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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZapperZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc^2
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validation of the equation E=mc² through recent experimental results, with a focus on the methodology and implications of the findings. Participants explore the details of the experiment, including the measurement of binding energy and nuclear recoil, and express varying levels of understanding and skepticism regarding the results.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confidence in the validation of E=mc², citing increasing experimental support.
  • One participant questions how the experiment tested E=mc², particularly regarding the role of binding energy and nuclear recoil in the measurements.
  • Another participant suggests that the recoil energy might be negligible compared to the overall accuracy of the experiment, implying that it may not need to be precisely known.
  • A participant proposes that the recoil of the nucleus could generate heat, which might be measurable and could provide insights into the energy involved in the process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, with some expressing confidence in the experimental validation while others raise questions and uncertainties about the methodology and implications of the findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in understanding the role of nuclear recoil and binding energy, as well as the need for further information from the original article to clarify these aspects.

Physics news on Phys.org
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:
Am i the only guy that does not get the point of this article ?

marlon
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Double Pulsar: 16 Year Study Validates Relativity
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Undergrad How specifically does an accelerated uniform rod Lorentz contract?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
Graduate Is the Proof of E=mc² Valid for Accelerating Objects in Special Relativity?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Graduate E=mc^2, wikipedia says mass can't be turned into energy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
High School E = mc^2, Wikipedia Mass–energy equivalence Clarification
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Graduate Is this a valid derivation of E=mc^2?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
E=mc^2 Conversion to eV=u: What Happens to the Distance Units?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Undergrad Does velocity dammage e=mc^2?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Graduate Downloading e-books makes Kindle heavier?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad What Are Non-Astrophysical Examples of Experimental Evidence for E=MC^2?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K