well i'm gald that you're at least willing to think about this.
first off, as you requested, here is a list of variable definitions:
E = energy
- you debate whether this should be change in energy, but we'll leave it as is.
h = plank's constant
v = f = frequency
- i introduce f here since v can be confused with velocity
c = speed of light in vacuum
L = wavelength
m = mass / rest mass
- this distinction is a matter of relativity, and changes depending on the regime to which the equation applies
p = momentum
now, lets start from the top:
"point number one: Your E/h=v is wrong it's (Change in E)/h=v there is a difference because the actuall frequency is v=c/L(lambda) lambda being of
course wavelength. Therefore we find that Change in E is equal to hc/L."
well, i disagree that E should be change in energy. as a laser physcisit i often use E = hf, where E is the change in energy. however, the change in
energy relates to the change in energy of the states being considered - in this case the states between which a transition is being made and from
which a photon is being emitted. so, in general, E = hf, where E is the energy of the particle. the rest of your statement is correct:
E/h = f
E = hf
f = c/L
E = hc/L
Now:
"E^2 = ((E/c^2)v)^2c^2+m^2c^4
E=((1/c^2)v)^2c^2+m^2c^4"
incorrect. starting from:
E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
i can then only assume you have assumed:
p = mv (where v here is velocity)
E = mc^2
m = E/c^2
p = (E/c^2)v
giving:
E^2 = ((E/c^2)v)^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
for a start i am not sure that p = mv is applicable to quantum particles. i'd have to go away and serious check that. in any case, the calculation
you make after should be:
E^2 = ((E/c^2)v)^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
E^2 = ((E^2 v^2)/c^2) + m^2 c^4
not E=((1/c^2)v)^2c^2+m^2c^4 as you gave.
finally, i would like to point out a quote from your own source:
www.phys.lsu.edu...
"In order to understand the law of the equivalence of mass and energy, we must go back to two conservation or "balance" principles which,
independent of each other, held a high place in pre-relativity physics."
the key being 'pre-relativitiy'. on a philisophical (as well as scientific note) this arguement actually boils down to a question of semantics and
pendantry. your statement, E = mc^2 is of course true, PROVIDED you stipulate the approximations, assumptions and limitations of the statement, which
you did not. hence, having stated an absolute, it was easy for me to contradict it. the above proof that E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 is besides the
point, as is used merely as an example of how your statement can be false.
- qo.