Math Forum Discussions

plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 7,387
Registered: 3/31/08

Chapt15.42 Deriving E=mcc purely from the Maxwell Equations; energy
and mass are dualities not equivalencies #1196 New Physics #1316 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted: Feb 2, 2013 1:23 AM

Plain Text

Sorry, I need another chapter.

Chapt15.42 Deriving E=mcc purely from the Maxwell Equations; energy
and mass are dualities not equivalencies

Alright, I need a chapter on how the Maxwell Equations derives E =
mc^2, which I like better writing as E = mcc

I like that because in the analysis we consider the maximum possible
momentum of a mass m as being P = mc since there is no speed greater
than c.

So that we ask the relativistic question of the Maxwell Equations that
commonplace energy of kinetic energy is

E = 1/2 mvv

and so, what is the maximum possible energy since the speed of light
is maximum speed and it is a constant.

Would we have E = 1/2mcc ?
The answer is no, for the maximum would be mcc
not 1/2mcc.

In the literature there are many logical arguments that derive E =
mcc, except they get hung up on not applying relativistic Maxwell
Equations to eliminate the constant term of 1/2 or any other constant
except that of 1.

One Argument, usually called the Units argument:

E = FD, energy = force x distance

F = MA, force = mass x acceleration

E = MAD

V = D/T, velocity = distance/time

A = V/T, acceleration = velocity/time

A = D/TT

E = M(DD/TT) = Mcc

Now the reason that physicists never accepted that as a full fledged
proof, is that they were unsure the constant in front of Mcc is
something other than a 1.

But in their haste to object to the argument, they failed to apply
Maxwell Equations as relativistic.

Application of Maxwell Equations:
1) c is a constant speed
2) c is a maximum speed

Now, we have E = M(DD/TT) = mc^2

If the constant K in Kmc^2 was something other than 1, suppose it was
1/2mcc as in kinetic energy 1/2mvv, then we have the speed of light
less than c. If the constant K were greater than 1 then it violates
the c as maximum speed.

Second Argument:
We have a second logical units argument using momentum rather than
kinetic energy:

P = MV, momentum equal to mass x velocity

P = FT, momentum equal to force x time

E = FD and relativistic D is thus c, for if not we violate c is a
maximum

E = Fc

now since F = ma and where light speed cannot accelerate but remain
the constant c we have

F = mc

Substituting we have

E = mcc

So the units argument of both kinetic energy and of momentum rely on
removing all constants K except for the constant of 1. And those are
removed by the two facts of light speed-- a constant and a maximum.
Only the constant 1 allows no contradictions to light speed.

But the logical argument above tells us more about the thorny issue of
rest mass versus energy. Are we to believe that the two transition
from one to the other, as a equivalence or equality? Or better yet,
that the two are dualities. For example when a electron and positron
annihilate, are we to believe the rest mass no longer exists and
converted to a light wave energy, or that the rest masses still exist
in the light wave? For a answer to that question we look at
electricity and magnetism. Are we to say that electricity equals or
equivalent to magnetism? Or better say they are dualities, where
depending on the experiment used, displays electricity more than
magnetism or displays energy more than mass.

A nice analogy is a slinky toy. The toy is rest mass of a particle
when packaged in the box. When let loose and stretched as far as it
can stretch it is energy wave. But it is still a particle, only a
stretched particle.

So physicists have to be very cautious about equal signs and
equivalence statements, because when we get down to the axioms of
physics, the Maxwell Equations, electricity, magnetism, particle,
wave, rest-mass, charge, energy, time, distance, there is no equality
or equivalence but duality and duality transformations.

We do not speak of the equivalence of proton to electron to that of a
neutron. We think of the proton and electron as duality of charge and
that they reside inside the neutron until the neutron decays. So the
formula 0 = -1 +1 is not saying the neutron equivalency of electron
and proton, but rather the duality of parameters involved.

We still use the equal sign and the equivalence sign borrowed from
mathematics and we use the language of equal or equivalent, but in
physics, we should not mistake our borrowing of mathematical symbols
with what is physically going on. Energy is not equivalent to mass,
nor is electricity equivalent to magnetism, but rather they are
dualities of physics.

Duality is a concept that is lower than what equality is a concept in
mathematics. In fact, mathematics has no concept lower than equality.
But Physics is richer than mathematics and physics subsumes all of
mathematics. And so, in physics there is a concept of equality, but a
concept even lower in that of duality.

--

Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies