On the Controversy over the Logical Correctness of Einstein’s First Paper on Mass-Energy Equivalence
- 1 Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA
- 2 Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA
- 3 Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA
Abstract
It is well-known that Einstein’s first attempt to explain E = mc 2 which was published in Annalen der Physik in 1905, has been criticized as problematic. In particular, it has been shown by Ives and reiterated by Jammer that it suffers from the error of circular reasoning. Attempts have been made in the scientific literature to discount the circular reasoning objection of Ives, Jammer, Arzeliès and others. Fritz Rohrlich in 1990 gave a remarkably simple and concise derivation of E = mc 2 along lines similar to Einstein’s but based on both momentum and energy conservation, in contrast to Einstein’s which uses only energy considerations. Rohrlich’s approach using momentum conservation is an alternative to Einstein’s, which is free from objection in logical error, and we make it quite clear on the importance of the implicit assumption of momentum conservation in any attempt to refute the circular reasoning error in Einstein’s paper. It is our contention that this point is overlooked or altogether avoided by those who have attempted to uproot the circular reasoning criticism of Einstein’s paper.
- Abraham, M. (1902). Dynamik des Elektrons. Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse. Nachrichten. 20-41.
- Abraham, M. (1903). Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons. Annalen der Physik, 10, 105-179. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19023150105
- Arzeliès, H. (1966). Rayonnement et Dynamique du Corpuscule Chargé Fortement Acceléré (pp. 74-79). Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
- Dopper, C. (1843). über das farbige Licht der Doppelsterne und einiger anderer Gestirne des Himmels. Abhandlungen der Konig. Böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Series, 2, 465-482.
- Einstein, A. (1905a). Zur Electrodynamik Bewegter Körper. Annalen der Physik, 17, 639-641.
- Einstein, A. (1905b). Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt Abhänging? Annalen der Physik, 18, 639-641.
- Fadner, W. L. (1988). Did Einstein Really Discover E = mc 2 . American Journal of Physics, 56, 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15713
- Fermi, E. (1922). über einen Widerspruch zwischen der elektrodynamischen und der relativistischen Theorie der elektromagnetischen Masse. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 23, 340-344.
- Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2011). Fundamentals of Physics (9th ed., p. 899). New York: Wiley.
- Hecht, E. (2011). How Einstein Confirmed E 0 = mc 2 . American Journal of Physics, 79, 591-600. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3549223
- Ives, H. E. (1953). Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 42, 540-543. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.42.000540
- Jammer, M. (1961). The Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics (p. 181). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Jammer, M. (2000). Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400823789
- Janssen, M., & Mecklenburg, M. (2006). From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics: Electromagnetic Models of the Electron. In V. F. Hendricks, K. F. Jø rgensen, J. Lützen, & S. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Interactions: Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy, 1860-1930 (pp. 65-134). Dodrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5195-1_3
- Martinez, A. A. (2009). Kinematics: The Lost Origins of Einstein’s Relativity (p. 256). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.