Why haven't you read Einstein's E=mc² proof?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/st... The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!
Einstein's original paper: sites.pitt.edu...
Subscribe to my channel to see more videos like this: / tibees
This video is a look through Einstein's original proof of E=mc2 published in 1905 (the english translation).
Support me with a monthly donation on Patreon and receive a gift from me: / tibees
Buy me a coffee (one-off donation): ko-fi.com/tibees
Website: tobyhendy.com
TikTok: / tibees
Twitter: / tobyhendy
Second channel: / @tibees2
This video was sponsored by Wren.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
Could you make this a series going through some other original papers? There is surprisingly almost no videos on RUclips that does this.
I could do this, I have read a lot of Einstein's original papers and understand them well (I'm a physicist with publications in respected journals).
I agree
my personal favourite, not by Einstein, but the story is great, is the 2 page note Bose sent to Einstein after getting it rejected in England. Bose certainly didnt get the recognition for the simple leap he made in deducing that it makes no sense to consider "identical" particles as phsyically distinct. Einstein translated it to German and got it published. IDK but I think no copy of the original exists, but it has been translated BACK to English when he died and was re-printed. a copy of that in PDF form is linked to on his wikipedia page.
@@holliswilliams8426 Do you teach at Montgomery College?
a book said when an assistant showed Einstein his proof he said he could've written it way more simplified
Why is her voice sooooo low,polite and just really calming in general
You always giving me passion to study more, toby.
There’s an excellent book “Why e=mc^2… and why it matters.” that goes into the detail of how he derived it.
Been 4 years watching your videos. Always something new.
3:25 the only fault is the constancy of the speed of light... Light slows as the disturbance passes through mass .. vacuum has minimal mass, so the effect is VERY small... As particles can appear and disappear as they do, and vacuum has energy, and energy is related to light speed (time) they are all intertwined..
Tibees has the most informative non-asmr asmr channel.
This is brilliant. As students we a simply presented with the end result equations which we take on trust. If we understand the process of thoughts that lead to the concluding equation our understanding is improved enormously. I have often thought that maths, physics, chemistry and biology should be taught as history. They are all related and some of the early ideas (Sumerian and Greek) are surprisingly difficult to understand. By secondary school students should be able to appreciate the subtleties. And the history could be covered at a faster pace. This would result in a deeper understanding by the end of secondary school.
I wonder if there is a school in Australia which has the courage to take this approach. Curricula would have to be written, although a lot could be lifted from standard curricula. This truly would be a revolution in education. The added bonus is that people in general would be less skeptical of science and understand it better.
Not only in Australia, but the whole world. I agree 100% that not following a timeline and the lack of proofs really undermine understanding. It's absurd we "learn" the electron orbitals (1s2, 2s2, 2p6,...) in Chemistry in high school yet in order to arrive at such result you need to learn quantum physics first. Then teach the bloody quantum physics first (even if that means more math is needed).
No no, I don't know of any Physics student that has not seen a derivation. I have to do one for homework and another during an exam (using the kinetic Energy equation for the second one). When one studies physics or math a good part of the time is used in proofs, in part because they are trying to teach you to think with rigor and also for understanding. Engineering students see the full derivation of most of the results of classical mechanics, and then see at least partial derivations of Maxuel equations using vector calculus. In applied math courses we also go with the derivation of rigid bodies equations, and some of the fluid mechanics too. We do the derivation of ideal gas equations, and if you are lucky your professor will do the calculation leading to the ultraviolet catastrophe. So if you are wondering if you will get just recipes when you go to University you are for a nice surprise. Sorry for any errors English is not my mother tongue. Best regards.
Note also before Newton the Ancient Greeks believed that fire (plasma/chemical reaction happening) was the primordial substance which like a stream was always moving stuff, and matter was just "frozen fire".
@@aoeu256 Indeed.The ideas of the Greeks and other ancients could be touched on initially and briefly. Students would not be mislead because when the current state of knowledge is taught it becomes obvious where the Greeks were right and where they were wrong.
@@ElVerdaderoAbejorro You are correct. I remember as a secondary level student being taught that electrons orbit the nucleus. I was also taught that positive and negative charges attract. Sadly the question of why the electrons did not immediately plunge towards the nucleus did not occur to me until much later when I was struggling to understand quantum physics. (still working on that)The clarity of the moment when I associated the wavelength the electron with the circumference of an atom has never been forgotten. Wrap one cycle of the electron's wavelength around the nucleus and you get the smallest radius possible. No smaller radius is possible.
I’m so old I used to present my papers using an overhead projector instead of PowerPoint. (Chemistry papers, not physics.)
I think Inertial was correct in the title as String theory is developing.
Shorter wavelengths have greater energy so particle inertia modeling fits
The fact equation exist is mind blowing
her voice is so calming i feel my anxiety as soon as i pause the video
I've actually searched for a video of someone actually explains the derivation. Do glad this was recommended
Great video and I see your production equipment has also improved - SM7B is a great mic for your voice.
We all know Eistein didnt do the developmrnt and discovery of E=mc^2 alone.
What he did is he provided the breakthrough.
And that credit does go to him.
The fact that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference frame was kind of like a loose thread on a sweater. Einstein pulled on that loose thread and all of the laws of physics unraveled.
infinite acceleration gives the brain the ability to grasp/fathom infinite space
(infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia )
Fact is that Einstein never mentioned E=mc^2 in his original paper, "Does the inertia of a body depend upon it's energy content?". He instead mentioned m=E/c^2. Both the equations have the same mathematical meaning but slightly distinct physical interpretation.
Unfortunately einstein's e=mc^2 is almost certainly wrong. Basically its just a simple substitution in the equation k = 1/2mv^2. which was derived by emilie du chatelet in the 18th century. Since the maximum velocity is c, substitute v for c. 1/2 gets cancelled out.
However energy derived from mass cannot be correct since massless photons & other charge carriers that have no mass can carry energy. Mass is not required for energy, and its unlikely that a mass loses mass when energy is released. when a photon transfers its energy (momentum) is transferred but no mass is transferred, nor it mass destroyed in the process.
Energy for is really just the transfer of momentum form one system to another. Heat is just a form of momentum being transferred from inside of a body which molecules bounce against each other transferring momentum, or perhaps releasing photons (ie radiate momentum in the form of photons). When body gains momentum its taken from another body. This could be simple as light striking a body, a chemical reaction, or nuclear reaction. In case of chemistry, its just atoms changing potential states to a more stable state. Same with nuclear reactions. Photons are massless, but they do carry momentum.
Whatever started the cosms had to know math! Physics greatest contribution to human self-understanding is that very specific measurements are 'generated [encoded?]' into the cosmos.
Your voice is therapy
I have not read the original but my text book in Uni Class (also in German) made us to read it.
So how do we get from nuclear energy to the boiling of water to produce electricity? When water absorbs energy - its molecules vibrate violently to become steam and turn a turbine. But how, physically, does the splitting of atoms (and their consequent reduction in mass) end up as energy that is absorbed by water to produce steam?
The energy is released as kinetic energy of the nuclear reaction products, the newly split radioisotopes and neutrons. Kinetic energy of particles in random directions is heat, so the nuclear rods, and the fluid surrounding them heat up.
Binding energy. The mass of the nuclear fuel before the reaction is greater than the mass of the reaction products. The difference is the energy released by the reaction. As @Chali Chaligha said, the heat released by the react heats up the fluid in the reactor vessel. This fluid is pumped around a closed circuit primary cooling loop through a heat exchanger which transfers the heat to a secondary circuit containing water which is converted to steam to drive a steam turbo-generator and thus produce electrical energy.
It should be noted that, beyond some good press, Einstein never benefited all that much from the mass-energy equivalence relationship. He was passed over for a Nobel prize for relativity, though he surely deserved it. Instead, he was awarded a Nobel for his explanation of the photoelectric effect - a ground-breaking paper for quantum physics. He potentially should have been awarded yet another Nobel for his work with Brownian motion that established the reality of the atom. So really, he was gypped out of two Nobel prizes and never for a moment lamented it.
There is no "proof" of E=mc^2 only an assertion and things that spring from it. The equation did not figure in his original paper on Special Relativity, but was plonked in it later, apropos nothing. This equation was in existence for some time before Einstein by some Italian bloke and taken by Einstein, who knew Italian well. This most famous equation of Einstein was not well known at the time and was forgotten till Einstein brought it up.
Thanks for showing the energy equivalence E= mc² where E is radiated energy and m is the electron mass sacrificed in doing so. Also thanks for showing the enormously higher energy radiated from mass to energy nuclear reactions. Exothermic reaction from chemical bond energy does get close as we've seen in the explosive combustion of unused fertilizer materials in Lebanon🇱🇧, where tons of chemical fertilizers are stored (Cam Lock 🔐time).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Given that a massless photon's three hundred million metre per second speed 'of light' is the same for any observer, doesn't the product of a body with mass at rest increase a momentumless and hence zero energy photon's mass and energy, conveying supposition contradicting momentum?
E=mc²
Energy(e)=milk(m)*coffee²(c²)
Ooooh nice content, subscribed!
I miss your chalkboard teachings/drawings videos.
You have the greatest ASMR voice!
This is some high quality ASMR.
came here to say this ... physics lecture AND AMSR .... gawd help me.
literally my first tought when i opened the video
Einstein was at least good at math, but not so good at physics or astronomy.
Proofs:
Matter is not interchangeable with energy. You can not create matter with energy. Go ahead and try to prove this wrong.
He wasn't good at astronomy. He failed to understand that the Sun orbits around the Milkyway galaxy's center. This can be proven by his failure to account for Mercury's imperfect circle orbit around the Sun.
E = mc^2 can also be proven wrong.
Energy = mass x speed of light square.
Energy = 5 grams x 300,000 kilometers squared
Energy = 5 grams x (300,000 x 300,000)
Energy = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000
450,000,000,000 = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000
Light speed squared has no bases for unit of measurement.
All it produces is a large number and no bases for unit of measurement.
The end product correlates to nothing.
He is still hyped by people who learned science from science fiction shows and movies, like Doctor Who.
@@starbase51shiptestingfacil97
Let me present you with: particle accelerators. Which pump huge amounts of (kinetic) energy into particles to create more particles. Also the fact that summing up the mass of all the quarks and leptons in regular matter gives you only 10% of the expected mass. The rest comes from energy, mostly in the strong force. Oh, and if you pull apart two quarks that are being held together by the strong force, the energy you put into it will actually _create a new quark pair in the middle._
I have no idea about what you're saying about him not acknowledging the sun orbiting the Milky Way, but you didn't provide any evidence anyway. The sun is orbiting it so slowly that the effect would likely be negligible anyway.
Oh, and, according to Newtonian mechanics, joules (the unit for energy) is just newtons (force) times meters (distance). Newtons are kilograms (mass) times m/s^2 (acceleration). Putting this all together, J=N*m=kg*m/s^2*m=kg*m^2/s^2=kg*(m/s)^2. Which is mass times velocity squared. The units match up.
@@starbase51shiptestingfacil97 holy hell you're not kidding. you are a top tier crackpot.
I dont think anyone here has read the original paper
I can't read
It's one of those bizarre things where everyone talks about the equation and thinks they know all about what he wrote, but when you actually ask "Have you read the paper?", it's like um -
Especially the German version
I'm studying german, maybe after 5 more years of German and 10 years of maths and physics I can read it. And only half of it will fly over my head.
Club penguin
My 14 year old daughter and I accidentally stumbled onto your channel. We have been watching other channels about science in general including biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy. We have to say that we are surprised that you don’t have more followers as rich, entertaining, and informative as your channel is. Thank you for the great job and looking forward to more videos. PS. She says she wants to be the next Stephen Hawkins!
Heck yea. Wishing her the best!
Also watch Dr Becky smothers i think her name is. She is a astrophysics specialist in supermassive black holes from the UK. Sooooo good
She's almost over a million, she doin alright
Because this is a science channel for smarter people than the average science-interested people.
I watch different science channels on YT too. But when there are too many equations in it, I can't follow.
No problem with Tibee's channel for me, because people have different degrees of smartness.
Sabine Hossenfelder is even right good!
You should narrate audiobooks....seriously.
Even though I am a musician and struggled greatly with math in school, I have always found physics and its equations/representations very beautiful for some reason. Your videos are amazing and I really appreciate them. Thank you.
Music and math are closely related.
@@WoefulMinion Absolutely! Unfortunately, my math teachers wouldn't accept any sheet music in place of my homework. lol
I would love for Tibees to do a video on the mathematics of acoustics and maybe even Pythagoras' "Music of the Spheres" though!
I wonder if you might have an appreciation for mathematics that remained dormant at school because you had bad teachers. You might want to consider seeking out a better teacher and trying again.
We should be suspicious of beauty in physics. It is unlikely that physics was made to be beautiful to us, and unlikely that we evolved to find it beautiful given that we so recently learned its details. That means we probably _permit_ ourselves to report only beautiful facts. In a sense, like how a photographer frames only a beautiful scene, a painter paints only a beautiful muse, and a composer composes only beautiful music, science is an art.
You wouldn't be the first to notice the sheer elegance of the equations of physics. That is, right up until you see how crabbed and inelegant the equations of general relativity turn out to be. Special relativity and the Schrodinger equation as well as Maxwell's equations are distinguished by the apparent simplicity and economy of expression.
E=mc^2 appeared in Poincare's paper in 1904, in the form Einstein wrote it.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Great video, but there is a mistake, I think, at 7:33. The kinetic energy of the electron Einstein refers to is not ½mv², but rather the relativistic kinetic energy he had derived in his previous paper, which is mc²(γ-1) and only in the 1st approximation is ½mv². Hence, this formula has to be used for the equation on the left hand side. This mistake seems to have happened quite often, so that some physicists until today believe that Einstein‘s derivation is not correct. This might have been caused by the english translation, because reading the paper in German, it is more obvious.
Hi. What do you mean "reading the paper in German, it is more obvious?" That the "mistake" is more obvious or that the "mistake" was created by the English translation?
.
.
Anyway, for me personally, an approximation is an approximation. It's good enough for me. Let the mathematicians worry about mathematical rigor. I mean they already did back in what, 1910 with Minkowski?
@@eliteteamkiller319 EXCELLENT REJOINER
The things is here written that magnitude of forth and higher orders are neglected hence the equation got modified from relativistic form to classical form of kinetic energy I.e. 1/2mv^2.The equation is also for classical prosoective I.e. when speed of certain object is less than speed of light,then realistic kinetic energy dimishes so cant used in expression. For eg in case of photoelectric effect also the speed of electron ejected is very less as compare to speed of light so classical form is kinetic energy is used there.There are maximum eg even in this world general eg we cant achieve the speed comparable to velocity of light except microscopic level ,electron in certain cases have speed comparable with that,but generally classical form is mostly used ,so here is not mistake in video or english research paper.
No it is half.
i always admire your talent for wording as well as your talent for science, unique combination I find- although I know many scientists who are very eloquent as well … still I always notice this
I actually read Albert Einstein's proof. And I read it it in the Annalen der Physik in German, as I am German ;)
PS: Isaac Newtons famous quote of the dwarfs on the shoulders of giants is itself a quote from Bertrand of Chartres, as quoted by John of Salisbury. Even the quotes are standing on the shoulders of giants.
hmmm it seems its giants all the way down! and at the bottom of the giants, perhaps a turtle! :p
So here’s a question: since E ≠ 0 for a photon, doesn’t that mean a photon has mass? There seem to be some people who are now insisting that photons are massless.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 The mass of a moving photon is hf/c². A theoretical non-moving photon would have the mass zero, e.g. photons have no rest mass. That means that photons have no inertia and are always moving at the speed of light.
@@SiqueScarface You said “rest mass”. And I would, too. But the physicists are now saying photons have no “mass”.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Photons carry energy, thus they have a mass as soon as they travel at light speed. But as photons have no rest mass, they can't move slower than light speed.
I did actually read it :) .. i have a few more of his papers printed and bound to a nice book :D. Im from germany so i have all the original papers in german :D
"Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichts", "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig", .. and also "Annalen der Physik - Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie"
Thumbs up!
Ich mag Deutsch sehr sehr. Ein mal wenn ich besser mit Deutsch bin, werde ich das auf Deutsch lesen!
@@pepaxxxsvinka3379 Ich mag Peppa Pig. :D
Es gibt viele lange Wörter in den Texten über Physik.
Das lesen ist manchmal schwer.
Viel Erfolg!
Dein deutsch ist schon sehr gut. :)
@@31337flamer Das ist sehr lieb von dir! Die langen Wörter sind ja schwierig, aber interessant. Physik in dem Artikel ist nicht weniger zu verstehen! Haha ja! ich heiße Pepa Pig ohne Grund hier :)
That must be intensely interesting!
@@ShaneOsborne auf jeden Fall
I have read the original paper! (Or actually its translation 😅)
I started getting interested in papers and thesis because of your precise and simple analysis of them. I tried reading papers before, but with no guidance and proper skills I felt like I didn't gain anything significant from them.
Thanks you for igniting my spark again! And do make these videos more. I personally enjoy these more than examination analysis (maybe because I have extreme exam anxiety). But I love the sheer raw knowledge you gain from academic papers ( and other sources as well).
Ibe found nothing more staisfing than reading and rereading technical books from before computers and trying to work out what exactly they mean. Im a master's naval architect student and I feel there is always something lacking from textbooks written after computers became mainstream for design. they just don't seem to have the same mathematical logic written into them that the older books do.
@@abyssaljam441 Exactly! They try to simplify and level down things to the point that the whole essence just dies. And in the end, everything boils down to just learning for passing an exam.
Dr. John Campbell, YT channel, PhD in nursing education.
Almost every episode is devoted to Covid research papers.
Brilliant Tibees , outstanding super good content as always.
One of the coolest things being a German speaker is the ability to read all of these papers in the original language :D With all the English language dominance these days, it's not that usual to read anything of significance in science that isn't in English.
It also is a reminder that the German speaking world once housed the best and brightest in the world of science and the inevitable decline of the language as a language of science shortly after Einstein.
Yes, in German there are two words for mass:
1) Mass as defined by a body’s resistance to acceleration, or inertial mass - expressed in the equation F = ma.
2) Then there is Gravitational Mass. The Gravitational Force of attraction which is proportional to the product of two masses (and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart), in Newton’s Theory.
So it was perhaps more natural for Einstein to wonder why these two masses should be exactly equal.
@@dnickaroo3574 In English, those would be "mass" and "weight". Mass is the raw mass it has, weight is gravitational force expressed as a unit of mass.
@@dnickaroo3574 Name them.
Einstein was at least good at math, but not so good at physics or astronomy.
Proofs:
Matter is not interchangeable with energy. You can not create matter with energy. Go ahead and try to prove this wrong.
He wasn't good at astronomy. He failed to understand that the Sun orbits around the Milkyway galaxy's center. This can be proven by his failure to account for Mercury's imperfect circle orbit around the Sun.
E = mc^2 can also be proven wrong.
Energy = mass x speed of light square.
Energy = 5 grams x 300,000 kilometers squared
Energy = 5 grams x (300,000 x 300,000)
Energy = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000
450,000,000,000 = 5 grams x 90,000,000,000
Light speed squared has no bases for unit of measurement.
All it produces is a large number and no bases for unit of measurement.
The end product correlates to nothing.
He is still hyped by people who learned science from science fiction shows and movies, like Doctor Who.
@@starbase51shiptestingfacil97 Actually, Einstein always struggled with math, even failing some tests. He commented that he could no longer understand his own theories due to the math.
His strong points were physics and astronomy. Mass and energy are interchanged all the time. Even burning coal shows a mass loss equivalent to the energy produced.
I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and studied some math and physics, but never went too deep in that. I read some /a lot of books that popularize science. The thing is that science is the most interesting thing to live for, at least for me. Understanding ideas make you feel like having an absolute power. But you need a good teacher to help. Please try to explain a bit more all the things in those equations, because many details we don't know, things that people who studied find it obvious.
There was a derivation in my freshman physics textbook which was quite simple and elegant. All it used, as I recall, was a right triangle, formula for inertia of a pendulum and the speed of light, I was astonished how it just dropped out with some expression manipulation.
No irrational number has ever dropped out of anything, for irrational numbers do not exist as numbers.
E=mc^2 is not the original and full equation.
It is a special case for the rest mass.
It should be written as E=m0 c^2.
The actual equation is:
E2=p2c2+m2c4
For a body at rest the velocity and therefore the momentum, p is equal to zero, so
E2 = m2c4
Therefore
E = +/- mc2
The +/- is important
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Is that to try to argue that photons have no mass?
But a photon (actually I think a pair of photons) can be produced from the meeting of an electron and a positron, both of which have mass. So if they produce a massless result, where does the mass go?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 No. And it's mass AND energy that is conserved. I don't know of any violations of the conservation of mass AND energy Law. Do you Leonardo DiCaprio?
@@hyperduality2838 Dark energy and Dark matter are distinctly different phenomena Mr Hydraulic. Scientists infer the existence of both through indirect observation and measurement.
The only similarity between the two is that they are both currently "invisible".
Dark matter pulls galaxies together, while dark energy pushes them apart.
You should apologise my friend.
@@PetraKann Convex is dual to concave -- lenses, mirrors.
Convergent (syntropy) is dual to divergent (entropy) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Decreasing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- homology.
Increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process -- co-homology.
Homology (syntropy, convergence) is dual to co-homology (entropy, divergence).
The 4th law of thermodynamics is hardwired into mathematics.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
From a convergent, convex (lens) or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
All observers have a syntropic perspective according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
My syntropy is your entropy and your syntropy is my entropy -- duality.
Duality creates reality!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Uncertainty (unpredictability) is dual to certainty (predictability) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic geometry.
Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry.
Curvature or gravitation is dual -- gravitational energy is dual.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Your overhead projector takes me back to Jr High School Algebra 1 in 1968.
Still in use in the late 80s at least. One maths teacher had the transparency on a roll so she could write the whole lesson without changing pages
Really awesome Dall-E images, they fit so well :)
Thank you , Toby! Your approach to science is calming.
Excellent 👌🏻 Greetings from Scotland 😊Have a great day everyone 🌻
oh, scotland my favorite country
Love to Scotland from Egypt ⚘️
An overhead projector! That is properly old-school and I love it!
My thoughts exactly! I remember at primary school when overhead projectors were cutting edge , so I guess I am old school 😂
At 1:36 the sentence actually says: delta mass = delta energy over c squared.
It’s a difference statement. Following from that we can discuss the ground state of things and the granularity of those differences.
As it turns out those differences are multiples of a finite quantity related to Planck’s constant.
Heisenberg’s inequality didn’t simplify things, either, imposing some more constraints on the matter (make of the pun what you will).
There is no "rest mass" as such, but I think people later misinterpreted what Einstein was saying, which was not that the mass is variable as you go faster, but that when an object emits light, mass is 'diminished' (consumed or transferred?)
to generate that light.
Einstein said:
γ.∆E(rest)/½v² - ∆E(rest)/½v²= ∆m
and that: L=∆E(rest),
~~~>
L=½∆mc²(1/γ+1/γ²)
=∆mc²(½√(1-β²)+½(1-β²))
If β≈0, then L≈∆mc²(½+½)=∆mc².
...QED 😊
What a wonderful video. Thank you for this!
Really good over view of a ubiquitous equation and its derivation that is now taken as gospel. I have never read this original paper either but I have seen the others who might be associated with this equation. I'm no physicist and have only degree level maths but I enjoy your fair and reasoned explanations of what I would consider deep understanding of principles.
I took a while to get through the full context of this equation by not only reading through this paper, but also getting through the context of it (by reading through large parts of the electrodynamics of moving bodies paper). This largely meant reading his derivation of the relativistic Doppler shift formula. His derivation of this equation is a lot more satisfying than all other sources I've seen on the topic, which typically find it by using Planck's law to relate the energy of the EM wave to frequency, whose Doppler shift formula is well known. Einstein, however, used classical electromagnetism to derive the formula, solely using the formula for electromagnetic energy density. This not only makes the derivation more satisfying, as Planck's equation came later, but it also helps to justify Planck's equation in the first place, as it shows that frequency and electromagnetic energy have the same Doppler shift (PS. in response to the controversy part, I've found a slightly modified version of Einstein's derivation that invokes momentum conservation in addition to energy conservation. This result is particularly powerful, as you can generalize it to obtain the relativistic equations for momentum/energy (E=mc^2 of course only applying when the mass is at rest)).
Yes that derivation at the end you mention is what I was fortunate enough to be shown in a first year physics course in Uni (I dropped out). It was quite mind blowing.
@@luker.6967 It is indeed. Despite knowing the thought experiment and the mathematics behind the derivation, I am still somehow blown away that simply applying Einstein's postulates and simple considerations of electromagnetism can somehow lead to the equivalence of mass and energy. That conclusion seems so vastly different from what relativity is all about, namely how various quantities change as you go from one reference frame to another.
Well, I looked a bit in Principia Mathematica and understood nothing, even though I understand the physics. So I assumed this was the same. 🙂
Excellent! Thank you Toby. Your video reminded me of a conversation I had at lunch many years ago about nuclear weapons. My co-worker, a PhD in nuclear physics, asked me, "You know how they do it?!" I gave him a blank stare. "With mirrors!", he said, grinning like the Chesire Cat. We were talking about the hydrogen bomb. It turns out that for a fusion bomb, a fission bomb is exploded first (the primary), and then before the bomb container can rupture, the extremely high-energy radiation from the fission bomb is focused by mirrors onto a pod of material that then undergoes fusion and releases even more energy (the secondary). It's like Kaboom! ... BOOM!! All because of Einstein's equation and Einstein's letter.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?
Read through "Relativity: the Special and General Theory" a few times many years ago after buying it as a part of books that was forgotten/left on the trains. 🙂
Used some time on it, but Einstein do a very good job in the book explaining his theory in a way that can be understood without PhD in math and physics.
So he wanted to calculate the amount of energy released from a given mass of "stuff"? That's fine, but he came up with an equation that says the amount of energy equals the mass of the "stuff" times the speed of light? What's the speed of light got to do with it? What's it got to do with anything, apart from the speed of light. He might just as well have said that energy equals the mass times the number of inches a London Bus moves in a year. But I know what he was doing. He chose the speed of light because it was the bigger number. London buses are on strike half of the time. Einstein wanted a gynormous amount of energy to be released because he wanted to get a bomb out of this so he could with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Tibees and Einstein is the combo we've all needed right now 👍
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
But it's have to united with this and sicims am i true? 🤔 What have my eyes 🤔 i just feel all seasons. I just know a few languages and a few instruments 🤷🏻♂️ climate changing is real? When people ask "what's the superpower again?" 🤔 Seriously i think i feel all seasons but i couldn't prove 🤷🏻♂️
My community college professor taught in an insanely tiny classroom all the math leading to E=mc^2, and twenty years later I still think about that moment and the shock and excitement. I retook that class at another college, and those equations weren't taught. He was a black professor who read a Chinese newspaper everyday, too.
Who are you? Are you for real? I loved your story about that guy thanks!!!! ❤️🔥👍🏻
in chinese?
On the first day of my first chemistry class (also at a community college) the professor walked us through a mathematical proof of the equation, but did not tell us until she concluded what her point was, and that we did not have to remember the math. I've forgotten the lecture, but will never forget the room full of terrified students frantically taking notes, while I sat there worrying that I had gotten in over my head.
@@spiralsun1 recognize u from Curt’s channel!
@@RetNemmoc555 why would a professor go over this in a gen chem class is beyond me lol
E=mc2 contradicts thermodynamics. Energy and temperature cannot be mixed into the definition of mass, because this makes the definition of mass circular, dependent on itself.
Apparently, "my 4th thermodynamic theorem" applies, that matter can be changed into energy without a residue, while energy cannot be changed into matter without a residue (similarity to the 2nd thermodynamic theorem). Because matter is a more organized structure.
And stop with the "carbon footprint". The influence of CO2 on warming is about 1/4, another 1/4 is the condensation trail of contrails behind airplanes, 1/4 is water enclosed in water supply and sewage pipes, which decreases natural water evaporation, a lot of concrete and few healthy forests, and the last 1 /4 is the natural conversion of all used energy into heat.
In addition, you will forget what a carbon footprint biocoal itself will cause. You have a very superficial interpretation.
That paragraph defining the relationship of mass to energy was a very big "Oh" moment for me. For many years, I have wondered why E=mc^2 has no 0.5 (1/2) in it; why it is not of the same form as the equation for kinetic energy.
Nice timing. I have recently published videos on that article by Einstein, as well as on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. I have Always been more keen on the mathematically "rigorous" approach, but your videos are definitely more interesting and appealing, that's for sure :).
Because it is actually Mileva Maric's proof which she would not have been allowed to publish or take credit for. He never did his own proofs, always collaborated by providing the theory & conjecture. Just coming up with the right idea that can be math proven is the genius of his. And it is one we lack now in the age of assembly line science, bottle washing and button sorting.
I listen to your videos whilst I work. It helps me feel less anxious and stressed, plus I learn a lot too!
Einstein did not derive that equation first. Woldemar Voigt's 1876 Doppler paper has that equation in it. That equation was known 3 years before Einstein was even born.
I never believed in AMSR until I started listening to you. I love physics, I love Australian accents, and I love your voice. Absolutely brilliant.
Close, she is from New Zealand.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hugely enjoyable. Thank you. I don't know what else to add. I enjoy all of your presentations, but perhaps most of all this one.
hiiii, I'm a Brazilian and I wanted to challenge you to solve the ITA and IME test. Here in my country they are considered the most difficult entrance exams for college.
Great to see you again Tibees. Read it when I was 14 (I'm now 54 years old). Thank you so much for producing this video as this is a topic that deserves as much attention as Quantum Physics, because the two are intrinsically related despite their mutual effort to deny any such relationship. You're getting us closer to a Quantum theory of gravity, if not, a theory of gravity that accounts for why people are so attracted to watch your videos ;-)
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 not quite.
The idea you said and quoted Yoda is right but not that simple.
We basically know that symmetry, like "always two... " exists, non locally, meaning not necessarily in the immediate environment around, it could be a little far to say it someway... 🤔
And not just in pairs, take in account, atomic nucleus, it has 8 for symmetry stuff, and gives us a 9D matrix to work with.
More than two at quantum level but your idea is well oriented.
Nice video. One small thing: "Poincaré" is pronounced (roughtly) "pwanh-carray", not "poyn-cair".
Love the content. Thanks very much. I teach writing for a living and decided as an adult that I wanted to improve my maths abilities. So, I stumbled across your channel a couple of years ago and have now gone through every video. I am not yet able to call myself competent with maths, but I am certainly more confident to take it on and keep trying. :)
I recommend "Mathematics for the Million" by Lancelot Hogben, a good old book that you can find in PDF (free) on Internet. Excellent!
Time to make a spin-off ASMR channel.
C is the speed of human-made light, but not any sort of natural light because light rays from natural sources of light, such as observable stars, have always been in their fixed light fields since the time when the stars were formed, and have never travelled anywhere else, and have never been turn on and off as how such human-made sources of light as a light bulb or lase device for human to observe light travelling from the natural sources. The reason why humans can see such stars is that the light fields of those observable stars cover the location of the Earth, but not that they travel like how ignorant scientists have assumed
Why haven't read the original proof? I probably wouldn't understand it even if I did (even in English).
I thought Australians pronounce the letter ‘Z’ as ’zed’ not 'zee'? That's American!
Seems Einstein was motivated by the equations developed by Maxwell. Some might argue this famous relation was embedded in Maxwells equations.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Actually I’m pretty sure the most famous equation is 1+1= window
live long and prosper!
What if the energy released is only in the form of heat and not in light or vice versa?
We can have a invisible destruction!
Triangle of lights paradox.
There are 3 lights in the form of a triangle. A, B, and C are lights and are stationary with respect to each other. S1, S2, S3 are spaceships. S1 is moving from B towards A. S2 is moving from C towards B. S3 is moving from A towards C. A, B, and C flash simultaneously in the frame of reference that is at rest relative to these lights. So in the frame of reference of S1, A flashes first followed by B flashing. In the frame of reference of S2, B flashes first followed by C flashing. In the frame of reference of S3, C flashes first followed by A flashing. So the sequence of flashing is A, B, C, A. But wait! A flashed first. How can it flash last? How can A flash both first and last? It only flashed once in the frame of reference that is at rest relative to these lights. Therefore there is a paradox.
First of all, Einstein wasn't the first to associate mass and energy. Poincare was. Secondly, do you know if there was an experiment to prove that equation? The answer is no and that says something.
Poincare wasn't the first, either. Newton did it, as well and many others. And Poincare is mentioned in this video.
Einstein however derived the equation in the context of Special Relativity, while Poincare was working with an aether theory.
And there are _many_ experiments verifying the equation. Every time we use nuclear power we verify the equation.
Perhaps you should read Pointcarré's proof too, found 1 year ealier :)
I'm so sorry, as smart as you are, I just can't take anyone seriously when they speak with a kiwi accent
I think Newton also hinted at relativity though he never pursued it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
E equals MC squared
I've got a blimp inside my head
I spent about 2 years immersed in turn of the century works in physics and chemistry and mathematics including these profound thinkers... work... Archimedes, Newton, lavoisier, hamilton, graves, cayley, godel, bohr, planck, that one guy on easter island with the beagle - dr moreau? Idk... Ya know, all the geezers...from the holy roman empire... And a french woman here and there i suppose... Oy, after getting through all that i ended up getting into ibsen and then stindberg & schopenhauer before naturally progressing into the objective eyeball with " i am a strange loop" and "godel, escher, bach", by dougie Hofstadter... Then james baldwin and jane austen... Then Nietzsche... Then i really got into higgs, conceptual dimensional fabric-of-reality onions built of unidimensional, ultimately binary dimensional characteristics, which manifest, through the exercise of their agency of randomness or via an adequately complex unknown subjugation of outcomes to generalizable, predictable, constants of behavior wherein the contributing complexity and composing spatial interaction via the consequences of half-value spin quantum numbers... But, ultimately this all brought me to a conclusion that the current definitions of dimensionality are poorly defined or inequitably applied, yet higher-order complexities evident and emergent are not only possible, but ive come to interpret dimensionality as those determinants consequencial in a system which, through their intrinsic and inherent complexities, and the variables, unknowns, measurables, and predictability of the fermion/boson inter/non-interger spin quantum value constituents evident & consequential per our perception... Its is such that, despite a truly astounding utility to the data which ...
Blah blah blah, right ?!
Idk, i just keep thinking of the passenger aboard this light speed train, and on what was very likely a so-c
Sometimes i get this terrible unresolved feeling i have ckuxken
7:57 That's amazing. But does that mean the equation is an approximation given that the Taylor series was truncated?
Hi T=sxc²
(Brand name haven't fully worked out this equation yet)
I noticed your voice is very similar to Olivia Newton-John's. When she was your age. If you can hold a note when singing and not be to pitchy, you should end your video's with one or two of her songs.
Could you give me a link to the german Papers, please.
Blaming Einstein for nuclear weapons would be like blaming Newton's laws of motion for artillery weapons.
I've never understood why people blame Einstein for nuclear weapons. It's not like he was the head of the Manhattan Project.
And per my earlier comment, what choice would Einstein have had in the 1939 - warn the US president of the potential existence of such a weapon, or say nothing and let the Axis powers develop it instead?
Well, Einstein was one of the scientists who put their names to that letter specifically urging the 🇺🇸 President to develop the atom bomb.
I'll pretend that I understood all of this.
Cute thumbnail and title.
Dear Ms Am incorrect in thinking that it was Emeline Noether that helped Einstein with his maths I believe she has two theroems if you have not already could you look at them.
My knowledge of physics is limited but like another channel or two I do enjoy the enthusiasm by the host.
All the best.
It's not Einsein's proof. It's the work of Olinto De Pretto.