I Can Anyone Help Understand Einstein's 1905 Derivation of E=mc^2?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter SiennaTheGr8
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation E=mc^2
SiennaTheGr8
Messages
508
Reaction score
199
Link: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

The only part I'm having trouble with is how he gets the plus sign in that 1+(v/c)cos(φ) numerator for the "other" light ray (emitted in the opposite direction of the first).

My understanding is that the φ he uses in his general Doppler equation represents the angle formed by the source/receiver line-of-sight (as seen by the source at the time of emission) and the receiver's direction of motion (as measured in the source frame). If that's right, then the plus sign in that numerator is equivalent to taking the cosine of (φ + 180°) rather than φ for the "other" light ray.

So I'm 99% sure that it's an implied symmetry argument, but I don't know how to demonstrate its validity mathematically.

Can anyone help me out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think maybe I've misunderstood what the angle represents, and that this is much simpler than I suspected.
 
SiennaTheGr8 said:
Link: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

The only part I'm having trouble with is how he gets the plus sign in that 1+(v/c)cos(φ) numerator for the "other" light ray (emitted in the opposite direction of the first).

My understanding is that the φ he uses in his general Doppler equation represents the angle formed by the source/receiver line-of-sight (as seen by the source at the time of emission) and the receiver's direction of motion (as measured in the source frame). If that's right, then the plus sign in that numerator is equivalent to taking the cosine of (φ + 180°) rather than φ for the "other" light ray.

So I'm 99% sure that it's an implied symmetry argument, but I don't know how to demonstrate its validity mathematically.

Can anyone help me out?

If two photons are sent in opposite directions, and one makes an angle of \varphi with respect to the x-axis, then the other makes an angle of \varphi + 180^o with respect to the x axis. So for the transformation of frequency, etc., for the second photon, you just replace \varphi by \varphi + 180^o.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top