, on his 1992 book, affirmed that nuclear fission WAS UNRELATED to
E = mc², and that the fission process was NON-RELATIVISTIC.
Yet, just after WWII finished, the infamous Time Magazine cover had the figure of Einstein and the nuclear cloud with E = mc² written on it.
Time Magazine was widely known as an outlet of Jewish propaganda, and
still is (what was left of it).
So, Hassenohrl was the real deal and Einstein the Jewish icon to be hyper-hyped as the most important physicist since Babylon times?
From 1932 to 1943, the brightest minds involved in EXPERIMENTAL nuclear fission DIDN'T SUPPORT E = mc².How can E=mc^2 when the exact same mass of one substance is converted
The above FACT has to count, and open the eyes of most. The drive to reinstall the genius of Einstein and relativity re-started in the early
'50s, and never did stop (cosmology, particle physics, etc.).
We live in a world of lies and INFAMOUS reconstruction of history, and I
mean ALL THE HISTORY.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:08:04 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,566 |
