What if Einstein was wrong?

1. May 9, 2010

ingodszoo

I can't help but think that e=mc2 has a flaw. One mass is not defined to its simplest form and the speed of light has no vector accounted for. Any thoughts about this?

2. May 9, 2010

Phrak

To address your second objection, let's imagine for a moment that c were a vector. How would you write the new and improved e=mc2 when c is a vector?

3. May 9, 2010

haael

Speed is not an invariant vector in relativity. Also, speed of light doesn't have any associated vector.

Constant 'c' is just proportionality between space and time dimensions.

4. May 9, 2010

haael

Speed is not an invariant vector in relativity. Also, speed of light doesn't have any associated vector.

Constant 'c' is just proportionality between space and time dimensions.

5. May 9, 2010

Staff: Mentor

Relativistic energy is rest-mass energy plus kinetic energy. In non-relativistic mechanics, rest-mass energy doesn't exist, of course, and kinetic energy doesn't depend on the direction of motion. So why should relativistic energy depend on direction?

6. May 9, 2010

Staff: Mentor

To addresss the title more directly: Einstein couldn't possibly have been wrong by more than a tiny fraction of a percent: his theories have been confirmed by experiments to a high degree of precision.

7. May 9, 2010

Phrak

That's one perspective provided by the sieve of practicality and application. The sieve I favor is less forgiving, comprised of principles that seem to have a fundamental nature. Included in these might be the conservation of spin currents for which Riemann geometry appears to fall short.

Last edited: May 9, 2010
8. May 9, 2010

nnnm4

Phrak, your sieve is useless without experimental verification.

9. May 9, 2010

Phrak

Gad Zooks! All these years conserving momentum gone to waste. Please elaborate.