Newton's Invariant Mass Has Remained Invariant

## 1 Introduction

To date, Newtonian mechanics has not been incontrovertibly refuted by experiment.

## 2 The Current Status of Special Relativity Versus Newtonian Mechanics

• From Marion & Thorton, Classical Dynamics[7], Sec 14.1:“In section 2.8 it was pointed out that the Newtonian idea of the complete separability of space and time and the concept of the absoluteness of time break down when they are subject to critical analysis. The final overthrow of the Newtonian system as the ultimate description of dynamics was the result of several crucial experiments, culminating with the work of Michelson and Morley in 1881 - 1887...This (a fundamental reorganization of the structure of dynamics) was provide during the period 1904 - 1905 by H. Poincare, H. A. Lorentz and A. Einstein, who formulated the theory of relativity in order to provide a consistent description of the experimental facts”.
• Professor Gerard ’t Hooft, Nobel Laureate and current Editor of Foundations of Physics. Foundations of Physics has an open policy of not accepting any paper that questions the validity of the relativity theory. It would reply to the effect that special relativity is one of the best tested and verified physics theory.
• Gordon Kane, in the introduction to his book Modern Elementary Particle Physics[8], wrote: “The theory fully incorporates special relativity”; the theory here means the Standard Model of particle physics.
The book by Marion & Thornton is a well recognized text that has served many generations of undergraduate students. Gerard ’t Hooft and Gordon Kane are physicists with high standings. From the views as presented in the above snippets, it is conceivable that many unwary students of physics would form the view that special relativity has incontrovertibly been tested and verified, conclusively replacing Newtonian mechanics - that Newtonian mechanics has finally been “overthrown” as the correct physics describing the experimental facts” of the natural physical world. This article presents a clear argument that shows such a view is untenable - Newtonian mechanics is far from having been overthrown.

## 3 Electromagnetic Mass

The acceptance of special relativity came about with the discovery of the electron by J.J. Thomson in 1897 and the later attempts to build model of the electron to explain inertia mass; that it has an electromagnetic origin. There was also a prevalent view that, ultimately, inertia mass would be shown to be electromagnetic in nature and mechanics would be subsumed within electromagnetism. Such models beginning with J.J. Thomson predicted that electromagnetic mass is not an invariable, but varies with velocity - thus the beginning of relativistic mass. The purported experimental confirmations of such mass varying with speed began with the experiments of Kaufmann[1], Bucherer[2] and Neumann[3] in the beginning of the 20th century. They measured the so called charge-mass e/m ratio and found that it varies with speed. As all evidence seems to indicate charge cannot be variable, it was taken to mean that it was mass that varies with speed. From then on, the notion a a relativistic mass contradicting the invariant mass of Newton began and it gradually gained universal acceptance as being the correct concept of mass.

## 4 Experimental Verification Of Special Relativity

Experiments in science is only for verification of a theory's prediction, not its definitions.
The experiments of Kaufmann, Bucherer and Neumann have absolutely no bearing on special relativity nor with Newton's concept of an invariant mass.
$K=1}{2}m{v}^{2}$ – (I).
$K=\left(\gamma -1\right){m}_{0}{c}^{2}$– (II);
1
the author has a paper [6] that shows this formula for relativistic kinetic energy evaluates only to a pure number giving a fictitious value, not one with real physical units, e.g the SI unit of Joule.
${m}_{0}$ being the rest mass, the same as the mass of Newtonian mechanics; $c$ is the constant speed of light in vacuum.
So now the physics world has to make a choice between the old mechanics and a new mechanics. As we have shown above, many of the earlier so called experiments verifying special relativity cited in the Wikipedia are irrelevant. So what experiment is there to be conducted that would decide which of the two mechanics is correct?

### 4.1 The 1964 William Bertozzi Experiment[5]

With two competing mechanics, we are presented with two formulas for kinetic energy, formula (I) and (II) above; but only one may be accepted. W. Bertozzi of the MIT conducted an experiment that was supposed to conclusively decide which of the two mechanics was correct. He accelerated electrons to relativistic speed and made some direct measurements of the speed of electrons using the time-of-flight method for some of his data points. So some of the relevant data points indeed were true direct measurements of the electron velocity. For those data points, he did a calorimetric measurements of the electron's kinetic energy by stopping them in an aluminium barrier so that the kinetic energy is converted to heat energy; the heat was found by measuring the rise in temperature in the aluminium. This manner of calorimetric measurement of the electron's kinetic energy is one of only two acceptable methods that could be considered a direct measurement of energy (the other is through conversion of kinetic energy to radiant energy and to calculate the radiant energy; this method is not feasible here). So kinetic energy too is directly measured for some of the relevant data points. His conclusion was that the data clearly correlated well with relativistic kinetic energy, within an error of 10%. The data clearly do not correlate with the kinetic energy formula of Newtonian mechanics. So it seems a clear incontrovertible decision may now be made - Newtonian mechanics has been dismissed and relativistic mechanics is the only likely correct natural mechanics. Is it so?
Wikipedia - “In 1989 Martin Fleischmann (then one of the world's leading electrochemists) and Stanley Pons reported that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium. The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode”.
A lone experiment cannot be taken as incontrovertible evidence validating a scientific theory.
Newtonian mechanics has been dismissed based only on a lone uncorroborated 1964 experiment by William Bertozzi.

## 5 A Simple Beta Particle Experiment That Could Be Done

To date, despite its simplicity, no one has conducted the experiment.