E=MC2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right

[E20]

e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right
PARIS (AFP) – It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.

A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605

Can't post the whole article, it's AP, I think(?)

[Dr. Gonzo]

Finally.

[E20]

You would think that the AP could make the 2 superscript.

[exstatic]

http://z.about.com/d/physics/1/0/C/0/-/-/Einstein_tongue.jpg

[spurster]

I think we need to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of this.

[ORION]

But can he rebound?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

rOFLROFLFf

Classic E20. Nice try though.

[Dex]

A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.

So they've been funneling time and manpower into proving something someone figured out over a hundred years ago?

Sounds like money well spent.

[baseline bum]

So they've been funneling time and manpower into proving something someone figured out over a hundred years ago?

Sounds like money well spent.

That's what makes physics great. It's not gospel, and it's always being tested for correctness. If you read the article you'd see this wasn't experimentally verified at the quantum level 100 years ago.

[Bender]

I didn't know it was still an unproven theory. It's what I learned way back in school. Thought it was fact.

[Drachen]

So they've been funneling time and manpower into proving something someone figured out over a hundred years ago?

Sounds like money well spent.


This is how science works. Theories are tested over and over again for correctness. This is how a German patent clerk with a knack for physics took on the the most celebrated physicist ever (at that time), Issac Newton, and won! Not only that, but he did this 180 years after the latter died. To the poster who said he was taught E-mC^2 in school, I am sure that Newtonian physics was also taught in school before Einstein came along and disproved it. Additionally, even though Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds in recorded history, I am sure there are those today that are trying to disprove at least part of his theories in an attempt to understand our world better. That is what science is a mechanism for understanding our world that is self correcting through constant repetition of proof. If something doesn't hold up to any part of the previous sentence, it is not science.

[MiamiHeat]

CIA had Einstein on watch. Apparently, he stole some of his ideas.

Some people speculate he stole some ideas while working at the patent's office. E=MC2 was not solely discovered by Einstein. Two other scientists had come to that conclusion a few years earlier and Einstein had communications with them.

I believe Einstein was a little bit of a fraud.

[baseline bum]

CIA had Einstein on watch. Apparently, he stole some of his ideas.

Some people speculate he stole some ideas while working at the patent's office. E=MC2 was not solely discovered by Einstein. Two other scientists had come to that conclusion a few years earlier and Einstein had communications with them.

I believe Einstein was a little bit of a fraud.

That's a big accusation to make. Do you have any evidence? Even if he stole the idea of special relativity (which is a pretty simple concept), general relativity is a whole different beast, and he deserves all the credit in the world for that theory. E = m c^2 is a pretty simple consequence of the idea that the laws of physics are the same in any non-accelerating frame of reference, which is the main claim of special relativity. It's been a few years, but I remember proving it from one of Maxwell's equations in a couple of pages, and it was pretty straightforward using Einstein's law that light travels the same speed in any frame of reference.

[MiamiHeat]

Speed of Light changes

[baseline bum]

I should have said light in a vacuum in space travels at a constant speed in any reference frame.

[MiamiHeat]

yes, i know what you meant. speed of light in a vacuum is -not- constant. it changes over time, at one point in our universe, speed of light was faster than it is now. in the future, it will slow down.


------

"In 1997, noted Einstein scholars Leo Corry, Juergen Renn and John Stachel attempted to rewrite the history of the gravitational field equations of the general theory of relativity. Their radical revisionism was largely based on a set of printer's proofs of an important paper by the world-famous mathematician David Hilbert, in which Hilbert published the field equations of general relativity five days before Einstein copied them from Hilbert. Corry, Renn and Stachel claimed that these printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper did not contain the equations which appeared in Hilbert's final published paper. However, in their 1997 article in the journal Science, "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute," Corry, Renn and Stachel failed to disclose the fact that these printer's proofs were mutilated, and are missing a critical part--the very part which contained the equations Corry, Renn and Stachel claimed Hilbert did not know. Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity refutes the baseless historical revisionism of Corry, Renn and Stachel, and proves that Einstein did not originate any of the major concepts of the general theory of relativity by comparing the original source material by Einstein and his predecessors. Einstein even fudged his equations in order to achieve the results others had published long before him. "

----------------

Einstein himself is quoted as saying
""The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

He's a fraud. It's been proven Hilbert published his formulas 5 days before Einstein stole them and published it himself.

Find it a coincidence that whenever Einstein drifted away from "his" mathematical formulas, he was wrong? He was wrong all the time, almost as if the papers "he wrote" weren't from him at all.

I find it interesting how we always use Einstein, "the exception", when talking about failures. "oh yeah, well, Einstein was just a patents clerk when he wrote relativity!!" Yeah, imagine that. A patents clerk. Patents.

[baseline bum]

yes, i know what you meant. speed of light in a vacuum is -not- constant. it changes over time, at one point in our universe, speed of light was faster than it is now. in the future, it will slow down.


------

"In 1997, noted Einstein scholars Leo Corry, Juergen Renn and John Stachel attempted to rewrite the history of the gravitational field equations of the general theory of relativity. Their radical revisionism was largely based on a set of printer's proofs of an important paper by the world-famous mathematician David Hilbert, in which Hilbert published the field equations of general relativity five days before Einstein copied them from Hilbert. Corry, Renn and Stachel claimed that these printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper did not contain the equations which appeared in Hilbert's final published paper. However, in their 1997 article in the journal Science, "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute," Corry, Renn and Stachel failed to disclose the fact that these printer's proofs were mutilated, and are missing a critical part--the very part which contained the equations Corry, Renn and Stachel claimed Hilbert did not know. Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity refutes the baseless historical revisionism of Corry, Renn and Stachel, and proves that Einstein did not originate any of the major concepts of the general theory of relativity by comparing the original source material by Einstein and his predecessors. Einstein even fudged his equations in order to achieve the results others had published long before him. "

----------------

Einstein himself is quoted as saying
""The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

He's a fraud. It's been proven Hilbert published his formulas 5 days before Einstein stole them and published it himself.

Find it a coincidence that whenever Einstein drifted away from "his" mathematical formulas, he was wrong? He was wrong all the time, almost as if the papers "he wrote" weren't from him at all.

I find it interesting how we always use Einstein, "the exception", when talking about failures. "oh yeah, well, Einstein was just a patents clerk when he wrote relativity!!" Yeah, imagine that. A patents clerk. Patents.

Can you post the rest of that article you quoted, or a link to it?

[atlfan25]

From Walter Isaacson's biography on Einstein(pages 221-222)

So who actually deserves the primary credit for the final mathematical equations? The Einstein-Hilbert priority issue has generated a small but intense historical debate, some of which seems at times to be driven by passions that go beyond mere scientific curiosity. Hilbert presented a version of his equations in his talk on November 16 and a paper that he dated November 20, before Einstein presented his final equations on November 25. However, a team of Einstein scholars in 1997 found a set of proof pages of Hilbert’s article, on which Hilbert had made his revisions that he then sent back to the publisher on December 16. In the original version, Hilbert’s equations differed in a small but important way from Einstein’s final version of the November 25 lecture. They were not actually generally covariant, and he did not include a step that involved contracting the Ricci tensor and putting the resulting trace term, the Ricci scalar, into the equation. Einstein did this in his November 25 lecture. Apparently, Hilbert made a correction in the revised version of his article to match Einstein’s version. His revisions, quite generously, also added the phrase “first introduced by Einstein” when he referred to the gravitational potentials.

Hilbert’s advocates (and Einstein’s detractors) respond with a variety of arguments, including that the page proofs are missing one part and that the trace term at issue was either unnecessary or obvious.

It is fair to say that both men—to some extent independently but each also with knowledge of what the other was doing—derived by November 1915 mathematical equations that gave formal expression to the general theory. Judging from Hilbert’s revisions of his own page proofs, Einstein seems to have published the final version of these equations first. And in the end, even Hilbert gave Einstein credit and priority.

Either way, it was, without question, Einstein’s theory that was being formalized by these equations, one that he had explained to Hilbert during their time together in Gottingen that summer. Even the physicist Kip Thorne, one of those who give Hilbert credit or producing the correct field equations, nonetheless says that Einstein deserves credit for the theory underlying the equations. “Hilbert carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded these steps,” Thorne notes. “Without Einstein, the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later.”

Hilbert, graciously, felt the same way. As he stated clearly in the final published version of his paper, “The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein.” Henceforth he would always acknowledge (thus undermining those who would use him to diminish Einstein) that Einstein was the sold author of the theory of relativity.


This should shed a bit more light about the allegations.

[Beno Udrih]

i've never had sex with a women forum