E=mc2 – Trademark of Poseurs
(1) In 1950, forty-five years after brandishing it as his own, Einstein confessed to purloining the equation from Maxwell. Even this was fabrication. The equation appears in a 1903 paper by Italian physicist Olinto dePretto – a paper Einstein surely read.
World-renowned physicist, John Rigden (1934-2017), attained his PhD from John Hopkins before doing post-doc work at Harvard. Rigden oversaw scientific standards for the National Academy of Sciences, and programming for the American Physics Society – whose History of Physics division, he chaired. Rigden served on committees for the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Association of Physics Teachers. Rigden co-edited Physics in Perspective and (1975-85) edited the American Journal of Physics.
He edited two Macmillan physics encyclopedias. The last of Rigden’s 4 books, Einstein 1905, The Standard of Greatness (Harvard, 2005), critiques 5 papers written during Einstein’s annus mirabilis. The fifth, a 3-pager dashed-off in September, debuted Einstein’s variation on E=mc2, expressed as: the mass of a body equals the energy of that body divided by the speed of light times the speed of light.
A devout immaterialist Rigden drew no umbrage with energy and mass being one. What tormented Rigden was: “How does the speed of light, squared, figure in this equation?” (2)
Agonizing over c-squared’s presence, Rigden tenders 3 explanations. (3) First, just as Einstein’s June paper unites time and space, his September paper unites mass and energy. On this explanation Rigden avers: “This is not very satisfying though true. The question still lingers: Why is the speed of light in the equation?” Rigden’s second excuse re-configures c-squared into a “conversion factor” i.e., because kilograms and joules are incompatible, c-squared converts one to the other.
Rigden: “Here again, the explanation falls short of satisfying.” Finally Rigden surrenders, speculating c-squared might be: “a way to rationalize the difference between our concept of mass and our concept of energy,” before sheltering in a 1950s Einstein quote: “…E=mc2, in which energy is put equal to mass multiplied with the square of the velocity of light, showed that a very small amount of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy… the mass and energy in fact were equivalent.” (4)
“Energy mass equivalence ” is core Einsteinianism. Energy mass equivalence means energy equals mass (E=m); but again, what’s with c-squared?
For “answers” we summon Stenger.
Stenger authored 13 critically well-received and often bestselling books. His finale, God and the Multiverse (2007) acknowledges support from 20 leading physicists and mathematicians. Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin vetted the manuscript. Regarding E=mc2 Stenger thrice spills the beans: “All speeds are relative – except the speed of light. And that, as just shown, is an arbitrary number that just decides what units you want to use for distance and time. Throughout the book I mostly use c =1 light-year per year.” (6)
“In units where c = 1, we have a simple relationship between mass, energy and momentum that define the inertial properties of a body and show there connection…. When a mass is at rest, p = 0 and the rest energy of a body is just equal to its mass m. This is the result that is more famously written E=mc2.” (7)
“You will often hear someone say that the rest energy E=mc2 contained in a mass m is huge because c=3×108 meters per second is so large. Actually, the value of c is arbitrary and the numerical value in this case is large because you choose a big number for c. Rest energy and mass are identical except for units.” (8)
In Big Physics-speak “c-squared” means 1.
How could it mean anything else? If E=m then the only number you could multiply “m” by, whilst preserving this equality, is 1. This seems a weird roundabout way of saying “one .” Normal people ordering a cup of coffee don’t request: “a speed of light times the speed of light coffee.” They order: “one cup of coffee.”
There’s no practical reason for multiplying any number by 1. The equation re-produces the same number. Multiplying something by 1 is redundant. C-squared is an ornamental redundancy. (C-squared elicits other challenges. As we’ve established, velocities cannot be squared in any comprehensible physical sense. (9) As well, if “c” is a physical constant and universal speed limit, asEinsteinians reflexively blurt, then how can it be multiplied, or even added to?)*
Our effulgent equation, plucked of pedantic plumage, is E=m. This too is a useless incomprehensibility that presumes “Energy” exists like some disembodied ghost, independent of matter. “Energy mass equivalence” is a highfalutin cliché providing no utility in solving mechanical/technical problems.
Despite this, acc. Rigden, E=mc2: “plays a starring role in those elegant abstractions that stimulate the minds of those at the frontiers of science while remaining a familiar part of modern culture.” (10)
Just as Einstein’s mug is the world’s most recognized face, this bootless algebraic foible is the world’s most recognized equation. The popularity of both obscurantist icons pays tribute to the intellectual hegemony of Big Physics i.e., that global archipelago of ubiquitous academic departments and lavishly-budgeted research facilities that don’t actually study physics. Their curricula is a mash of sophomoric solipsism, abstract expressionism and algebraic numerology calculated to confuse the masses – to cow the herd.
Footnotes
1. Ricker, H. H., The Origins of the Equation E=mc
2, John Chappell Natural Philosophy Alliance, 2015.
2. Rigden, John. Einstein 1905 The Standard of Greatness. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2005, page 117.
3. Ibid. pages 116-20.
4. Ibid. page 119. (Emphasis added.)
5. Stenger, Victor. God and the Multiverse; Prometheus Books, New York, 2014, page 433.
6. Ibid. page 121. (Emphasis added.)
7. Ibid. page 120. (Emphasis added.)
8. Ibid. page 384. (Emphasis added.)
9. Kay, William. Velocities cannot be squared, Principia Scientific International, 2022.
10. Rigden, page 124.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Kenneth Hughes
| #
The answer is hidden in the philosophy, not the science. It is our misinterpretation of the science that gives us this conundrum.
c^2is invoked in the equation since the speed of light “c” is actually, the speed of time. At least, the kinetic energy associated with “c” is always the same amount of energy depleted from progression into the future. Time and energy are the same, NOT mass and energy.
Static mass energy is the energy required to move a mass through time! It is using up all the (local) energy input to the cosmos simply to progress into the future. As soon as it moves, it starts to use up SOME of that energy (input) for progression through space and so there is less energy left for it to progress into the future.
Time IS energy, it is the input energy into the universe (via space time, or vacuum energy), that can be used to progress into the future, (by default), or, it can be used for any (and all) energetic processes. If some of its energy is used for say, kinetic energy, then the energy of time must decrease by that amount since the energy of time is invariant. This is the causality for both inertial time dilation and gravitational time dilation. In both cases, there is energy being used and so the energy of time reduces, it red shifts.
This energy input is via a field of energy which exists throughout the whole of the universe, (at some rate or other). Time varies between (the equivalent of) c^2 for an empty void away from all mass, (yes, I know that’s totally theoretical), and zero time rate on the event horizon of a black hole, or for an entity travelling at the speed of light (photon). In practice, we move, more or less through time at almost c^2 since the physical energy we use is very small compared with the vast vacuum energy.
The “vacuum Catastrophe” is resolved by understanding that this time rate field, is both positive and negative. Is has energy that is wavelike, cycling as a sine wave, but since this sine wave is composed of energy “quanta”, (which vary sinusiodally to produce the wave), then, there must be another, negative wave “between” the quanta of the first wave, operating 180 degrees out of phase. This also explains CPT Symmetry where there really IS an exact, negative duplicate of our universe, ALMOST!
Because these two waves are made up of quanta, then one wave could be said to lag or lead the other by one quantum, (one Planck time), and this is the tiny vacuum energy we detect, whist the enormous energy of one wave, (predicted by QFT) is almost cancelled by the “negative” wave.
I have only given you a small picture of a couple of issues here for obvious reasons, but effectively, we live in a Binary Universe, not just because the energy quanta are binary, (they come in pairs), but also because there are two waves of energy.
Everything is binary.
Read my book, The Binary Universe – A Theory of Time, available anywhere.
Reply
William Kay
| #
Thanks for the comment Kenneth. You are positing an entirely different meaning to this equation. Big Physics claims “c” is the speed of light. Under closer scrutiny they concede that c=squared is an ornamental redundancy. That is the demonstrable thesis of this article. What is your opinion of that?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
If E=m why does the force of energy (gravity and magnetism) behave in an opposite manner to the force of matter (electric)?
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
Thanks for commenting Herb. I’m not saying E=m. I’m saying this is an algebraic simplism masquerading as physics. Einsteinians chant “energy mass equivalence” which in math shorthand translates into E=m.
If E=m then what is with E=mc2? The c-squared must equal 1. Yet we are told c is the speed of light (300,000 kps). Get my point. The most famous ‘physics’ equation in the world is clearly highfalutin obscurantist bunk.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi William,
The sad thing is that nothing can shake their unwaiverig belief and they call themselves scientists.
Herb
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
Correct Herb. They have entrenched themselves into Physics faculties, Physics journals and national science funding agencies world over. They define physics. I have come across numerous passages from the pages of elite establishment physicists wherein they mock all the “cranks” from the general public who repeatedly question their orthodoxy.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I almost overlooked this opportunity to make a comment about the current questioning of Albert Einstein’s contributions to SCIENCE since people doing literature searches have discovered there were previous articles written by previous scientists which gave him insights into ideas which we have generally credited to him.
One of his many quotes in my limited QUOTE COLLECTION is “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your source.” I had questioned to whom, or to what, was he referring. Now we (I) know.
I have commented you for doing your literature searches for I have experienced how boring they were before the personal computer. So we need to appreciate Einstein’s literature search efforts, at the time he did them, to have found the articles, published before his time, which seem to be only recently found.
And as a chemist, I have read that some Greek philosophers of Aristotle’s time had considered the matter to be composed of tiny particles they termed ATOMS. But these philosophers lost their debate with Aristotle and his buds. So for nearly 2000 years most everyone believed that matter was endlessly divisible. Which, if one seriously pondered this process of endless dividing,, would evidently result in matter disappearing into nothing. How about those apples?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
Appropriating the work of others without proper accreditation is called plagiarism or idea theft. Having now read some two dozen volumes on Einstein I can say that there is not a single “discovery” to which he is held out as being the author that he did not steal.
More importantly – ‘his’ famous “E=mc2” is gibberish. You seemed to have glossed over this point.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi William,
John Dalton, credited with with concluding that matter was composed of tiny particles, primarily based upon the experimental results of others, that some Greek philosophers had reasoned matter was composed of atoms, was an idea thief. The problem is that ‘matter was composed of atoms’ was never an accepted idea by a larger community.
Just because something is published does not make it an accepted idea. You have given us no explanation how these people of old came the conclusion that matter can be transformed into energy. We know that Einstein had the knowledge that well known others had observed matter emitting very small particles (not atoms) having charge and mass.
SCIENTISTS do experiments because they do not know what the result of an experience might be. When Einstein proposed his thought experiment, I believe he had no idea what the result of his experiment would be.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
There is one aspect nobody seems to mention:
Ek = 1/2 m*v^2 (kinetic energy) AND m = m0 / sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
so, if all is fine with this E=mc^2 why is the Ek going beyond bounds when speed of this m0 is approaching the speed of light and not just doubling? All the talk about energy / time / mass equivalence does not fit into this very basic concept, does it?
Defund physics!
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Bridges lives matter.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Yeah, you’re right Whokoo!
I should’ve shortened my comment — yours is a model for my next one — 😉
BTW, why do we tend to talk to all those f…ing walls?
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
Bingo, we have a winner. The kinetic energy formula Ek=1/2mv^2 is just more pseudo-scientific numerology. No real-world bridge-designer or rocket engineer uses such tripe.
As I mentioned in the previous article in this series “velocity-squared” is non-physical concept appearing only in academic algebraic fantasies – but oh, does v-squared appear a lot! I know I’m observing a bunk equation as soon as I spot v-squared.
My fav Einstein equation comes from his general relativity theory. It deploys v-squared times c-squared times the (impossible) square root of negative one – put simply: bllsht cubed 😉
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi William and Jako,
Wasn’t kinetic energy and momentum a result of Newton trying to establish mass as the origin of the observation from Kepler’s law of orbiting objects, d x Vp^2= C?
Actually what we call mass is a vector resulting from gravity. When a mass has another motion, in a different direction, the vector changes and the downward mass is deceased as gravitational mass becomes inertial mass. That’s why speeding cars fly after striking a bump.
Herb
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
You are not saying anything wrong Herb, but you are “flying over the bump.” What is a velocity squared?
We should be trying to de-mystify physics not submitting to the obscurantists campaign to re-write basic mechanical concepts into an esoteric algebraic language.
Here on terra firma “mass” means “weight.” True this is a function of gravity and this in turn is a function of the AETHER which the Einsteinians have sought to eradicate. Anyway thanks for the comment Herb.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi William,
As I said before V^2 is energy, not velocity squared. Things move and change. What causes this when objects would prefer to remain where they are and seem to be always trying to lose that motion.
To me there is this thing called energy that needs to move and it is attracted to matter (positive matter it doesn’t like negative matter) so it causes that matter to move. This energy will cause matter to move with it regardless of its mass while the mass tries to get rid of the energy. The only way to detect either mass or energy is when they interact. For mass it is when it radiates energy, for energy it is when it moves mass, v^2.
Herb
Reply
William Kay
| #
Herb – v-squared mean velocity squared. E means energy. If you don’t like the meanings for certain variables that doesn’t give you license to simply give them new meanings. We are talking about Big Physics propaganda here.
When I see E=mc2 I see highfalutin pedantic rubbish. I don’t try to give the variables new meanings so as to salvage the equation. I ditch the equation.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi William,
Have you looked at the units for Newton’s gravitational constant?
There is no such things as a second squared yet things accelerate.
Herb
Rocky
| #
“The kinetic energy formula Ek=1/2mv^2 is just more pseudo-scientific numerology. No real-world bridge-designer or rocket engineer uses such tripe.”
I can assure you that real-world rocket engineers do indeed use the concept of kinetic energy.
““velocity-squared” is non-physical concept”
Non-physical? Velocity is a vector. The dot product of velocity with itself is velocity squared. Physically, the work done on a rigid body is equal to the change in its kinetic energy, which of course is 1/2 m v^2.
“the (impossible) square root of negative one”
So you do not understand the utility of imaginary numbers. That’s a shame. There are many problems in physics that can be solved by using them.
Reply
William Kay
| #
Thanks for commenting on the comments Rocky.
Question – you are travelling in a car at 100 kph and are instructed to “square” your velocity – what will be your new velocity?
Yes I am aware imaginary numbers make groovy appearances in theo-physics but as their name suggests they arise from the realm of the fantasy fiction. They find use only as impractical pedantic sudoku quizzes for college kids.
Reply
Rocky
| #
“Question – you are travelling in a car at 100 kph and are instructed to “square” your velocity – what will be your new velocity?”
Your question is meaningless. If you are travelling in a car at 100 kph, the square of your velocity is 10,000 (kph)^2.
The formulation of your question indicates that you are not familiar with the topic you are attempting to discuss.
“Yes I am aware imaginary numbers make groovy appearances in theo-physics but as their name suggests they arise from the realm of the fantasy fiction.”
LOL – So again you are not familiar with the topic you are attempting to discuss. The name is immaterial to their utility in solving ACTUAL physics problem in the REAL WORLD.
Reply
William Kay
| #
The question is “meaningless” yet you attempt to give it meaning by answering it (sort of). Yes, 100 squared is 10,000 but (kph)-squared – what manner of beast is that? Ultimately the answer would have to be a comprehensible real-world velocity.
Your latter comment inspires me to write a certain book review for PSI (John willing) that will rock your rocky world. I empathize with how troubling it must be to have invested so much time, self-worth and identity politics into a pseudo-science. More anon – Rock star.
Rocky
| #
“The question is “meaningless” yet you attempt to give it meaning by answering it (sort of). ”
That’s right. I answered a question that had meaning given that there is no rational answer to your original meaningless question.
Another meaningful question would have been “what will be your new speed if you quadruple the square of your velocity?”
That question has a rational answer. The answer is that your speed doubles.
“Yes, 100 squared is 10,000 but (kph)-squared – what manner of beast is that? Ultimately the answer would have to be a comprehensible real-world velocity.”
Wrong. There is no answer to your meaningless question. You need to understand that simple fact first. I also can’t help you if you are unable to understand that the square of velocity has units of (kph)^2. Are you familiar with the fact that the units of area are m^2?
“Your latter comment inspires me to write a certain book review for PSI (John willing) that will rock your rocky world.”
I highly doubt that. There are many problems that I can solve by using complex numbers that you have no idea how to solve. I’m sorry that basic mathematics is so scary for you.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi William and PSI Readers (this includes JaKo),
As I understand it, you wrote that Rigden wrote: “the mass of a body equals the energy of that body divided by the speed of light times the speed of light.” Then you wrote: “A devout immaterialist Rigden drew no umbrage with energy and mass being one. What tormented Rigden was: “How does the speed of light, squared, figure in this equation?” (2)”
My issue is not Ridgen’s question; it is why did Ridgen twist E=mc^2 into “the mass of a body equals the energy of that body divided by the speed of light times the speed of light.”? In graduate school I solved Einstein’s imagined problem, with his stated assumptions, to the conclusion that E=mc^2. However, I do not remember all the details.
But others and I understand the mass of this equation (E=mc^2) is not the mass of a body but the mass of the matter that HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED into ENERGY. A very small amount of mass producing a very great amount of energy. I now understand how Herb has become confused about the relationship of the mass of a body to a body’s “energy”.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
William Kay
| #
Rigden was hands-down a world authority of Einstein’s published oeuvre. That’s why I included his C.V. The issue is not what Jerry thinks E=mc2 means. The issue is what it meant to Einstein circa September 1905. (He actually used m=E/c2.)
You’re still ducking the issue of why c-squared is in this equation at all.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi William and PSI Readers (this includes JaKo),
Preface: I am going to risk double posting this comment because I never saw that it was awaiting moderation
As I understand it, you wrote that Rigden wrote: “the mass of a body equals the energy of that body divided by the speed of light times the speed of light.” Then you wrote: “A devout immaterialist Rigden drew no umbrage with energy and mass being one. What tormented Rigden was: “How does the speed of light, squared, figure in this equation?” (2)”
My issue is not Ridgen’s question; it is why did Ridgen twist E=mc^2 into “the mass of a body equals the energy of that body divided by the speed of light times the speed of light.”? In graduate school I solved Einstein’s imagined problem, with his stated assumptions, to the conclusion that E=mc^2. However, I do not remember all the details.
But others and I understand the mass of this equation (E=mc^2) is not the mass of a body but the mass of the matter that HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED into ENERGY. A very small amount of mass producing a very great amount of energy.
I now understand how Herb has become confused about the relationship of the mass of a body to a body’s “energy”
.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
I do not think that many people commenting here have much of knowledge of Classical Mechanics and therefore my hint on the “unresolved transitions” between CM and Relativistic one got nowhere. In CM the very basis of motion, acceleration, momentum and energy is based on simple calculus (dr/dt etc.) and a “concept” of velocity squared (in the resulting algebraic “formulae”) has nothing to do with the pseudo-science mentioned here on a few occasions.
But who am I? Well, I just worry about the PSI’s credibility in its purpose == dismantling the nonsense of AGW.
And BTW, bridges are designed by adhering foremost to rules of Classical Mechanics.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
In the 1930s in Germany, a letter was written condemning Einstein’s physics….and signed by 100 Nazi scientists. Einstein’s reply was why 100?….only one is needed to disprove the physics.
Reply
William Kay
| #
The document you refer to T.C. wasn’t a letter it was the book: “100 Against Einstein” (1931). The authors were not Nazis. They were from several countries and many were Jewish including the editor, Hans Israel. Of the 570 German language papers critical of Einsteinianism published between 1920 and 1944 only 17 were anti-Semitic. During the Third Reich the overwhelming majority of academic physicists were confessed relativists. A meeting convened under Reich Minister of Science and Education Bernhard Rust in Munich (November 1940) re-affirmed relativism. A more barking mad example of Nazism than Rust is hard to imagine. Many rejected Einstein’s authorship of relativity, both general and special, and rightly so.
Reply