Confirmed: E=mc^2 Validated Once Again, Despite Skepticism | PhysLink

  • Thread starter ZapperZ
  • Start date
  • Tags
    E=mc^2
In summary, the experiment tested E=mc² by measuring the gamma ray energy emitted from the nucleus after the neutron was captured. They were not able to measure the recoil energy, so they could not verify if E=mc². However, they did measure the ionic mass and the mass of the ion WITH the neutron.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Actually, i don't quite get how the experiment tested E=mc². I am not at work this week so i cannot consult the Nature article, which i will be certainly doing next week.

Here is what i got out of the link:

When a neutron is captured by an atom, the total mass of the atom with one extra neutron is

[tex]m_{total} = m_{atom} + m_{neutron} - \frac{E_{binding}}{c^2}[/tex]

From experiment (with the magnetic traps, measuring the revolutions about the B field lines) they acquired the total mass (silicon ion with neutron) and the mass of a Silicon ion.

The [tex]E_{binding}[/tex] consists out of emitted gamma rays and a recoil energy of the nucleus. This is all straighforeward. They measured the gamma ray energy.

So from experiment we have both the gamma energy, the ionic mass and the mass of the ion WITH the neutron. In order to verify if E=mc², we need to have the [tex]E_{binding}[/tex], right ? Well, the one thing they are missing is the nuclear recoil. How did they deal with that ? Probably it was much smaller than their error margin ?

regards
marlon
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Am i the only guy that does not get the point of this article ?

marlon
 
  • #4
the first experiment needed to know the recoil energy, I thought the second one didn't. I know nothing about this, and this is just a layman's guess.
 
  • #5
tribdog said:
the first experiment needed to know the recoil energy, I thought the second one didn't. I know nothing about this, and this is just a layman's guess.

Well, i am thinking nearly the same thing. It must be that the recoil energy is smaller than the actual accuracy level (smaller spread in error) of the outcome of the experiment. Somehow, they must have proven that. If so, you do not need to know the actual value for this recoil energy.

Since nobody else is answering this, it seems i will have to wait until i obtain the Nature article on monday. This is very interesting though


regards
marlon
 
  • #6
If the nuetron causes the nucleus to recoil wouldn't that heat the sample? Then, by knowiing the heat capacity, couldn't you measure the temperature to find out how much energy went into this process?
 

1. What is the significance of E=mc^2?

E=mc^2 is a famous equation proposed by Albert Einstein in his theory of special relativity. It states that energy (E) is equal to mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light (c) squared. This equation has been validated numerous times and is considered one of the most important equations in physics.

2. How was E=mc^2 validated?

E=mc^2 has been validated through numerous experiments and observations. One of the most famous experiments was the nuclear reactions carried out by physicist Ernest Rutherford in the early 1900s. The equation has also been validated through observations of the behavior of particles at high speeds and in nuclear reactions.

3. What is the role of skepticism in the validation of E=mc^2?

Skepticism plays an important role in the scientific process and the validation of E=mc^2. It encourages scientists to question and challenge existing theories and to conduct further experiments and observations to support or disprove them. In the case of E=mc^2, skepticism has led to further experiments and observations that have ultimately validated the equation.

4. Why is it important to validate E=mc^2?

Validating E=mc^2 is important because it provides a fundamental understanding of the relationship between energy and mass, which is crucial for understanding the behavior of matter and energy in the universe. It also has practical applications in fields such as nuclear energy and particle physics.

5. Are there any alternative theories to E=mc^2?

There have been alternative theories proposed to E=mc^2, such as the theory of general relativity proposed by Einstein himself. However, these theories have been tested and found to be consistent with the predictions of E=mc^2. Therefore, E=mc^2 remains the most widely accepted and validated equation in the field of physics.

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
638
Replies
4
Views
630
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top