Einstein's Theory of Relativity: What if E=mc2 Was Wrong?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothetical implications of Einstein's equation E=mc² being incorrect. Participants explore the potential consequences for the laws of physics, particularly in relation to concepts such as mass, energy, and the speed of light. The scope includes theoretical considerations and speculative reasoning about the nature of physics if foundational principles were altered.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that theories are not strictly "right" or "wrong," but rather vary in their predictive accuracy, questioning the premise of the discussion.
  • Others propose that if mass could be accelerated to the speed of light without becoming infinite, it would fundamentally alter our understanding of physics, potentially invalidating basic principles of relativity.
  • There is speculation about the implications for time and time dilation if one were to exceed the speed of light, with questions about whether time dilation would still apply.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the value of the discussion, suggesting it may lead to unproductive speculation without educational merit.
  • Concerns are raised about the relevance of discussing photon mass in relation to the original question, with calls to focus on the implications of E=mc² specifically.
  • A few participants mention the need for clearer and more rigorous formulations of the mass-energy relationship, indicating that E=mc² can be misleading without proper context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the implications of E=mc² being wrong and the relevance of discussing photon mass. The discussion remains unresolved, with differing opinions on the value and direction of the inquiry.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion could benefit from a more focused approach, as broad speculations may detract from meaningful dialogue. There are also references to existing FAQs and previous discussions that may provide context for some claims made.

.euphoria
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Okay, now I know something like this may seem improbable.
But what would happen if Einstein's theory of E=mc2 was wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Theories aren't classified as "right" or "wrong". They're all wrong, but some are less wrong than others, in the sense that they make better predictions about results of experiments. We already know that this particular theory makes fantastically accurate predictions, so I don't see how to make sense of the question.
 
Okay, Let's say we could accelerate towards c without our mass becoming infinite. Would this have implications on the lawsof physics as we know it?
 
Yes, **** would break, badly.
 
.euphoria said:
Okay, Let's say we could accelerate towards c without our mass becoming infinite. Would this have implications on the laws of physics as we know it?

To be more accurate, you would want to talk about accelerating beyond c such that the energy wouldn't have to become infinite. If you were able to smoothly cross the barrier from slower than the speed of light to greater, it would be pretty bad. One problem is that you can derive the implications of special relativity using such unbelievably basic starting points, violating it would mean those basic ideas are wrong. The homogeneity and isotropy of space-time would be out the window or require modifications... but if there were such things as preferred directions, what does that mean?
 
So basically, Pretty much everything we know about the laws of physics would be compromised and have to be re-thought?

Also one question still remains, What would happen to the concept of time if one could pass light speed? Would time dilation still happen at speeds greater than c or is it limited to below light speeds?
 
.euphoria said:
But what would happen if Einstein's theory of E=mc2 was wrong?
This is like asking what would happen if we discover that we've been wrong all this time to think that stuff we drop fall towards the ground, and that they actually just float at a constant distance from the ground.

.euphoria said:
Okay, Let's say we could accelerate towards c without our mass becoming infinite. Would this have implications on the lawsof physics as we know it?
OK, it makes sense to ask what would it would mean if special relativity makes bad predictions about massive objects that have been accelerated to speeds extremely close to c. It would mean that both special and general relativity would have to be replaced by more accurate theories (but we already know that they need to be replaced, because SR can't handle gravity and GR can't handle quantum effects).
.euphoria said:
What would happen to the concept of time if one could pass light speed? Would time dilation still happen at speeds greater than c or is it limited to below light speeds?
If relativity didn't say what it says, it wouldn't be relativity, would it? Are you asking us to use another theory to answer the question? Which theory would you like us to use?
 
Last edited:
That the speed of light is some immutable barrier seems intuitively ridiculous.
c is very SLOW.

I think that the potential of "instantaneous" should be considered as a viable concept.

"Frame-dragging" anyone? c changes in that warped space-time local environment.
 
.euphoria said:
But what would happen if Einstein's theory of E=mc2 was wrong?

But is it true? For photons, for instance, m=0, but E>0.
 
  • #10
arkajad said:
But is it true? For photons, for instance, m=0, but E>0.

energy of light is due to its frequency
E= h*f

E= h*c/L
h=plancks constant, c=speed of light
f = frequency = c/L, L=wavelength
E= h*(C/L)
Equating it to eeinsteins mass
mc^2= h*(c/L)
m= h/(c*L)
Hence it is like apparent mass. Yes photon has mass and it depends upon wavelength.
 
  • #11
Hyperspace2 said:
Yes photon has mass and it depends upon wavelength.

A mass moving with the velocity of light?
 
  • #12
OK, let's not change this thread into issues about photon mass. This has been sufficiently addressed in many threads, and in our FAQ in the General Physics forum (read it!). So cease this line of discussion right now.

Zz.
 
  • #13
Wasn't E=mc^2 sufficiently addressed in many threads?
 
  • #14
arkajad said:
Wasn't E=mc^2 sufficiently addressed in many threads?

Yes, but at least, that is relevant to the OP's question. Discussing about photon mass isn't, especially when it is getting into the validity of the idea of "relativistic" mass. Read the OP's question again.

And taking about the OP's question, I think this thread is rather moot. We can do an infinite amount of speculation on what if such-and-such is wrong. I see very little informational or educational value out of something like this. I can see research-front scientists asking such questions due to plausible reasons, but I don't see how someone who are just looking into such a thing would gain anything of any value.

Zz.
 
  • #15
I agree, but I thought wouldn't it be better to replace the potentially misleading, unless taken in a proper context, E=mc^2 formula with a rigorous and clear

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/6/5/f653e9c4c421742eebeca629813279d0.png[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
arkajad said:
I agree, but I thought wouldn't it be better to replace the potentially misleading, unless taken in a proper context, E=mc^2 formula with a rigorous and clear

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/6/5/f653e9c4c421742eebeca629813279d0.png[/QUOTE]

Don't confuse what the OP asked with the mistake that Hyperspace2 made. We don't know yet if the OP either knows about the full equation, or if the question is really specific that to the mass-energy relation. Often, threads like this are made worse by responses that assume way too much and cover too broad of an area.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
ZapperZ said:
Often, threads like this are made worse by responses that assume way too much and cover too broad of an area.

Zz.

Often they get worse, but sometimes they get better. If we do not know what the OP knows, why not to point him out in a good direction? It will not make any harm, will it?
 
  • #18
arkajad said:
A mass moving with the velocity of light?

Evidences

eeinstein says mass and energy are equivalent.
Light is deflected by gravity. etc etc
 
  • #19
Fredrik said:
This is like asking what would happen if we discover that we've been wrong all this time to think that stuff we drop fall towards the ground, and that they actually just float at a constant distance from the ground.


OK, it makes sense to ask what would it would mean if special relativity makes bad predictions about massive objects that have been accelerated to speeds extremely close to c. It would mean that both special and general relativity would have to be replaced by more accurate theories (but we already know that they need to be replaced, because SR can't handle gravity and GR can't handle quantum effects).



If relativity didn't say what it says, it wouldn't be relativity, would it? Are you asking us to use another theory to answer the question? Which theory would you like us to use?

I'm not asking for you to create a new theory all together. I'm just curious as to what would happen to pretty much everything we know about relitivistic physics? Assuming that E=mc^2 was wrong?
 
  • #20
Hyperspace2 said:
Evidences

eeinstein says mass and energy are equivalent.
Light is deflected by gravity. etc etc

You really need to read the FAQ. You are making a horrible misinterpretation. That's like saying a tomato has dirt, just because it grew out of the ground.

Zz.
 
  • #21
ZapperZ said:
You really need to read the FAQ. You are making a horrible misinterpretation. That's like saying a tomato has dirt, just because it grew out of the ground.

Zz.

Sorry:approve:
 
  • #22
.euphoria said:
I'm not asking for you to create a new theory all together. I'm just curious as to what would happen to pretty much everything we know about relitivistic physics? Assuming that E=mc^2 was wrong?
What would happen if known physics were wrong? It would be wrong. GPS devices would retroactively not work; people who thought they'd driven safely to work this morning will discover they have in fact driven into a lake.

What is it you want to hear?

Please ask an answerable question.
 
  • #23
.euphoria said:
I'm not asking for you to create a new theory all together. I'm just curious as to what would happen to pretty much everything we know about relitivistic physics? Assuming that E=mc^2 was wrong?
So what theory are you asking me to use?

I know that's what you asked, but the question doesn't make sense. It's like asking what would happen to non-relativistic physics if we discover that car keys fall away from the ground when they're dropped. How would you answer that question? If we discover that, we have a lot bigger problems than what some theory says. We would have to figure out how and why we came to the incorrect conclusion that car keys fall towards the ground in all previous experiments.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad GR as Gauge Theory
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Why is E=MC2 Squared and not Cubed?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Does string theory falsify the theory of special relativity?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad A problem in the equations for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad What if one is in 1905 and debating foundational fundamentals?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Graduate Alternative theories to General Relativity
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Does the metric in general relativity depend only on position because of the equivalence principle?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Relativity: the Special and General theories
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Symmetry of motion in the special theory of relativity
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K