The Theoretical Interpretation of Spacetime/motion
Formula: Mass Confusion
(c9 = c7 c2 the Basis
of E = mc2)
Charles William Johnson
©December 2010 Copyrighted.
Einstein's formula supposedly derives from the following
equation in one of his manuscripts from 1905.
From this equation, supposedly Einstein's formula
was deduced as follows:
E = mc2
For around 105 years, physicists have been toying
with this formula, praising the discovery and meaning of the square of
the speed of light in a vacuum. It is affirmed that c-square holds the
key to the equivalency and conversion between mass and energy. Einstein
has been revered since that time as the father of the theory of relativity,
as well as the one who discovered the importance of the factor of c2
Often, the numerical expressions for Planck energy
[ fractal 1.9561 ] and Planck mass [fractal 2.17644]
are substituted for the terms of E and m respectively in
E = mc2
1.9561 = 2.17644 x 8.987551787
1.9651 = 1.9561
Generally, that relation of equivalency
is cited as representing the confirmation of the formula and the conversion
of mass|energy or, energy|mass.
With those numbers, one is convinced
that the formula works and that the importance of the c-square factor
has been confirmed. Scientists often state that they do not know why the
c-square factor works, but that it works. Besides not knowing how Einstein
happened upon the importance of c-square, many do not know how Planck
derived the numerical value for mass [2.17644] or, how some of the other
Planck units were derived.
The upper speed limit for a light photon
is 299792458 meters/second. The square of that number produces a numerical
value that does not exist in any form of matter-energy. The c-square actually
represents a number that corresponds to a massless event: a light photon.
One could also critique the formula based upon this unreal number. But,
even this counter-reasoning is superfluous. The rejection of Einstein's
formula is more elementary than that.
Since c-square is an invalid concept
in my view, I decided to look at the powers of c as contained in some
of the symbolic formulae of the Planck constants. These formulae offer
not only c-square, but c3 , c4 , c5
, c6 and c7. Imagine, if using c-square appears
to produce unreal numbers, then imagine how even more unreal are numerical
values to these powers.
Now, a significant point is to note
that the numerical expression for c7 is 2.176431087!
There is the numerical value for the CODATA Planck mass value of 2.17644.
However, the c7. offers greater exactness, because c
itself is deemed exact by the CODATA.
Continuing with the search powers of
c, much to my surprise, c9 is 1.956078711
---the value that Planck energy is suggesting, 1.9561, only rounded off.
One may now conclude that in order to prove the significance of c-square,
all Einstein had to do is substitute the terms E and m for
these values: E = 1.956078711; m = 2.176431087. Now, it is possible to
visualize the original equation that may have served as the basis for
Einstein's formula from the viewpoint of simple math:
c9 = c7 c2
1.956078711 = 2.176431087 x 8.987551787
In these terms, one is viewing the equivalency
of unreal numbers corresponding to the powers of the upper limit of
the speed of a massless light photon.
The CODATA Planck energy and the generalized
concept for Planck mass are evidently derived then from these unreal numerical
values pertaining to a massless light photon.
It becomes obvious, that to allege that
the CODATA fractal value 2.17644 that pertains to the concept of Planck
mass is erroneous. Likewise, to allege that the general fractal value
1.9561 pertains to the concept of Planck energy is erroneous.
Without a doubt, the values for Planck
energy, 1.9561 (c9) and Planck mass, 2.17644 (c7)
by the CODATA have been chosen, not because they supposedly represent
a theoretical interpretation of energy|mass, but because of their mathematical
relevancy to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum (c2).
One may go further and challenge the CODATA to state that there is actually
no theoretical reasoning behind the choices of 2.7644 mass and 1.9561
as implied energy in the CODATA.
From this perspective, the significance
of c2 in Einstein's formula is not the main point as
has always been emphasized in physics. That is not really a discovery
of the magic bullet between mass and energy. The equation actually emphasizes
the significance of c9 the final equivalency of the terms. C-square
is merely a minor player in the equation, since the multiplication of
terms means the addition of powers:
c9 = c7 c2
c9 = c9
Further, when the unreal numbers of
the powers of the speed of a massless photon in a vacuum, as in the relation
1.956078711 | 2.176431087 | 8.987551787, are examined, then it is equally
obvious that these numbers do not represent the supposed conversion of
energy|mass or mass|energy.
By all accounts, the terms of the equation
c9 = c7 c2 has been replaced by the terms
of Einstein's formula E = mc2. But, the numerical values
derived from the former equation have been retained and transferred to
the latter formula by Einstein, through the definition of Planck energy
[1.9561] and Planck mass [2.17644], together with c-square [8.987551787].
The creation of Einstein's formula by
utilizing the numbers from the c9 = c7 c2
equation based on powers of c is misleading at best. The confusion appears
in not listing the 1.9561+ value in the CODATA of the Planck constants,
and in not recognizing the origin of these two values [2.17644; 1.9561]
as of powers of c.
A third slight of hand is the idea that
these numerical values are unique, reflecting constants such as Planck
energy and Planck mass. The next level of confusion is to propose the
idea that the equation of the selected numerical values proves the equivalency
and conversion of mass|energy or energy|mass.
Once the computational behavior of Einstein's
formula is laid bare as in this essay, it then becomes impossible to continue
to use the formula and its corresponding numerical values for Planck mass
and Planck energy. Essentially, the formula and the mass|energy constant
values are irrelevant and without a theoretical basis.
Given this fact, then one must review
the history of physics for the past 105 years in order to re-evaluate
the works that have revolved around the cited numerical values in this
essay. One must seek anew an explanation for the equivalency and conversion
of mass|energy based on theoretical posits and computational procedures
other than those suggested by Einstein's formula.
Fortunately, the well-known formula
that has come to be called "Einstein's formula" has nothing to do with
his theses about spacetime, time dilation, length contradiction or the
qualitative behavior of matter|energy ---aside from its quantitative equivalency
and conversion. And therefore, the demise of Einstein's formula will not
affect Einstein's theory of relativity. Or, will it?
©2010-2013 Copyrighted by Charles William
Johnson. All rights reserved. Reproduction prohibited. Earth/matriX Editions,
P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana 70183-1126, USA. www.earthmatrix.com
The physics paradigm today is based mainly upon the concept of c-square, the squaring of the speed of light in a vacuum. Numerous fundamental physical and chemical constants provided in the physics literature [CODATA] reflect numerical values based upon powers of c, the speed of light in vacuo. The speed of light in a vacuum is determined to represent the upper limit of movement of mass|energy by physicists.
The upper speed limit for a light photon is 299792458 meters/second. The square of that number produces a numerical value that does not exist in any form of matter-energy. The c-square actually represents a number that corresponds to a near massless event: a light photon. The author goes beyond a critique of Albert Einstein’s famous formula based upon this unreal number. The rejection of Einstein’s formula is explored through basic math, the summation of powers in the equation’s terms.
Sales: Harvard Book Store
A common procedure followed in deriving many of the CODATA recommendations is to divide certain fundamental physical constants by the value of the elementary charge, e, 1.602176487. With regard to the Planck constants and units of measurement, the case is argued that Max Planck may have simply reversed engineered this procedure in order to derive his natural units.