Open Letter On Einstein’s E=mc2.

[English with Chinese translation]

Open Letter To the World Physics Community: The Failure Of Einstein’s E=mc2.
Dear scientists,

For almost a hundred years, Einstein’s formula E=mc² (the famous energy mass equivalent equation) has been the cardinal equation of physics as it introduced the concept of total energy of matter; all dynamics involves energy of particles and matter. The author has discovered very recently (April 2016) that the formula E=mc² is invalid; energy is fictitious in the formula. The proof is simple and involves no high mathematics. Any good high school students taking physics as a subject could easily come to a definite understanding of the analysis and decides for himself whether the author’s claim is correct; there is no need to rely on the words of any physics professor to know if the formula E=mc² is valid or invalid. The author has the relevant paper in his website:
The Relativistic Mechanics of E=mc2 Fails,
http://www.emc2fails.com
The short paragraphs below are sufficient to convince any physics students that the formula E=mc² is invalid.

The formula for kinetic energy in classical Newtonian mechanics is: KE = ½ mv²; this formula is derived from the application of Newton’s  second law together with the definition of momentum p as: p = mv; where m=mass of particle with velocity v. Energy in classical Newtonian mechanics is based on the definition of: work (energy) = force x distance. Newton’s second law is:
Force is proportional to rate of change of momentum.
It gives force F as: F = d/dt (mv) = m x dv/dt = ma.  This is the well known definition of force as mass times distance: F=ma. The unit for force in the SI system is the newton (symbol N); with work = force x distance, the unit for energy is the Joule (symbol J).

On the other hand, the formula E=mc² is derived from Einstein’s special theory of relativity together with a new relativistic definition of momentum as: p = mv/√(1-v²/c²); where m = rest mass, c=constant speed of light.
With a new definition of momentum, force in special relativity would be different from the classical definition of F=ma; it is now:
F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv/√(1-v²/c²)}  — (I)

As any physics students can see, equation (I) is different from the rather simple F=ma. F=ma is the basis of the SI definition of force, the newton N. There is no way equation (I) may be used in any manner to define a unit of force. The truth is that special relativity has no real unit for force; the physics community just assumes that the equation (I), too, evaluates force in the same classical units of Newtonian mechanics – it does not. Only in classical Newtonian mechanics that the unit of force, the newton N, may be used. The relativistic force as defined in equation (I) evaluates only to a real number with no association with any real unit of force. As force does not have a real unit, so does work and energy in special relativity have no real units. Energy in special relativity is only fictitious. As the formula E=mc² is derived directly from equation (I), energy in the formula, too, is fictitious (the only exception may be when a particle is at rest where E=mc² may apply).

All figures of energy in relativistic physics, including high energy particle physics, is based on the fundamental formula E=mc²; when energy is fictitious, all of particle physics breaks down. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, that operates the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has purportedly accelerated protons to levels of energy as high as 7 TeV (tera electron-volt, 10¹²). As the energy was computed from the formula E=mc², the figure was just a fictitious value. The only kinetic energy formula that computes energy in real units is the simple classical formula: KE =½ mv². With this formula, the proton’s energy within the LHC would only be about 470 MeV (10⁶); the CERN’s reported figure being overstated by a factor of 15,000.

All of high energy particle physics fails.

 对物理学界的公开信:爱因斯坦的 E=mc2 物理学无效.

亲爱的科学家,

近一百年来,爱因斯坦的公式E = mc2(着名的能量质量等效方程)一直是物理学的主要方程,因为它引入了物质总能量的概念; 所有动力学都涉及粒子和物质的能量。 作者最近发现(2016年4月),公式 E =mc² 无效; 能量在公式中是虚构的。 证明很简单,不涉及高数学。
任何以物理学为主题的高中生,都可以很容易地明确了解分析,并自己决定作者的说法是否正确; 可以自己决定;
没有必要依赖任何物理教授的话来知道公式 E=mc² 是有效还是无效。 作者在他的网站上有相关文章:
E = mc2 的相对论力学失败,
http://www.emc2fails.com
下面的短段足以说服任何物理学生的公式 E =mc² 无效。

经典牛顿力学中的动能公式为:KE =½mv²; 该公式来自牛顿第二定律的应用以及动量p的定义:p = mv;
其中 m =具有速度v的粒子质量。经典牛顿力学中的能量基于以下定义:工作(能量)=力x距离。 牛顿的第二定律是:
力量与动量变化率成比例
它给出力F:F = d/dt(mv)= m×dv / dt = ma;
这是众所周知的作为质量乘积距离的力的定义:F = ma。 SI系统中的力单位是牛顿(符号N); 与工作=力x距离,能量的单位是焦耳(符号J)。

另一方面,公式 E=mc² 是从爱因斯坦的特殊相对论得出的,动量的新的相对论定义如下:p = mv /√(1-v²/c²); 其中
m = 静止质量,c = 光的恒定速度。
有了动量的新定义,狭义相对论的力量与F = ma的经典定义不同;就是现在:
F = dp/dt = d/dt{mv /√(1- v²/c²)} —(II)

任何物理学学生都可以看到,方程(II)不同于相当简单的F = ma。 F = ma是 SI 系统对力的定义的基础,牛顿 N. 无法以任何方式使用方程(II)来定义力单位。事实是狭义相对论没有真正的力量单位;物理学学界只假设方程(II)也是在牛顿力学的相同经典单位中评估力 – 它不是。
只有在古典力学中,可以使用力单位牛顿N。方程(II)中定义的相对论力量仅评估与任何实际的力单位无关的实数。由于力量没有真正的单位,在狭义相对论中的工作和能量也没有真正的单位。狭义相对论的能量只是虚构的。由公式 E=mc² 直接从等式
(II)得出,公式中的能量也是虚构的(唯一的例外可能是当粒子处于静止时,E=mc² 可能适用)。

所有能量数字在相对论物理学中,包括高能粒子物理学,都是基于公式E=mc²;当能量是虚构的,所有的粒子物理学都会崩溃。 欧洲核研究组织(CERN)运营大型强子对撞机(LHC),据称将质子加速至高达7 TeV(tera电子伏特,10¹²)的能量水平。 由于能量是从公式 E=mc² 计算的,这个数字只是一个虚构的值。 计算实际能量的唯一动能公式是简单的经典公式:
KE=½mv²。 使用这个公式,LHC内的质子能量将仅为470MeV(10⁶); CERN的报告数字被夸大了15000 倍。

所有高能粒子物理是失败的。

作者:陈家钊拉希德,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
http://www.emc2fails.com

China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider.

Chen-Ning Yang Says China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider.

On 7 September, Dr. C.N. Yang released an article on WeChat expressing his views that China should not build the world’s largest particle collider. His main reason, other than being very costly, is that such a machine would not gain us much scientific knowledge or benefit to society. We may even read into his reason as a hint that particle physics – strictly the Standard Model of particle physics – may lead us to nowhere. We will examine if particle physics is indeed useful.

International Press of Boston:

http://intlpress.sinaapp.com/blog/essay.php?id=5

David Gross, a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science, responded to Dr.Yang’s comment on:
High-energy physics produced any “tangible benefits” to society?

Yes! Even taking an extremely narrow view of this question, the technologies directly springing from particle physics have spawned huge industries that generate revenues far exceeding the magnitude of the investment in basic science. The multi-billion dollar accelerator industry, operating thousands of small-scale particle accelerators around the world ranging from light sources, to medical accelerators for cancer-fighting radiation therapies, owes its existence to particle physics. And the need for powerful magnets at proton colliders necessitated the development of superconducting magnet technology, itself a billion dollar industry, which are the critical component for MRI machines, a five billion dollar industry.

David Gross, being a physicists, seems to not know much about economics. You can hypothetically create a “billion dollar industries” from a huge unused mountain and you spend billions moving it back and forth between two locations – repeatedly ad infinitum. Surely, billion dollar secondary industries may arise around new technologies for moving mountains around  “better and faster” giving larger revenues – they somehow would still end up to be of some use somewhere.

It is a myth that particle physics from CERN (operator of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which discovered the Higgs Boson) has given society any new physics that resulted in any new technology – not one item, directly. The Standard Model involves so far only in fanciful concepts like quark, color charge, etc and none has anything to do with what engineers could use in their work. The very great technological advances of the past decades have nothing at all to do with the experiments carried out at CERN; they were nothing other than the result of empirical experimentation based on physics that have been around for decades since the breakthrough in quantum mechanics of the 1930’s.

Einstein’s Special Relativity and E=mc² Fictitious

http://www.emc2fails.com
(What follows has minimal physics which any freshman physics undergraduate could easily follow – and see for themselves; don’t ever need to blindly believe)
Most people would react with disbelief when told that E=mc² is fictitious. Is it not the famous “atomic bomb” formula, the reason why the atomic bomb works, why the nuclear reactor works. Yes indeed! The formula is probably correct as a estimate of the huge energy released from nuclear fission reactions when some mass goes “missing” and it is estimated to be converted to energy according to E=mc². What is fictitious is not about the physics of the relation between mass-deficit and nuclear binding energy, but when E=mc² is extended through special relativity to the topic of relativistic mechanics. According to relativistic mechanics, a particle’s mass approaches infinity (just keep increasing) as the particle is accelerated to near the light speed c (299792458 m/s). Its speed may go as close to c as technology permits, but it will never go faster than c – nothing travels faster than light. That’s the theory from special relativity. But is the theory good and well tested? Yes! – and so they say from the physics departments of  top universities like Princeton and Cambridge.

They Invented Relativistic Momentum
Relativistic mechanics began when they invented a “new” momentum to replace the old momentum of Newton’s which was the working momentum that never ever failed for three centuries and still is as valid as ever before – with a caveat of course depending on which “camp” you belong to. Classical Newtonian mechanics defines momentum  as: p=mv;  the Newtonian force F = d/dt(mv) = ma giving the famous formula of Newton’s second law as : F = ma or mass x acceleration. It is also through this definition of force in physics that the standard SI unit of force, the newton, is defined as kg.m/s² (kilogram.meter/second²). After the introduction of Einstein’s special relativity in 1905, they began developing a “new and better” mechanics to replace Newtonian mechanics. They first invented a new relativistic momentum – through a redefinition of momentum. They replaced momentum p=mv with
p = (1/√(1-v²/c²))mv = γmv where  γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). In other words, having an extra “gamma” factor to the old momentum of p=mv.

The New and The Old Mechanics Do Not Mix
Of course, when a fundamental definition of a physics theory is changed, it becomes a new physics – another physics and another mechanics. The new and the old do not mix – the Heaven accepts one and will reject the other. So which of the mechanics will Heaven accept – the 300-years-tested Newtonian mechanics or the popular-100-year special relativity mechanics? Only Heaven knows? But we may try to find an answer based on a rigorous scientific argument.

With a new relativistic momentum definition of p= γmv, the new relativists assumed that they could invoke Newton’s second law for their definition of force.  In “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, the “Principia” of Newton, the second law is:

Law 2. Change of motion is proportional to impressed motive force.

Newton’s “motion” is our momentum of mass x velocity; in calculus, it would mean: force is proportional to rate of change of momentum; or F = d/dt(mv) = ma. Isaac Newton himself wrote “force proportional to motion”  – and forgot about what he had written earlier about proportionality! He just used “force= mass x acceleration” himself. No one after Newton tried to define a “new momentum” and then invoked the original Newton’s second law with it until physicists invented relativistic mechanics. They then go back to the “original” laws of motion of Sir Isaac Newton, picked the second law, hoping to create a new mechanics to be “better” than Newton’s mechanics. You have the wish to create a “better” mechanics, but how about the Heavens – will your new creation find favor with Heaven? Newton’s mechanics received the full Blessings of the Heavens for a full 300 years and Heaven showed no sign that Newton was ever wrong – not once. What about relativistic mechanics? Heaven permits controversies on Einstein’s relativity theories to rage unabated on Earth for more then a hundred years since special relativity was proposed in 1905.

LHC Protons with energy 6.5 TeV or 470 MeV?
The new definition of force in relativistic mechanics is now f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv}; any freshman physics undergrad can easily see that it is very different from f = d/dt(mv) = ma. Kinetic energy is derived from the work-energy theorem of : work = force x distance. So a new definition certainly would give rise to new formula  for kinetic energy. The classical kinetic formula for kinetic energy is KE = ½ mv². Of course, we expect a very different formula of kinetic energy for relativistic mechanics as momentum and force definitions have changed. The derivation of relativistic KE formula is given in most modern textbook of physics; the formula is  KE = (1/√(1-v²/c²) – 1)mc² or KE = (γ-1)mc². As an example, it is reported by CERN that the kinetic energy of their protons have been accelerated to as high as 6.5 TeV (6.5 x 10¹² electron volts). This is because the speed of the protons are traveling at almost 0.99995c  – almost at the light speed (γ is large and therefore KE large). But if we use the classical kinetic formula of
KE = ½ mv², the kinetic energy would be just 470 Mev (½ mass-proton x c²) – different by a factor of 15,000!  So what is the true kinetic energy of the protons within the LHC – 6.5 TeV or 470 MeV? No one knows the answer! No one has ever measured the energy of such protons directly (the only direct measure in general is through calorimetry – conversion to heat energy for measurement).

Relativistic Kinetic Energy is Fictitious
Physics need to have a system of standard of units for various fundamental quantities. We currently have the SI units which has standard definitions of mass, length and time with the kilogram, meter, second. The standard unit for force is the newton (symbol N) making use of Newton’s second law as an axiom: force = mass x acceleration giving the newton to be kg.m/s². The definition of force determines the unit for energy and energy in SI unit is the joule, or
kg.m²/s²  or newton-meter. What about the new relativistic mechanics with their definition of force as:

f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv} — (I)

Question: What is the relativistic standard of unit for force in the SI units?

Answer: There is no provision in the SI units for a standard of force for relativistic mechanics.

Raw from gut feelings, you react immediately with disbelief  – How could it be! How could anyone create a mechanics and which has not a defined standard unit for force.  Without a defined unit for force, how are they to have a standard unit of energy (work = energy= force x distance) with which they calculate energy? I don’t know – you may try and think about it yourself. The SI unit of newton comes from f=ma and the relativistic force comes from : f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv} – try staring intently at this latter formula and see if you could convince yourself that you could finally come out with a way to a unit of energy (W=E = force x distance) that is the same SI units as the joule.

Only a miracle could make the unit of energy for Newtonian mechanics compatible to any unit of energy (if any) in relativistic mechanics.

You could go ask the physics professors in Fudan university, Tsinghua University or the Chinese physicists from the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP).

The relativists 100 years ago created a new relativistic mechanics redefining momentum arbitrarily and assumed that – just because they followed Newton’s original second law to the letter – that everything else would follow naturally. Heaven allows only one way to define the concept of momentum so that the mechanics may be used to predict dynamic motions with their equations. You either define p = mv or p = γmv – only one will work. The Newtonian units for force and energy have been implemented and used successfully for a full 300 years without failure. The new relativistic mechanics cannot be used at all to define any real standard unit of force or energy with which to calculate. So how have they “successfully” incorporated relativistic mechanics into their high energy physics and their Standard Model of particle physics? Answer:  They are all calculating energy based on a fictitious scale; they just assume that they still could calculate force in SI newton and energy in SI joule. They cannot! Their physics are all based on fictitious values.

It is not without reason that the Standard Model of particle physics has not given us any technological innovation from their physics that enters into our everyday life – not one! CERN initially was meant to be for peaceful nuclear research for the betterment of society, but they have not given us any practical nuclear physics despite their “God” particle of the Higgs boson. They could not solve the fundamental of fusion of hydrogen into helium which would have solved all our energy needs – hydrogen is cheap and freely available from water(H₂O).

So the reason for the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters (also the smog “disaster” of China) is because we are still using the same “dirty” fission nuclear reactors whose basic physics is no different from what we already know a hundred years back – all very old physics.

We have been sidelined from investing our resources into real physics by pursuing  fictitious particle physics. Should China build the next generation of super particle accelerators? Should China follow the lead of the physicists from Princeton and Cambridge? Following the leaders on a sure path to nowhere!

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.

http://www.emc2fails.com

Large Hadron Collider’s Fake Rating

The CERN Large Hadron Collider not working to specifications

The CERN physicists operating the Large Hadron Collider(LHC) believe that they could push their protons to higher – and yet higher – energy levels with stronger machines. The theory is based on the Lorentz electric force: F = qE (force is electric field per unit charge). As long as the protons pass through additional electric field regions, they would gain greater energy; there is no upper limit for energy according to the mechanics of special relativity. Currently, the physicists of CERN reported that they have propelled protons to energy level of 7 TeV (10¹² electron-volt). Is it true?

The belief of the CERN physicists is outdated by a hundred years. The Lorentz force law: F = q(E + vxB) was developed at about  1890. At that time, Hendriek Lorentz and others had not much information on particles that travel near light speed and  they assumed that the law was true even for particles at near light speed. They were wrong. Their Lorentz force law was only a very approximate law for charge particles at low speeds. The law fails when charged particles reach near the light speed.

The so called “proof” of mass increasing with speed as founded on special relativity come from experiments such as that of the 1908 Bucherer experiment. But the interpretation of the Bucherer experiment was wrong; it was not a proof that mass increases with speed, but that the Lorentz force law (which is the underlying assumption of the experiment) was wrong – it was only an approximation. When the Lorentz law is corrected, the result would come back to the original definition of the invariant mass of Newton – the invariant quantity of matter. The author has a shortpaper which reinterpreted the Bucherer experiment to give the corrected Lorentz force law:
The Bucherer Experiment And The Lorentz Force Law:
http://www.emc2fails.com

Instead of : F = q(E + vxB), the corrected Lorentz force law is now :
F= q((1+v²/c²)√(1-v²/c²)E + √(1-v⁴/c⁴)vxB) — (I)
q is the electric charge of a particle moving at speed v; c = speed of light in vacuum; E = electric field; B=magnetic field.

The CERN physicists have their protons passing through regions after regions with strong electric fields E and think that, by such accelerations, they could accelerate their protons to ever higher levels of energy (only limited by the power of their machines) – but it is only a belief. They relied on the force equation: F=qE; so with push after push of E on the charge q, there is no limit to the pushing and so the energy of the protons have no limit – as they believe. But with the corrected law (I),  we can see from the square-root factor of √(1-v²/c²) that as the speed of the protons reach near that of light speed c, the electric force become weaker and weaker. Extra pushing does not work any more as the force tends to zero; pushing becomes like we pushing against air – emptiness.

Currently, the CERN physicists purportedly have accelerated protons within the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to energy as high as 7 TeV, moving at speed greater than 99. 99% of the speed of light. But none of the physicists ever measured the quoted actual energy figure of 7 TeV – it is only a figure based on their theory, from their formula. There is no known technique at present to “catch” a proton flying past at near speed of light and to determine its energy experimentally. So the CERN physicists use the “next-best-option” – they use their kinetic energy formula and compute  a theoretical energy figure, hoping (probably with a prayer) that it is what the energy is in reality.

If kinetic energy is computed based on the non-relativistic classical formula of ½mv² – where mass is correctly invariant – a proton’s energy is limited to a maximum of ½mc² or 470 MeV (10⁶ electron-volt), the 7 TeV being overstating energy by a factor of 15,000. If their energy formula is wrong, their theory would simply collapse.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Boiling Kettles of Water With E=mc2.

For the laymen who has not much of a picture of how E=mc² fails, I’ll give a simplest of example. Energy may most accurately (even when it involves energy of flying protons within those most advanced Large Hadron Collider, the LHC) be estimated by how man kettles of water that may be brought to boil with an amount of energy. A chemist can do a very good estimate of how many kettle of water may be brought to boil by burning 1 litre of gasoline (after some estimates of heat lost). Engineers too have good estimates of how many miles a gallon of petrol may give to a model of a motorbike.

What about the physicists at the CERN running the Large Hadron Collider? Say there is a process which produces an amount of energy. The CERN physicists make an estimate of how much that amount of energy is, in the number of kettles of water that may be brought to boil; say their estimate is 15,000 kettles. Then a gadget is invented to convert the amount of energy of the process to boil kettles of water (assuming no significant energy wastage). It is found that the amount of energy can only boil 1 kettle of water – not 15,000 kettles! There is no excuse for the CERN physicists to make an estimate that is out by a factor of 15,000! What really is the problem is that they are using invalid formulas; had they stick to using the old formula for kinetic energy as what high school students are taught, their estimate would come out right – 1 kettle of water.

The method of computing the energy through heat produced is called calorimetry.

My Webpage:

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Beta Particles Going faster than light?

Beta particles going faster than light speed?

On September 2011, there were headlines around the world that scientists at CERN had found neutrinos that traveled faster than light; it was headline news as it would mean a violation of relativity theory, something rather serious in physics. It was later found that mistakes were made due to some loose cables. So there is no violation – nothing can exceed the speed of light in vacuum according to relativity theory.

But there is a simple way to settle, once and for all – conclusively – if anything can travel faster than light. It is well known that no particles, including electrons and protons, has ever been detected to go faster than the speed of light within particle accelerators; they go almost a few parts per million below the speed of light, but never exceeding it. But these particles are accelerated and energized through the electromagnetic forces. We don’t select such particles. We select particles that are energized by the nuclear forces.

Radioactive beta decay has been known and studied since the 1920’s. One type would have an unstable heavy nucleus decaying releasing high energy electrons – originally named beta particles. Unlike within particle accelerators, these electrons are energized directly by the nuclear binding energy from within the nucleus. These electrons have an energy distribution that may be from 0 to 1.16 MeV. If relativity theory is not violated, such electrons would never be able to go faster than light. On the other hand, if relativity theory is violated, then any electron that has energy greater than 1 MeV would have a speed of about 2c – twice the speed of light – based on the old kinetic energy formula of 1/2 mv².

But until now, no such experiment has ever been done to measure the speed of such beta particles using the direct time-of-flight method. It would be interesting to have such an experiment done to convincingly settle the question if anything can travel faster than light.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

My Webpage:

E=mc2 And Special Relativity Wrong.

Quite recently, I made some rather fundamental discoveries in physics.

First is the discovery that the well-known equation E=mc² does not work. The formula for the related relativistic kinetic energy evaluates only to a pure fictitious number, not a figure with real units of energy. This has been confirmed in 2009 by Chinese physicists who are members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They measured energy through direct calorimetry and their experiment conclusively repudiated the relativistic energy of special relativity. They concluded that the 7 TeV (10¹² electron volts) of energy purportedly acquired by protons in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN have only real energy of about 650 MeV (10⁶ electron volts), off by a factor of 15000 – it is the same as what my new theoretical discovery concludes.

Second, the Lorentz magnetic force law F = q(vXB) is invalid. The force law had been experimentally repudiated since 1901. Without the experimenters realizing it, the purported verification of relativistic mass were actually experimental repudiation of the Lorentz magnetic force law.

Further, the so called experimental proof of special relativity verifying the relativistic energy and momentum relation are illusions. Their theoretical basis starts with assumptions of variable mass, relativistic momentum and a relativistic definition of force in Lorentzian reality. Their equipments, too. were all electronic sensors relying on electromagnetism that give figures that belong also to Lorentzian reality. It would be a miracle if such experimental setups could come up with data that fits the Newtonian kinetic energy of 1/2 mv² which belong to another world – that of Galilean reality.

Comments are welcomed. Anonymous comments are accepted.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

My Webpage: