How Einstein Himself Derives the Worlds Most Famous Equation E = mc2

L Body L z
= 1/ 1 (v2/c2) 1 + (v2/c2)

U x

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the co-ordinate systems of the observers A and B, moving relative to each other at the fixed velocity U along the x-direction. At time t = 0 and t = 0 both observers are located at the origin (x = 0 and = 0) and the two co-ordinate frames then start separating. A body which emits light is being observed. The direction in which light is emitted makes an angle with the x-direction. Hence, according to the first paper on the theory of relativity, L* = L [ 1 (v/c) cos ] where L and L* are the light energies are measured by the two observers. Here U = v is the velocity of the object (per observer B) and c is the speed of light, which is the same for both observers.
Page | 1

 1. Introduction
I am not a physicist. However, today I wish to share with you how Einstein himself derived the worlds most equation. I learned to derive this equation after studying Einsteins original paper some time back in the year 2000. I was a good student in school and college and had good math skills. So, I always wanted to understand what Einstein means by time, why it changes, and why E = mc2. Often, I have heard people wonder about why Einstein involves the speed of light and why it is even important. And so, the present discussion may be useful. We all know that light is a form of energy. Einstein uses the symbol L to denote this energy. Then, he comes up with E = mc2 after describing what happens when a body emits light energy L. For those who feel they have reasonable math skills, I recommend a trip to the book store to fetch the following books which contain the original papers. We will refer to them as Ref. [1] etc. 1. The Principle of Relativity, Translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, Dover Publications, New York (1952). See also http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_emc2.html 2. Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, by Peter Gabriel Bergmann, with a foreword by Albert Einstein, Dover Publications, New York (1976). 3. Great Experiments in Physics, Edited by Morris H. Shamos, Dover Publications, New York (1959). 4. The Principia, by Sir Isaac Newton, Translated by Andrew Motte, Great Minds Series, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY (1995). The story given below is a faithful reproduction of what Einstein has presented in his fourth and last paper of 1905. There is a body. It emits light energy. Two observers A and B, who are moving relative to each other, at a fixed velocity, observe this process. Now, what happens? Einstein answers this question and the world changed forever. So, marvel! Enjoy.
Page | 2

 2. How Einstein himself derives E = mc2

Over the years, both before and after I studied Einsteins original special relativity papers of 1905, I have read with great interest the explanations offered by many leading physicists, for the popular conception, and also in scholarly reviews. Many of them are colored by modern perceptions. I will explain what I mean by modern perceptions later ( 3 and 4 on the force and the mass of an electron). Here, in brief, is what Einstein presents in a short paper (less than 3 one-half pages, 8 inches by 5 inches), where he follows up on the results of his earlier more comprehensive paper on the theory of relativity The English translations of original papers (Einstein wrote in German) can be found in Ref. [1], The Principle of Relativity (Dover Publication, 1952), Translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery. The energy possessed by a body by virtue of its motion is known in physics as the kinetic energy of the body. Einstein takes an interesting view of what this means. The illustration in Figure 1 is the basic framework in which Einsteins theoretical observations are being made. This is stated in words on page 69 of Ref. [1], using the L* and L equation above. After some discussion, Einstein the gives the following expression, presented as equation A1, for the difference in the kinetic energy of body as determined by two observers. Let us call them observers A and B. They are moving relative to each other at a fixed speed U and they determine the kinetic energy to be K0 and K1. The difference in the kinetic energies is given by the following simple equations. K0 K1 = L( 1) where = [1 (U2/c2) ]-1/2 ..(A1) ..(A2)

Equation (A1) is given on page 71 of Ref. [1]. How did Einstein arrive at equation A1? We will discuss this shortly. The factor which appears in equation A2 is found in many of the equations of the theory of relativity. This was already discussed in the first, lengthy,
Page | 3

paper, called the special relativity paper (pages 37 to 65 of Ref. [1], with appearing on page 46). Here Einstein starts out by deriving the mathematical relationship between the space and time coordinates as perceived by these two observers. If x and t denote space and time for observer A and x and t the corresponding quantities for observer B, Einstein says, let x = (x Ut) and let t = t + x; see Bergmann pages 33 and 34 of Ref. [2]. Then he determines , , and using a spherical light front spreading from the origin (x = 0 and x = 0) at the time t = 0 and t = 0. The two observers start moving relative to each other at exactly this zero time, with the fixed speed U and observe the spreading light front. The unknown constants are determined subject to the condition that the speed of light is the same for both, i.e. r = ct and r = ct where r and r are the radii of the spherical light front. This condition gives the values of the three constants after some high school level advanced algebra. The reader can find a nice explanation in Bergmanns book [2]. Bergmann worked closely with Einstein at Princeton University. Einstein has also written a nice foreword to Bergmanns book. The symbol L in equation A1 represents the energy of light. That is all we need to know, at least for the moment, to actually derive Einsteins famous equation. Yes, we will do that now. Using a series expansion we can write the following approximate expression for and determine the difference in the kinetic energy; click here (and here) for the Taylor series expansion for (1 + y)n = 1 + ny + {n(n 1)/2!}y2 + We are interested in the case of n = -1/2 and the parameter y = -(U2/c2). The series expansion is 1 + (U2/c2) + (higher order terms). Hence, the factor ( -1) in equation A1 can be replaced and written as follows. K0 K1 = L( 1) L [ (U2/c2) ] = (L/c2) U2 ..(A3)

In other words, the difference in the kinetic energy (to a first approximation) equals multiplied by (L/c2) multiplied by U2.
Page | 4

Now, we have to note that, after deriving his equations for any general value of the relative velocity U, Einstein always chooses the reference frame for which U = v, where v is the velocity of the object that we are interested in. He calls this the rest frame. This is explained nicely in the first paper, where Einstein is considering the motion of an electron moving with velocity v. Imagine Sir J. J. Thomson sitting in his laboratory in front of a cathode ray tube and observing the electron as it strikes the fluorescent screen. He could be the observer A. The second observer B is moving with the electron, with the velocity U = v, in order to study the electron (see page 61 of Ref. [1], last but one paragraph). The observer A can be considered to be at rest relative to observer B (* see footnote). As stated by Minkowski, a Professor of Mathematics, in a famous 1908 paper, the time of one electron is just as good as the time for the other, that is to say t and t, are to be treated as identical and Einstein was the first to recognize this (see page 82 in Ref. [1]). In this paper, which popularized Einsteins ideas in the academic world, Minkowski (who unfortunately died at a young age. in 1909) coined the word spacetime, with no hyphen, and said, Henceforth, space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. Thus, U = v, the velocity of any object whose motion is being studied. If you have understood this, you are a few seconds away from the BIG step taken by Einstein in 1905. Einstein compares equation A3 above with the formula for kinetic energy, viz. K = mv2. This is also the formula for the maximum kinetic K of the electron in the photoelectricity experiment, as discussed nicely by Millikan; see references. Instead of m in equation A3, we find the quantity (L/c2). __________________________________________ (*) Sort of like trying to have a conversation with a dear friend departing on a trip and already seated in a moving train by running on the platform with the train, at the speed of the train. If not, you cannot have a conversation. Likewise, the moving observer must move with the body of interest.
Page | 5

Einstein says that the quantity (L/c2) behaves just like m in the formula for the kinetic energy. It is immaterial that equation A3 is for the difference in the kinetic energies of the same body, as determined by two observers. Thus, Inertia of a body m = L/c2 Or, L = mc2 ..(A4) ..(A5)

Instead of L, the energy of light, equation A5 got generalized and is now widely written as E = mc2. However, in the original paper it is L. Thats it. Yes, you have now actually learned how Einstein derives the worlds most famous equation (). Einstein does not use the word mass in this paper. He uses the word inertia. For that matter, the symbol m does not appear anywhere in the paper. Einstein only gives equation (A3) with U = v. I have added Equations (A4) and (A5) for clarity. Even in the title of the paper Einstein uses the word inertia. The title is Does the Inertia of a Body Depend On its Energy Content? What is the difference between mass and inertia? Lets go back to Newton, who first talked about inertia in his Principia. The first law of motion, as enunciated by Newton is (see Law I on page 19 of ref. [4]), Every body continues in a state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled by an external force to act otherwise. This is the definition of inertia in physics. ______________________________________________________ The expression relating the light energies L and L* used in the second paper can be found in the first paper, on page 58 of Ref. [1]. Einstein shows that L and L* would be the energies enclosed within a spherical volume of light, as seen by the two observers. Einstein uses the symbols E and E in the earlier paper.

Page | 6

A body likes to maintain its state of motion. If it is at rest something must be done to move it, like kicking it, or hitting it with a club, if we are talking about a football, or a soccer ball, or a golf ball. It will not move of its own accord. If it is moving, the same thing happens. If it is a car, it continues to move at the same speed unless some external agency causes it to either speed up or slow down (which is what we do when we press on the gas pedal, or the brakes). If the engine is shut off when the car is moving on the freeway (with no other cars around!), it will keep moving. It eventually comes to rest because of frictional forces between the tires and the road. If it were not for friction, it would continue to move forever. Newtons first law takes over. This is also what Einstein is talking about when he uses the word inertia in the title to his famous paper. Newtons second law of motion states that if a force F acts on the body, it will produce an acceleration a and this is proportional to the inertia of the body. Thus, according to Newton (see also the discussion in 4), F = Inertia times acceleration = ma ..(A6)

These are the basics. However, we commonly take the proportionality constant m of equation (A6) to mean the mass of the body instead of inertia of the body. Einstein is careful to make the difference. Why? Newton describes, on the first page, and in the very first paragraph of his monumental work The Principia, what he means by mass and how it is to be determined. Newton says he has determined the mass of various bodies that he studied using a simple balance. In other words, even without a scientific understanding about the force of gravity, humans have been implicitly using it to determine the mass of a body. This is how we know if one body is heavier than the other. We can tell by placing the two bodies on our two hands, or by lifting them. Then we know which is heavier since we can feel the force of gravity acting on the two bodies, through our hands, which resist the motion of the bodies and stop them from falling to the ground. Thus, Einstein uses the word inertia, not the word mass.
Page | 7

Also, in the theory, as developed in 1905, there was no gravity. Einstein only considers electromagnetic forces. Hence, he is also careful to make the distinction between mass and inertia. Now, all you have to do is learn how Einstein arrives at equation A1. There are many discussions that one can find. They are all clouded by modern interpretations which, IMHO, can be quite confusing and/or misleading. Einstein derives equation A1 by imagining a body that emits light energy L; equal amounts are emitted in opposite directions, i.e. L in one direction and L in the opposite direction. The energy content of this body is being measured by our observers A and B. Here Einstein uses the notations E and H with subscripts 0 and 1. For observer A, the energy is E0 before and E1 after the body emits energy. Hence energy before E0 = E1 + L + L where L is the total light energy emitted and E1 is the energy after the light energy has been emitted. The difference equals L. Hence, Before energy E0 = E1 + L This applies for observer A. What would observer B measure? Einstein says let H0 be the before energy and H1 the after energy. Then, using the expression for energy of a light derived in the first paper, he writes the following expression The before energy H0 = H1 + L ..(A8) ..(A7)

These expressions differ only because of the factor in (A8) which is missing in (A7). Now, Einstein says that the difference between the Es and the Hs is what we mean to be the kinetic energy of a body. The moving observer perceives a difference in the energies and this difference is the kinetic energy of the body. (Now you can read other scholarly treatments of this topic, see references, and you will never get confused with all the discussions about rest mass, momentum, etc. !) Take the difference of equations A7 and A8 and we get
Page | 8

K0 = K1 + ( 1)L

..(A9)

Now, we have the complete proof what Einstein did. We are done, with the proof of the worlds most famous equation which is Inertia of a body = (L/c2) ...(A10)

Let me now give you a couple examples of the modern viewpoints regarding: a) the mass of the electron and its velocity dependence, and b) the attempts to define the magnetic permeability and more recently also the speed of light rendering superfluous any experimental measurements of the proportionality constants (0 and 0) in the force laws for the electric and magnetic force.

Electric force: FE = kE (q1q2)/r2 Magnetic force: FM /L = 0 (I1I2)/2r

Here L is the length segment of the current carrying wire, r is the distance between the two current carrying wires, or the distance between the point charges q1 and q2, and the electric constant kE = 1/40.

This blank space is created intentionally, except for following. We are done with E = mc2. The rest of the discussion here highlights some important issues IMHO relating to Einsteins view on the mass of a body, such as an electron, which are expressed quite clearly in the 1905 paper. Yet, physics has overlooked them in an attempt to synthesize and move on. Can we?

Page | 9

3. Some modern views: Einsteins Expression for the Electric Force on an Electron
The discussion added in this and the following sections are relevant only in that they deal with the views expressed by Einstein himself about the mass and the kinetic energy of an electron and the forces acting on the electron. As new discoveries are made, physics tries to integrate them into a rational whole, often with embellishments. Einsteins clearly expressed views regarding the forces acting on the electron, and the mass of the electron, in his primary 1905 paper on special relativity, are worthy of careful study. As we will see shortly, Einsteins views depart very dramatically from the currently held views. And so, this begs our understanding. As alluded to earlier, I find the discussion of length contraction and time dilation (slowing down of clocks) by Einstein himself (pages 48 to 50 of The Principle of Relativity) to be more meaningful than the treatments given in many modern texts. In the early 20th century, it was these core ideas of the theory of relativity that captured the attention of even the layman (for example the famous Twin Paradox). The time difference formula given by Einstein on page 49 addresses this issue without the need for any jugglery of words or paradoxes. The time t for the moving observer B is related to the time t of observer A by t = (t Ux/c2) = t [ 1 (Uv/c2)] where v = x/t is the velocity of an object in the old physics and = [1 (U2/c2)]1/2. This result can be found at the top of page 48 of Ref. [1]. Now, see what Einstein does to arrive at the formula for the time difference (t t). First, Einstein sets U = v. This choice of the relative speed U has a special physical significance. It also simplifies the mathematical problems with the equation for t. How do we make sense of the new expression for t with U, x and t? In one master stroke, by setting U = v, Einstein is able to get the expression for the time difference shown by the two clocks. With U = v, t = t/ or t = t and the factor now has the velocity v of the object of interest, not U. This is a huge simplification and we get
Page | 10

t t = t (t/) = t { 1 [1 (v2/c2)]1/2} (v2/c2)t Having derived this relation Einstein proposes a practical test of his theory. We find Einstein doing this repeatedly in each paper. The theory is always accompanied by a clear description of how to test its validity. Here Einstein says, let us take two clocks (but not pendulum clocks). The construction of these clocks is described first on pages 39 and 40 of Ref. [1], before beginning any other mathematical deliberations. Put one clock on the equator of the earth. This clock will have the velocity v = r, where r is the distance from the rotational axis and the angular speed of rotation (24 hours for 360 degrees, or 2 radians). For the equatorial clock, v = RE where RE is radius of the earth. Place another clock on one of the poles (the South Pole, where we have now scientific observation stations is the logical choice). For this clock v = 0, since r, the distance from the rotational axis, goes to zero at the poles. Now, let the two clocks just tick away. The longer the time t, the greater will be the time difference! This is the simplest test of the theory of relativity, as proposed by Einstein himself (see page 49 of Ref. [1]). Surprisingly, we have been so carried away with all other types of complicated tests of relativity that no one has yet bothered to perform this simplest of all tests. The mere confirmation of a difference in t and t, not the exact magnitude of the difference, would be sufficient to confirm Einsteins essential ideas regarding the theory of relativity that time itself is different for observers in relative motion to each other. Likewise, look at how Einstein presents the idea of length contraction. This is presented on page 48, Time t appears in this equation since x = (x Ut). Einstein writes the well-known expression for the equation of a sphere. For observer A, it will be x2 + y2 + z2 = R2 but for observer B we must replace the (x, y, z) by the coordinates (x, y, and z, or , , of Figure 1). What to do with time t in the equation? Simple. Consider the situation at time t = 0, says Einstein, and the problem is solved. What was a sphere for observer A is no

Page | 11

longer a sphere for observer B. The length has contracted in the direction in which the observers are moving. This approach to studying Einsteins theory of relativity, IMHO, is the best approach. All one needs is Refs. [1] and [2]. The books written by Nobel laureate Emilio Segre, From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves is also highly recommended in this context (click here). Segre got Nobel Prize for the discovery of the antiproton (the antimatter of the proton, in the nucleus of the hydrogen atom); see also the Nobel laureate Weinberg and his treatment of the electron experiments. Weinberg shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to the theory of unified weak and electromagnetic interactions between elementary particles (click here; the 1979 Nobel announcement starts with a brief mention of the contributions of Newton and Maxwell to theories of gravity and electromagnetism and also mentions the decay of a neutron into a proton, releasing an electron and a neutrino.) With this background, let us consider the perplexing question of the mass of a body. If you want to understand Einstein, read what Einstein has to say. If you want to understand physics, read the Nobel lectures of the great contributors. Often they provide more insights than textbooks can (see discussion of Nobel lecture of J. J. Thomson on cathode rays or electrons in a later section here). In the last section ( 10) of his famous 1905 paper on special relativity, Einstein gives the expressions for the effect of the electric and the magnetic forces on an electron (pages 61 to 63 in The Principle of Relativity). Here he presents the expressions for the force acting on the electron in all the three co-ordinate directions. A moving charge (like an electron) is like an electric current and so has a magnetic field associated with it (see also the last section here where I have discussed J. J. Thomsons experiments which led to the discovery of the electron.) The electric force FE = qE where E now means the electric field strength and q is the charge on the body, such as the electron. If m is the mass of this charged body, it follows that the acceleration a = FE/m = qE/m = (q/m)E. Einstein gives the following expression for electric force. Acceleration = d2x/dt2 = (/m) (X/3) ..(A11)

Page | 12

In equation (A11), which is the first of the equations grouped together as A on page 62, the symbol is used for the electric charge. Thus, our q/m, the charge to mass ratio, from Thomson experiment is replaced by (/m). Also, symbol X is used for the electric force, the same as our FE, and d2x/dt2 is the acceleration, following Newtons laws, for a body moving in the x-direction. Re-arranging equation A11 we get the following and this is exactly what Einstein discusses in the last para of page 62 continuing into page 63. Acceleration = d2x/dt2 = (X/m)/3 = (Force/m)/3 Or, Force = m 3(d2x/dt2) = m[3(d2x/dt2)] ..(A12) ..(A13)

Equation (A12) is given at the bottom of page 62 along with corresponding equations for the y and z directions. The factor 3 can be associated with either m or with (d2x/dt2). If we group with m it appears as if the theory of relativity is telling us that m has changed. This gives rise to a contradiction since the expression for force in the lateral (or y and z) directions has the factor 2 instead of 3. Interpreting the force equation as signifying a change in m is meaningless, says Einstein, and actually violates the principle of relativity. This is also mentioned earlier in the discussion of the meaning of charge qon page 54. To quote Einstein, Let point charge of electricity have magnitude one in the stationary system. By the principle of relativity, the electric charge is also of magnitude one when measured in the moving system. Thus, quantities like charge q and mass m do not change because of the theory of relativity, or the motion of the observer. Only the acceleration has changed and we must associate 3 with the acceleration, not m. This is the gist of what Einstein is saying on pages 62 and 63, where he actually calls attention to the opinion of Lorentz who had derived a similar expression. Lorentz was a Nobel laureate. He had received the Nobel Prize in 1902 and in his Nobel lecture, Lorentz mentions the discovery of J. J. Thomson and puzzling nature of the motion of these charged bodies, which are moving

Page | 13

at fractions of the speed of light. Lorentz advances the conjecture that, perhaps, the mass of the electron is changing with its velocity. Then, in 1904, Lorentz went through the same exercise as Einstein did in 1905 and studied the motion of the electron from the perspective of two observers who are moving relative to each other. However, Lorentz failed to make the two bold assumptions that Einstein made. The speed of light is a universal constant. Einstein elevates this to a postulate of his theory of relativity. Time itself might be different for the two observers. This will actually be seen to be a consequence of the postulate of constancy of the speed of light. Since distances measured by moving observers are different (and known to Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell before Einstein), it follows that time itself must be different if we impose the requirement that the speed of light is the same for both observers! These two assumptions, or postulates, of relativity changed physics forever. Einsteins approach to deriving the equations of motion for the electron was considered to be the more elegant one. But, as Einstein cautions, daring to even to disagree with the Nobel laureate Lorentz, one can, of course, form the opinion that mass is different in the longitudinal (x-direction) and transverse directions (y and z) for the two observers. But, this makes no sense and also violates the principle of relativity itself the laws of physics are the same for all observers. The only correction interpretation is that the acceleration is affected in a complicated manner for the longitudinal and transverse directions. This was the source of confusion for many years and Lorentz admits so in his 1904 paper (see page 24 of Ref. [1], Lorentzs paper precedes Einsteins) and the question about how to associate 3 continued to confound physicists in the following years. Einsteins answer is quite clear. It should be associated with the acceleration. This is also obvious from what Einstein does next where he considers the work done on the electron when it is moved from infinity, in an electric field
Page | 14

under the action of an electric force. Einstein starts with F = (m3) (dv/dt) = (m3) (vdv/dx). All students of physics learn that dv/dt = (dv/dx)(dx/dt) = v(dv/dx). This means Fdx = m3(vdv) = (mv)(3dv) = m(3vdv). The product Fdx means a constant force F acting over distance dx. This, of course, is the expression for the work done by a force. If the same force acts over a distance x, we must integrate this expression to get the total work done. In performing this integration, Einstein treats m as a constant and the total work done on the electron W = m( 1)c2 = ( 1)mc2. (Hint: This is really a simple integration. We have to use the rule called integration by parts.) The expression for W can be found at the bottom of page 63 of the first special relativity paper. The work done W is like energy, specifically the kinetic energy. This equals the factor m( 1) multiplied by c2. Has the mass of the electron changed? Think again. How did Einstein derive this expression for the work done W? In performing the integration, it was assumed that m is constant. So, mass has not changed. It is the work done that has changed. The mass was constant. However, the expression m( -1 ) became the basis for the interpretation that mass itself has changed. What Einstein calls m is now taken as the rest mass, which is a constant. The symbol m0 is used for this constant value. Then the expression is written as m = m0( 1) with the idea of mass increasing with increasing v and becoming infinitely large as v approaches the speed of light c. Far from it. As v goes to c, the expression within the square root goes to zero and 1/0 is infinite. Thus, the mass becomes infinitely large. Einstein never said anything like this in his 1905 paper. This is what I meant by the modern interpretation. I have provided two such references. Both are from eminent physicists, Greene and Hecht.

Page | 15

Did Einstein change his mind and go along with his peers who were performing critical experiments with electrons to test his theory? I do not know. I cannot claim to have studied all of the literature on special relativity. What I do know is that in his first paper on this topic, written in 1905, Einstein is quite clear about m and its constancy. He also politely notes his disagreement with Lorentzs interpretation about the changing electron mass. Furthermore, from the steps taken by Einstein to derive the expression for work done W on the electron to move it from infinity, it is abundantly clear that he considers the mass m in these equations to be a constant. Einsteins peers were testing his ideas with critical experiments with electrons. One of them was Kaufmann, who proved that the observed increase in mass is in disagreement with Einsteins predictions. However, Kaufmanns experimental set up was quite confusing. (Unlike J. J. Thomson, who used electrons produced by electrically heated filaments, Kaufmann used electrons, or beta particles, produced from a radioactive source which we already moving very close to the speed of light when freshly emitted. However, instead of duplicating Thomson (who used perpendicular electric and magnetic fields), Kaufmann used parallel fields, click here. This made his experiments difficult to interpret. Einstein himself took exception and wrote a rebuttal and suggested that the experiments must be redone. He also noted that the alternative theories of electron motion that Kaufmann supported were just not plausible. Later experiments by Bucherer (1910) and Guye and Lavanchy (1915) showed that the variation in mass of the electron with its velocity was indeed consistent with Einsteins predictions. Literally, hundreds of tests of relativity have since been conducted. Nonetheless, this is still a topic that elicits attention and Einsteins ideas are still being tested. The simplest would be show that particles can travel faster than light (see last line of page 63, where Einstein states again velocities greater than the speed of light are impossible). Can subatomic particles indeed travel faster than light (FTL)?
Page | 16

The CERN experiment, reported in 2011, was unique in that an attempt was made to measure both the distance traveled and time of flight of particles called neutrinos. However, the experiment failed and the paper was formally withdrawn (click here). First, the neutrinos are not produced at the target (where protons accelerated to very high speeds are smashed) but are produced as a result of a decay process further down the path along which the initial particles (those produced at the target) travel. Although detectors are located along the path to confirm the production of the neutrino, it is not clear if time zero for velocity measurement also corresponds to distance zero. Second, the clocks used, which rely on GPS signals (with built-in assumptions regarding the theory of relativity) make this experiment rather difficult to accept. Einstein says in his first paper on relativity that we must build a new type of a clock if we wish to test his theory, not clocks that rely on the force of gravity like the pendulum clock (see footnote on page 50 of Ref. [1]). He also talks about a spring balance to measure mass (page 62, last line). Thus, we cannot ignore the following. a) We need new clock to test the theory of relativity as described by Einstein on pages 39 to 42 of Ref. [1]. Einstein forbids, quite explicitly, the use of a pendulum clock to test his theory, see the footnote on page 50 following the discussion of the time difference for observers A and B. Einstein says that placing one clock at the equator and one at the Poles of the earth will permit a test, but these clocks cannot be pendulum clocks. b) For the same reason, even modern atomic clocks cannot be used since they also rely on the force of gravity (balls made of atom clusters are bounced up and down and so the gravitational force is being used, if only in an imperceptible manner, see recent article (click here). c) Clocks relying on GPS must be carefully scrutinized to ensure no built-in assumptions regarding the theory of relativity. I have certainly not studied ALL the papers on special relativity but have studied several that have attempted to test the theory. Even so, it is sufficient
Page | 17

that I have studied the original and first paper, written by Einstein in 1905. That is all I need to form my opinion about the merits of the theory. May be that is all you need too to form your opinion. Please do study the original paper (of course, we have the English translation, now must master German to read the true original) and form your own opinion. Even after the passage of more than 100 years, this is a topic, which is still ripe for discussion and further research, as evidenced by the fiasco of neutrinos moving faster than light (FTL neutrinos) of 2011. These points are also discussed by the Nobel laureate Feynman in his famous Lectures in Physics. The solution to this dilemma was of changing mass was proposed by Planck who was quite influential in that era. And, so was Lorentz. And, Einstein was the upstart whose ideas were being increasingly accepted.

4. Plancks interpretation of relativistic force

As discussed, the relativistic expression for the force acting on the electron is F = (m3) (dv/dt). To resolve the difficulties posed by this expression, Planck proposes the following. Let us return to Newton. According to Newton, the rate of change of momentum is equal to the impressed force and takes place in the direction in which the force is acting. Thus, the expression we must consider is F = d(mv)/dt where m is the mass and v is the velocity of the body and t is time. If the mass m is a constant, the expression for force becomes F = m(dv/dt) = mass times acceleration. However, Newtons definition of force is actually based on the momentum change not the change in the velocity. It appears that Newton had actually allowed for the possibility that, perhaps, m also could change. Now, Planck says let m = m0 where m0, now called the rest mass, is a constant, just as Einsteins principle of relativity requires. Lets apply
Page | 18

Newtons most general definition of force to this case. The following expression relating to will be found to be useful for this exercise. First off, which means, 2 = 1/[1 (v2/c2) ] (2 1) = 2 (v2/c2) ..(A14) ..(A15)

Also, since is a function of the velocity v, differentiating the expression gives, The derivative, d/dv = (v/c2)3 ..(A16)

Applying these results and performing the differentiations, the expression force F = d(m0v)/dt = m0 (dv/dt) [ + v(d/dv) ]. Using the results given, F = m0 (dv/dt) [ + v(d/dv) ] = m0 3 (dv/dt) Since, + v(d/dv) = + v(d/dv) = [ 1+ (v2/c2) 2 ] = 3 ..(A17) ..(A18)

In other words, starting with Newtons more fundamental view of the force being the rate of change of momentum and taking m = m0, a priori, one arrives at the expression for force F given by equation (A17) which is the same as the relativistic expression derived by Einstein (on page 62, see also footnote on page 63 which appears to have been a later day addition which refers to the above Planck contribution). The remarks made by Lorentz, in this Nobel lecture (1902), see notes attached to Ref. [25], make interesting reading in this context.

5. J. J. Thomson eliminates the explicit notion of time t and the Current Balance for the Ampere
Now we will discuss briefly, how many scientists came up with their modern ideas while essentially ignoring what Einstein himself says in this original 1905 paper on special relativity. Yes, it happens! The magnitude of the electric force acting on a particle with charge q is given by FE = qE where E is now used to denote the electric filed strength. If we
Page | 19

compare this to the force of gravity on a body F = mg, acting on a body of mass m, it is clear that the electric field strength E is analogous to g, or the gravitational acceleration. In other words, time t is lurking beneath our conception of the electric field strength E. The common measurement of field strength is volts per meter, as in the famous oil drop experiments of Robert Millikan, where the motion of a single oil drop, of microscopic dimensions, was observed under the combined effects of the electric and the gravitational field (see Shamos). A uniform electric field was produced in these experiments, in the region between two parallel plates, separated by a distance d (* see footnote). When Einstein discusses the motion of the electron in the first paper (see pages 61 to 63 in The Principle of Relativity), he derives the expressions for the force acting on the electron in the three co-ordinate directions. This is to be compared with the force FE = qE, as in Millikans oil drop experiments (total charge Q= Nq) or in J. J. Thomsons experiments, with a stream of electrons (cathode rays) of charge q. In the famous cathode ray experiments of 1895, see Shamos [3], Thomson envisions the electrons as moving in a straight line, from the source (the electric filament which produces the electron, the cathode). They hit the coated screen of the cathode ray tube. (Modern TV screens are actually no different from what J. J. Thomson used.) When the electric force FE acts on the electron, it is deflected from its straight line path. If the electron has a mass m, using Newtons laws, we can write FE = qE = m(acceleration), or acceleration a = qE/m where q/m is the famous charge to mass ratio. The best explanation of all this can be found... go straight to the source. read the Nobel lecture (click here) given by J. J. Thomson. He says exactly what I have described here. _________________________________________ For Millikan E = V/d where V is the voltage and d the gap between the plates (3000 to 8000 volts per centimeter, see page 243 and V and d values in Table 1 that follow for one of Millikans early experiments. I marvel at this Millikans experiment today, because I had designed and built a similar high precision apparatus for my own doctoral thesis (click here), where I was trying to study
Page | 20

the deformation behavior of a novel, partially solid alloy, which was squeezed in the region between two perfectly parallel plates, with a perfectly uniform temperature field, which was varied from one experiment to the next.

We have to understand this first to see the difference produced by the theory of relativity in the equations of motion. Hence, from a = F/m of equation (A6) Acceleration of electron a = qE/m ..(A19)

Next, Thomson applies a magnetic field and eliminates the vertical deflection. The magnetic force FM = qvB where v is the velocity of the electron and B is what we now call the magnetic induction. The magnetic force can also be written as FM = BI where I = q/t is the current produced by the moving charge q and v = /t where is the length of the path. Both current and velocity v have the element of time buried within them. Of course, we recognize that current and velocity are tied to the notion of time, but rarely recognize that E and B of electromagnetic theory also imply time. When the vertical deflection is zero, the two forces must be equal. Thus, FE = FM = qE = qvB. The unknown charge q cancels out and Thomson gets the expression v = E/B for the velocity of the electron. This expression for v is also given by J. J Thomson. I have written it here using modern notations hence B instead of H for the magnetic force. Thomson mentions a velocity v of roughly one-third the speed of light for the rays (or stream of particles) emanating from the cathode in his Nobel lecture honoring his discovery. In the magnetic field, the charged body experiences a force which acts at right angles to the direction of motion of the particle and also at right angles to the magnetic force, resulting in the motion in a circular path of radius R, defined by FM = mv2/R = qvB or R = mv/qB; see what J. J. Thomson says in the very beginning of his Nobel lecture on December 11, 1906. I have reproduced it added note in the parenthesis to refer the discussion to Figure 1. Thus, if the particles are moving horizontally from east to west (say, the negative x-direction of Figure 1), and the magnetic force is horizontal from
Page | 21

north to south (i.e., negative y direction), the force acting on the electrified particle will be vertically downwards (negative z-direction). When the magnet is placed so that the magnetic force is along the direction in which the particle is moving, the latter will not be affected by the magnet (click here); also click here for magnetic force on a current carrying wire and click here for the force between two current carrying coils. After giving the expression for the velocity v of the electron, J. J. Thomson arrives at the expression for the ratio q/m (notation e is used Thomson for the charge on the electron) by invoking Galileos expression for the vertical distance traveled by a body falling in a gravity field (d = gt2). In other words, gravity can affect even particles that are moving at fractions of the speed of lights. Thomson mentions a bullet traveling horizontally with velocity v and falling vertically due to the action of gravity. This expression can be used for the vertical deflection of his newly found particles, or rays. The acceleration g due to gravity is replaced by the acceleration (qE/m) produced by the electric force and time t is replaced by /v, where is the length of the horizontal path traveled by the electron. Thus, he gets, Vertical displacement d = (qE/m) (2/v2) This can be solved to get the unknown ratio q/m for the electron which is given by J. J. Thomson in his Nobel lecture (equation for e/m on page 148). q/m = (2d/E) (v2/2) = (2d/2) (E/B2) = (2d/E) (1/t2) ..(A20)

The time t can thus be banished from the experiments where we deal with the combined action of electric and magnetic forces. I have included time t in the last equality. J. J. Thomsons biggest contribution to science was the accurate determination of the ratio (q/m). Later, the American physicist, Robert Millikan determined the absolute magnitude of q (the oil drop experiment) making possible the determination of both q and m independently. It was no longer the ratio q/m. The main point, however, is the elimination of any explicit mention of time t, using these
Page | 22

simple and straightforward arguments that J. J Thomson has discussed so nicely in his Nobel lecture. Thomson did NOT use a clock in his experiments. He could not see the electron to time its motion but detected its presence (bright spot on the fluorescent screen). And, without using a clock, he was able to determine the velocity of the electron from his measurements of E and B. This again means that electric and magnetic forces (or their field strengths E and B) also include a subtle effect of time. Also, when Maxwell developed his electromagnetic theory (which was known to Thomson, Maxwell died at a young age, in 1879, long before Thomsons experiments), he found that the speed of the electromagnetic wave is given by cem = (ab)-1/2 = (00)-1/2 ..(A21)

Here a and b are the constants that appear in the inverse square law for the electric and the magnetic forces (click here), which are known by the names electrical permittivity (a, physics text often use 0)and magnetic permeability (b, physics texts use 0). When Maxwell substituted the known values of a and b into this equation he found that the speed of the electromagnetic wave cem is approximately equal to the speed of light, c, which had been determined independently by astronomical (and also terrestrial) methods. The Danish astronomer, Ole Roemer, was the first to determine a finite (though unimaginably large) speed for light from his observations on the timing of the eclipses of Jupiters moon Io (click here for details). Thus, the product ab = 00 = 1/(cem)2 = 1/c2. The use of terms such as permittivity and permeability should NOT lead us to think that time t is not a factor. It still lies buried in these new words that we have created to describe the electric and magnetic fields and forces. Thomsons expression for the charge to mass ratio of the electron is another simple way to understand the same. The last equality of equation (A20) has been added for this purpose to show that time t is indeed a part of this important measurement. Imagine a graph of 0 versus 0 using the Maxwell expression for the speed of an electromagnetic wave. The graph is a hyperbola. As permittivity increases,
Page | 23

the permeability must decrease, keeping the product constant. Of course, on earth, we can only measure one single value of the product (0 0) and hence one single value of 1/(cem)2 or 1/c2. What would happen if were to do the same experiment all over again using materials that we find on a new planet (say Mars), or in one of the many exoplanets that have been discovered in recent years? Will the same results hold? Herein, perhaps, lies the most critical test of the theory of relativity, or special relativity.

Magnetic Permeability, 106 0 [Henries/meter]

3.00

2.50

2.00

Earth-based observed values

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

Electrical Permittivity, 1012 0 [Farads/meter]

Figure 2: Maxwells formula cem = (1/00)1/2 for the speed of an electromagnetic wave implies that as the electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability
Page | 24

can decrease or increase following the hyperbolic law illustrated here. All (0, 0) pairs envisioned here, yield the same speed for the electromagnetic wave. A family of such hyperbolas can also be envisioned each indicating a different constant speed for the electromagnetic wave. This is similar to the Boyles law hyperbola (PV = nRT) for an ideal gas at fixed temperature T and fixed moles n, with R being the universal gas constant. The solid blue dot on this hypothetical curve is the observed values of the permittivity and permeability based on measurements here on earth. The effect of a variation in the permittivity by a factor of 2, up or down is sketched here. If light is a wave of electromagnetic origin, the same considerations will apply for the speed of light. What will experiments on a different planetary system indicate (perhaps, Mars or the even the moon, both reachable heavenly bodies) or an exoplanet indicate?

From a deeply philosophical standpoint, I dont think the human mind can rest until even such questions are answered. If one can think of a test special relativity with neutrinos in 2011, one can think of such tests as envisioned here, even well into the 23rd century, if not in the present 21st century. It is of interest to note that we also encounter a similar situation in our study of fluids like water and air. Newtons law for a fluid describes the relation between the shear stress () and the shearing rate (d/dt). The constant of proportionality is called the viscosity of the fluid (symbol ). Thus, Newtons law for a fluid is written as = (d/dt) The units of viscosity (in the modern MKS or metric system) are Pa-s which means product of Pascal and second, and time is now highlighted explicitly. However, other common units for measurement of viscosity (such as poise, named in honor of Poiseuille) mask the subtle effect of time. When we talk about viscosity, we are implicitly talking about something that also a time element to it, in this case the rate of shearing of the fluid. The fluid, unlike a solid, is deformed under the action of a force and one has to deal with a shearing rate to describe a fluid. (This was also the subject of my doctoral
Page | 25

thesis, where I measured the viscosity of a novel two-phase system, a partially solid metal alloy with a unique microstructure, click here and here). Finally, one should note a current balance was developed at the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST), in USA, in the mid-20th century, and this is now used to define the current standard (the Ampere) and hence also the absolute magnitude of the electrical charge (Coulomb), click here. In this electric balance, a special type of a pan balance, an electric coil carrying a current to attached one pan (fixed coil). The electric current flowing through another coil (the movable coil) creates the magnetic force of attraction and the arm of the balance is therefore tilted and no longer horizontal. Weights are then placed on the other pan to restore the arm of the balance to its perfectly horizontal position.

Figure 3: Schematic Illustration of the current balance used to define the current standard Ampere (from the article by Driscoll and Cutkosky, click here ), see

Page | 26

Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, vol.60, No. 4, 1958, Research Paper 2846, by R. L. Driscoll and R. D. Cutkosky. This current balance measurement then became the standard for determining the Ampere The units of magnetic permeability are Newtons per Ampere squared, where Newtons, of course, relates to the gravitational force acting on the mass placed in the other pan of the balance. The magnetic force of attraction (per unit length) between two current carrying conductors, separated by a distance r, is given by the formula, FM /L = 0 (I1I2)/2r The units of length (for r and L) here cancel out and we are left with Newtons (for force) and Ampere-squared (for product of currents). Hence, the units of magnetic permeability is Newtons per Ampere squared which can also be written as kilogram-meter/(Coulomb)2 since both Newtons and Amperes involve (time)2 which cancels out. It seems to me that the modern attempts to define a) first, the magnetic permeability 0 as being equal to 4 x 10-7 (this eliminated the old view where the force between magnets was actually being measured and the inverse square law for the magnetic field enunciated). The magnetic constant became a defined constant; b) second, the speed of light c as a fixed quantity, never again to be determined by experiments might just be the type of standardization in physics that stifles innovation. Taken together (a) and (b) imply, if we accept Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, that the electrical permittivity 0 is also a defined quantity and one need not appeal any kind of experiments when it comes to electromagnetic phenomena to determine the fundamental force constants. Is the current balance standard consistent with Faradays law of electrolysis, which reveal a universal constant called the Faraday constant? And, Millikans measurements on the charge on a single electron? The same gram-equivalent of every metal is deposited when the same electrical charge is passed, in
Page | 27

series, through several electrolytes with monovalent, divalent, or other multivalent ions (see Shamos, or click here for details). What about the Avogadro number (Faraday constant divided by charge on single electron), which also engaged Einsteins attention in 1905? To me, it appears that physics may be ripe for another era where these contradictions will come to haunt and must eventually be unraveled.

Courtesy: http://chemistry.proteincrystallography.org/article92.html To illustrate Faraday's laws we may connect in series a number of electrolytic cells, containing different electrolytes, with a battery as shown in the illustration.

Page | 28

6. Genesis of E = mc2
In section 3 of this article, we derived the expression for the work done on the electron, W = m( 1)c2 = ( 1)mc2, when it is moved from infinity to its current location. Now, in physics, work done equals energy. Thus, using the approximation for ( 1) and we get W = (v2/c2) mc2 = mv2 which is the kinetic energy of the electron. Thus, W = K = (mc2)( 1) (v2/c2) mc2 = mv2 ..(A22)

Now compare the first part here W = K = m( 1)c2 the kinetic energy of the electron to the expression for the kinetic energy of the body that Einsteins gives in his famous fourth and final paper of 1905. K0 K1 = L( 1) ..(A1)

It appears to me that Einstein must have thought a lot about equation A22. The electrons kinetic energy K equals mc2 multiplied by the factor ( 1). Then, he presents equation (A1) for the difference in the kinetic energy of a body that has emitted light energy L. This, in my opinion, is the genesis of the worlds most famous equation. Now, we can marvel again at the broad generalization of what might have just been a mundane result for the kinetic energy of an electron, according to the theory of relativity. Einstein was able to elevate and present it in the most general with profound impact. It is also of interest to note that in the last paragraph of this paper, Einstein mentions radioactive elements, like radium salts. Natural radioactivity had been discovered in 1897, see Shamos, shortly after J. J. Thomson reported the discovery of the electron in 1895. The beta rays emanating from the radioactive elements were tested and compared to cathode rays and soon it was clear that the beta rays where beta particle, or electrons. Einstein refers to these radioactive elements as providing an opportunity to test the mass energy equivalence principle.
Page | 29

Indeed, years later (in the 1930s), it was the study of radioactive elements, the fission of the uranium nucleus, that led Lise Meitner (who had attended the lecture given by Einstein on E = mc2) to speculate about E = mc2. In Otto Hahns experiments, the uranium nucleus seemed to be undergoing fission producing barium and other fission products. (Hahn was repeating the experiments of Fermi who had claimed the production of transuranic elements. Hahn, a chemist, wanted to study the chemical properties of these transuranic elements.) Even as Fermi was given his Nobel lecture in Stockholm, on the discovery of transuranic elements, historians of science note that Otto Hahn was busy in his lab checking the chemical identity of the elements produced when slow thermal neutrons are used bombard the uranium nucleus. The element produced in the Fermi experiment was not barium-like. It was barium. The sum of the masses of the daughter nuclei (M1 + M2) produced was less than the mass M of the parent uranium nucleus: M = M1 + M2 + M; see also Einsteins essay in Ref. [17,18]. After receiving the news of Hahns experiments, Meitner recalled a lecture that she had attended many years ago where Einstein had described the massenergy equivalence. This led her to speculate that the missing mass M might be the source of an incredible amount of energy, as conceived by Einstein via his equation E = mc2. This is also the story that was eventually played out in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The American effort to build the atom bomb was also prompted by Einsteins letter to President Franklin D Roosevelt since there was genuine concern among the scientific community that Hitler could soon possess such a bomb. No story about E = mc2 is complete without this bit of history. Readers can find their own sources for these facts of history alluded to briefly. Lastly, it should be noted that the profound idea of work done by a force was NOT conceived by Newton. The ideas of work and energy came later; see also Bodanis [14].

Page | 30

During James Watts pioneering investigations with the steam engine, his business partner, Boulton, who was also an attorney, asked Watt How much work can your engine do?. Watt was trying to commercialize his inventions (steam condenser, notably) and the improved steam engine that he had built. Thus, Watt was forced to come up with a scientific method of determining the work done by a horse, when it was used to draw water out of the frequently flooded coal mines of England, as the Industrial Revolution began. So, Watt got himself a horse and made it walk back and forth lifting a bucket full of water and raising it over a distance h. So, Watt concluded that the work done by the horse was W = mgh where m is the mass of the water in the bucket and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The rate of doing work is power and so engines are rated by their horsepower to this day, and many of us can now drive more than 100 horses at a time an unimaginable feat in those days. The same expression for work done was later used by James Prescott Joule in his famous paddle wheel experiments that established the mechanical equivalent of heat. The work done by a falling weight caused a paddle wheel to turn. This produced frictional forces that raised the temperature of the water in which the paddle wheel was placed. Such experiments eventually led scientists to conceive the law of conservation of energy in the middle of the 19th century; see Shamos for a nice account of these experiments.

Reference List
References 1 to 4 are already listed in the beginning. 5. Carriers of negative electricity, Nobel lecture on December 11, 1906, by Sir J. J. Thomson. In his opening remarks, Sir J J mentions the British view of cathode rays being particles which travel in straight lines from the cathode and the German view of the rays being vibrations in the ether. He mentions the shadow due to a Maltese cross placed between cathode and the other end of the evacuated tube. Ironically, his son also received the Nobel Prize, with Sir J J in attendance at the Nobel lecture, for demonstrating the wave
Page | 31

6.

7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

nature of electrons in electron diffraction experiments. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1906/thoms on-lecture.pdf E = mc2: The Unforgettable Equation of Einsteins Miraculous Year (Picture Essay of Day), September 27, 2010, Brittanica Editors, http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/09/e-mc2-the-unforgettableequation-of-einsteins-miracle-year-picture-essay-of-the-day/ Neutrino experiment replicates faster than light finding, November 18, 2011, http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicatesfaster-than-light-finding-1.9393 The uncertainty in distance measurement is related to the proton pulses mentioned here. This is a BIGGER and unaddressed issue than the measurement of time (clocks used, which rely on GPS signals are not admissible for such a test of relativity since the clock uses the theory of relativity! We need new clock to test the theory of relativity as described on pages 39 to 42 of Ref. [1] and again noted in the footnote on page 50. Particles Break Light Speed Limit, September 22, 2011, by http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html CERN Confirms Neutrinos Not Faster Than Light, June 10, 2012, http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112551696/cern-confirmsneutrinos-not-faster-than-light/ A Simple Test of the Theory of Relativity As Proposed by Einstein, http://www.scribd.com/doc/109540492/A-Simple-Test-of-SpecialRelativity-and-A-Brief-Discussion-of-Einstein-s-God-Letter-within-thecontext-of-Krishna-Stories Einsteins Photoelectric Equation and the Electromotive Force, by R. A. Millikan, Phys. Rev. 1916, Vol. VII, No. 1, Second Series, pp. 18-32. http://www.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Millikan_1916_1.pdf A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Plancks h, R. A. Millikan, Phys. Rev. 1916, vol. VII, No. 3, pp. 355-390. http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/leonelli/PHY3320/millikan.pdf The Electron and the Light Quanta from the Experimental Point of View, by Robert A. Millikan, Nobel lecture, May 23, 1924, see pages 61 to 63. The graph for sodium is on page 63. The oil drop experiment is
Page | 32

discussed in the first part of the lecture. An analysis of the experiment described in Table 1 (page 57) shows that in this experiment, which Millikan must obviously be very proud of, there was only ONE SINGLE ELEMENTARY UNIT OF ELECTRICAL CHARGE attached to the drop. In other experiments, many units of charge were attached (Nq where N is the number of units). Millikan correlated the differences in the velocities of the drop (as it rises or falls under the combined action of gravity and electric fields) to the sudden changes in N, from N1 to N2. Millikan gives a fascinating account of this discovery and the analysis that follows is indeed remarkable and insightful. Everyone who wants to under science, and apply scientific methods, must study Millikans 1909, 1911, and 1913 papers on this subject. 14. New Values for the Fundamental Constants of Nature, by P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. April 2000. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n99-21.cfm 15. Physical Constant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant Provides a nice table of values for the constants. Note that all three constants discussed here listed as defined quantities. 16. E = mc2: The Biography of the Worlds Most Famous Equation, by David Bodanis, Walker and Company, New York, 2000, http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/20384716/444760583/name/E 17. On the Theory of Relativity and Other Essays, by Albert Einstein,

http:// books.google.com/books?id=Smz0WDomeqAC&pg=PT9&lpg=PT9&dq=ein stein%27s+1946+essay+pendulum&source=bl&ots=WKnG_arKRS&sig=VC PxQ05FUBfuLjUEpBOwsB8DESc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JxGxUamrKris4APgo4HI DQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK (Click on link to read the essay.) 18. The Sacred Beetle and Great Essays of Science, Chosen and Introduced by Martin Gardner, http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/beetle.pdf see page 293 of 302 here for Einsteins essay (only a part of the full essay is reproduced in this compilation, see Refs. [3] for full text).
Page | 33

19. Celebrating Einstein, E = mc2 What has speed of light got to do with it? By Dr. William Watson,
http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/nuggets/einstein/speedoflight.html

20. That Famous Equation and You, by Brian Greene, September 30, 2005, NY Times, Editorial-Op Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/opinion/30greene.html?pagewant ed=all&_r=0 21. Einstein on mass and energy, by Eugene Hecht, Am. J. Phys. September 2009, pp. 799-806. http://www.stat.physik.unipotsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/einstein.pdf 22. Understanding E = mc2 by William Tucker, in Energy Tribune, October 21, 2009, http://www.energytribune.com/2771/understanding-e-mc2 The readers should reflect on the interesting analogies drawn here with Einsteins equation and other energy sources (like water falling from a great height when we build a hydroelectric dam). To quote, Lets start with hydroelectricity. Water falling off a high dam reaches a speed of about 60 miles per hour or 80 feet per second. Raising the height of the dam by 80 or more feet cannot increase the velocity by more than 20 miles per hour. The only way to increase the energy output is to increase the mass, meaning we must use more water. End of quote. The relevant relation is mgh = mv2 where mgh is the potential energy of a mass m placed at height h (like water in a dam) which becomes kinetic energy when the body falls from this height. Hence, v2 = 2gh and mass m cancels out. If the height is increased from h1 to h2 the velocity will increase from v1 to v2 and v2 = v1 (h2/h1)1/2. The square root law means that doubling the height will yield only 2 = 1.414 increase (41.4%) in the velocity and so height increases are less and less effective. 23. Money in Economics is Just like Energy in Physics: Extending Plancks Law Beyond Physics, Published Jan 14, 2013, Introduction to the generalized statement of Plancks radiation law and application to describe the maximum point on the profits-revenues graph of a company (the old, GM, Ford, Yahoo), http://www.scribd.com/doc/120324960/Money-inEconomics-is-Just-like-Energy-in-Physics-Extending-Planck-s-law-beyondPhysics

Page | 34

24. Bibliography, Articles on Extension of Plancks Ideas and Einsteins Ideas beyond physics, Compiled on April 16, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/136492067/Bibliography-Articles-on-theExtension-of-Planck-s-Ideas-and-Einstein-s-Ideas-on-Energy-Quantum-totopics-Outside-Physics-by-V-Laxmanan 25. The Theory of Electrons and the Propagation of Light, by Heindrik A. Lorentz, Nobel lecture, December 11, 1902. The following is extracted from the lecture.
The electron theory also presents an enormous field of study outside the realm of magnetooptical phenomena. For one thing, the free-moving electrons, with which we are concerned in cathode rays and in some types of Becquerel rays, give rise to many interesting problems. I will single out only the important question of the so-called apparent mass of these particles. A definite magnetic field in the surrounding ether - and hence also a certain amount of energy in this medium - are inextricably connected with every movement of an electron; we can therefore never set an electron in motion without simultaneously imparting energy to the ether. To do this a great amount of work is necessary, and we must employ a greater force than if it were not necessary to set up this magnetic field. Calculation shows that the force required is the same as would be needed if the mass were somewhat greater than it is in reality. In other words, if we determine the mass in the usual way from the phenomena, we get the true mass increased by an amount which we can call the apparent, or electromagnetic, mass. The two together form the effective mass which determines the phenomena. Now the investigations published by Kaufmann and Abraham in the past year have shown that the apparent mass is by no means to be discounted. It certainly forms a considerable part of the effective mass, and there is a possibility that in the end we shall have to ascribe apparent mass only and never true mass at all to electrons. The peculiar thing about this apparent mass is, moreover, that it is not constant, but depends on the velocity; consequently the study of the motion of the electron differs in many ways from ordinary dynamics. With Einsteins theory of relativity, it became clear the force had increased, not the mass and this is due to relativistic acceleration that Lorentz was not aware of. His own mathematical theory of electrons came only in 1904.

25. Measurement of neutrino velocity with ICARUS detector at the CNGS beam, M. Antonello et al. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3433 26. Neutrinos clocked at light speed in Icarus test, March 16, 2012, by Jason Palmer, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682

Page | 35

The Faster than Light Claims were later withdrawn.

Page | 36

About the author V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.

The author obtained his Bachelors degree (B. E.) in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Poona and his Masters degree (M. E.), also in Mechanical Engineering, from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, followed by a Masters (S. M.) and Doctoral (Sc. D.) degrees in Materials Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. He then spent his entire professional career at leading US research institutions (MIT, Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, NASA, Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), and General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren, MI). He holds four patents in materials processing, has co-authored two books and published several scientific papers in leading peer-reviewed international journals. His expertise includes developing simple mathematical models to explain the behavior of complex systems. While at NASA and CWRU, he was responsible for developing material processing experiments to be performed aboard the space shuttle and developed a simple mathematical model to explain the growth Christmas-tree, or snowflake, like structures (called dendrites) widely observed in many types of liquid-to-solid phase transformations (e.g., freezing of all commercial metals and alloys, freezing of water, and, yes, production of snowflakes!). This led to a simple model to explain the growth of dendritic structures in both the groundbased experiments and in the space shuttle experiments. More recently, he has been interested in the analysis of the large volumes of data from financial and economic systems and has developed what may be called the Quantum Business Model (QBM). This extends (to financial and economic systems) the mathematical arguments used by Max Planck to develop quantum physics using the analogy Energy = Money, i.e., energy in physics is like money in economics. Einstein applied Plancks ideas to describe the photoelectric effect (by treating light as being composed of particles called photons, each with the fixed quantum of energy conceived by Planck). The mathematical law deduced by Planck, referred to here as the generalized power-exponential law, might
Page | 37

actually have many applications far beyond blackbody radiation studies where it was first conceived. Einsteins photoelectric law is a simple linear law and was deduced from Plancks non-linear law for describing blackbody radiation. It appears that financial and economic systems can be modeled using a similar approach. Finance, business, economics and management sciences now essentially seem to operate like astronomy and physics before the advent of Kepler and Newton. Finally, during my professional career, I also twice had the opportunity and great honor to make presentations to two Nobel laureates: first at NASA to Prof. Robert Schrieffer (1972 Physics Nobel Prize), who was the Chairman of the Schrieffer Committee appointed to review NASAs space flight experiments (following the loss of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986) and second at GM Research Labs to Prof. Robert Solow (1987 Nobel Prize in economics), who was Chairman of Corporate Research Review Committee, appointed by GM corporate management.

Cover page of AirTran 2000 Annual Report

Can you see that plane flying above the tall tree tops that make a nearly perfect circle? It requires a great deal of imagination to see and to photograph it.

Page | 38

Hanuman leaps to catch the sun a big red fruit

Courtesy: http://www.dinodia.com/ImageBigView.asp?ImageID=173973 According to Hindu legend, Hanuman was blessed with extraordinary powers. He is the hero of the Sundara Kandam, the fifth section of the epic Ramayana (the story of Lord Rama) which provides a description of his leaping across the mighty ocean and his exploits in Lanka. He belonged to the clan of the vanaras, i.e., monkeys, and was of divine parentage. When he was a baby, the story goes that one day, Hanuman was feeling quite hungry. He looked up and saw something huge and red in the east the sun, of course. Hanuman thought that the red sun was just a fruit and flew up to snatch it (see http://www.balagokulam.org/kids/stories/hanuman.php). This painting is found in a temple in my hometown, Pune, Maharashtra (in the area called Tulsibag). All over India, you will find Hanuman temples and huge statues of Hanuman depicting his prowess. I was reminded of this big red fruit story when I prepared Figure 1.
Page | 39