EINSTEINS

MASSENERGY
EQUATION,
VOLUME II
 EINSTEINS
MASSENERGY
EQUATION,
VOLUME II
QUANTUM MECHANICS
AND GRAVITATION,
EMPIRICAL TESTS, AND
PHILOSOPHICAL
DEBATES

FRANCISCO FERNFLORES
Einsteins MassEnergy Equation, Volume II: Quantum Mechanics and
Gravitation, Empirical Tests, and Philosophical Debates
Copyright Momentum Press , LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any otherexcept for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission of
the publisher.

First published in 2018 by

Momentum Press , LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net

ISBN-13: 978-1-94664-674-3 (paperback)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94664-675-0 (e-book)

Momentum Press Energy Physics and Engineering Collection

DOI: 10.5643/9781946646750

Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.

Chennai, India

First edition: 2018

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America

 ABSTRACT

In this second volume, we examine the role that Einsteins massenergy

equation played in the development of two important theories in early twen-
tieth century physics: de Broglies matter waves and general relativity as
a theory of gravitation. We also discuss the first empirical confirmation of
E = mc2 by Cockcroft and Walton. We investigate the somewhat surprising
fact that Cockcroft and Waltons paper reporting their result makes no men-
tion of either Einstein or his famous equation. Finally, we examine some of
the contemporary debates concerning how the massenergy relation should
be taught and understood philosophically. We close with some suggestions
for future research.

Keywords: Einstein, empirical tests of mass-energy equivalence, equiva-

lence of mass and energy, history of special relativity, interpretations of mass-
energy equivalence, mass-energy equivalence, mass-energy, philosophical
foundations of special relativity.
 CONTENTS

PREFACE ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1. MassEnergy, Wave Mechanics, and Gravitation 1
1.1 de Broglies Matter Waves 1
1.2 First Moves: Photons of Finite Mass 2
1.3 The Momentum of a Photon 4
1.4 Phase Waves of Matter 7
1.5 Philosophical Reflections on Phase Waves 13
1.6 MassEnergy and Gravitation 15
1.7 First Step: Einsteins 1907 Review Article 15
1.8 Second Step: Einsteins 1911 Light Bending Paper 17
1.9 Third Step: MassEnergy and General Relativity 21
2. First Empirical Test of E = mc2 25
2.1 , , and Radiation 28
2.2 Cockcroft & Waltons 1932 Paper 29
2.3 The Experiment and the Results 31
2.4 Understanding the Results 32
2.5 Cockcroft and Waltons Results, Philosophically Speaking 33
2.6 Degrees of Belief and Einsteins Demonstrations 39
2.7 Centenary Test of E = mc2 40
3. Contemporary Debates and Insights 45
3.1 Equivalence and Conversion of Mass and Energy 46
3.2 Baierlein and Teaching E = mc2 52
3.3 Einsteins 1946 Demonstration 56
3.4 Baierlein, Mass, and Energy 60
3.5 Nuclear Physics, Composite Systems, and E = mc2 62
4. Philosophical Conclusion and Future Directions 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
INDEX 81
 PREFACE

In this second volume, we begin by analyzing the role that Einsteins mass
energy relation played in de Broglies contribution to the development
quantum mechanics. We also examine how Einstein reasoned from his early
view that energy has inertia, through the notion that inertial mass and grav-
itational mass are directly proportional, to the conclusion that therefore the
energy-content of an object is correlated to its gravitational mass.
Equally important to our study is a critical examination of the experi-
ment, by Crockfort and Walton in 1932, which is routinely cited as the first
empirical test of E = mc2 . It is not only the conspicuous absence of any men-
tion of either Einstein or the massenergy relation in the report by Crockfort
and Walton of their experiment that makes this an interesting episode in the
history of experimental physics. There is also much to learn philosophically
about the relationship between theory and data from this experiment and
whether one can test E = mc2 directly, which, as we discuss, experi-
menters recently claimed to achieve on the centenary of Einsteins famous
equation.
Finally, our study also examines some of the contemporary literature
by physicists and philosophers about Einsteins massenergy relation, how
it should be taught, and its philosophical consequences. We focus on the
literature that seems, from a philosophers point of view, quintessentially
philosophical insofar as it constitutes efforts to dispel misunderstandings
and misconceptions about what the famous equation E = mc2 means. We
conclude that despite the best efforts of philosophers and physicists, in a
sense no one has said it better than Einstein did the first time he articulated
his result: If a bodys energy changes by an amount E, its inertial mass
changes by an amount E/c2 . We close with a brief chapter describing some
suggestions for future research1

1 Please note that we explain all of our notational conventions in the Preface to Volume I.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Tal Scriven (Chair, Philosophy Department) and Douglas

Epperson (Dean, College of Liberal Arts) at California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA, for supporting my research. Dean Epper-
son was ultimately responsible for awarding me, on behalf of the College
of Liberal Arts, a research stipend during the summer of 2016 that was
invaluable. Two of my students made valuable contributions to this work.
Sam Castenholz carefully read and copy-edited about half of the manuscript;
Garrett Goff not only produced the diagrams but verified their accuracy and
appropriateness. Their work was funded by the Philosophy Department at
Cal Poly. I also wish to thank my colleague Karl Saunders (Physics Depart-
ment, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA) for
insightful conversations about composite systems and levels of granularity
the impact of which is in between the lines in a variety of places and is
screaming for more attention. My correspondence with Roberto Torretti on
Einsteins massenergy relation several years ago was also, in retrospect,
extremely important to my developing understanding of material for this
book. Although I have never met Prof. Torretti, his work has inspired and
influenced me since I first encountered it as a graduate student. Finally, there
is no philosopher who has inspired me more than my spouse Rachel Fern-
flores, who, along with my daughters Olivia and Phaedra, provided me with
unending love and support during this project.
 CHAPTER 1

MASSENERGY, WAVE
MECHANICS, AND
GRAVITATION

Einsteins massenergy relation became such an important result in 20th

century physics partly because of its unique role in shaping the mostly inde-
pendent development of the two theoretical cornerstones of modern physics:
quantum mechanics and general relativity. In this chapter, we will examine
some of the key moments in the developments of these two main branches of
physics by investigating first the role that the massenergy relation played
in de Broglies hypothesis of matter waves and second the role it played in
the development of Einsteins theory of gravitation, i.e., general relativity.

1.1 DE BROGLIES MATTER WAVES

In 1929, Louis De Broglie was awarded the Nobel prize in physics for his
discovery of the wave nature of electrons [1]. Five years earlier, de Broglie
had presented his dissertation titled Recherches sur la Thorie des Quanta
at Paris University in which he first postulated what later came to be called
matter waves. That same year, de Broglies novel attempt to reconcile the
wave-like and particle-like behavior of light, which led to his hypothesis of
phase waves for all matter including light, was published in English for
the first time in a paper titled A Tentative Theory of Light Quanta [2].1
There is widespread recognition that de Broglies work was deeply influ-
ential to Schrdinger in the development of his wave mechanics. Schrdinger

1 Whether light should be classified as matter is philosophically somewhat controversial. We

begin to approach this and other related questions in Chapter 3.
2 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

himself begins his ground-breaking exposition of wave mechanics for

Physical Review in 1926 by saying

The theory which is reported in the following pages is based on the very
interesting and fundamental researches of L. de Broglie on what he called
phase-waves (ondes de phase) and thought to be associated with the
motion of material points, especially with the motion of an electron or
proton. The point of view taken here, which was first published in a series
of German papers, is rather that material points consist of, or are nothing
but, wave-systems [3, p. 1049].

Historians of physics Raman and Foreman have even asked, in the title of
one of their papers, Why Was It Schrdinger Who Developed de Broglies
Ideas? [4]. Yet, a close examination of how de Broglie arrived at his famous
and influential hypothesis and especially one that focuses on the role that
Einsteins famous equation E = mc2 played in these developments has yet
to appear in the literature (as far as we know). Thus, we begin here with just
such an examination by focusing on de Broglies 1924 paper A Tentative
Theory of Light Quanta [2].

1.2 FIRST MOVES: PHOTONS OF FINITE MASS

de Broglie introduces the problem he wants to solve by first stating that

there is sufficient evidence to support the reality of light quanta (photons
hereafter). He cites Einsteins work on black body radiation and his account
of the photoelectric effect, Bohrs work on the structure of the atom, and
Comptons work on X-ray diffraction. Significantly, though he does not
draw attention to it, de Broglie focuses on how experiments concerning the
behavior of light confirm the hypothesis of light quanta. de Broglie then states
that his goal is to reconcile lights particle-like behavior with its wave-like
behavior. He says:

I shall in the present paper assume the real existence of light quanta,
and try to see how it would be possible to reconcile with it the strong
experimental evidence on which was based the wave theory [2, p. 446].

Notice de Broglies careful wording here. The challenge he sets himself is to

reconcile experimental evidence that strongly supports the reality of light
quanta, i.e., that light is quantized, with empirical evidence that supports a
competing hypothesis, viz., that light is a wave phenomenon. The challenge
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 3

seems insurmountable because these two hypotheses had historically been

treated as mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Yet, de Broglies is suggesting
that there may be a single, unified, theoretical description of both the particle-
like and wave-like behavior of light.
With the task clearly outlined, de Broglie begins by making the
following assumptions:

1. All photons are identical.

2. The only difference among photons is that they have slightly different
velocities each of which is very near the speed of light.
3. Each photon has a finite mass m0 .
4. Because photons have velocities very nearly equal to Einsteins lim-
iting velocity c, they must have extremely small mass (not infinitely
small in a mathematical sense) [2, p. 447].

From our contemporary perspective, the most glaring assumption is that

photons have velocities near, but not equal to, the speed of light, and that they
must therefore have an extremely small, but finite, mass. Strictly speaking,
special relativity does not impose any constraint on the mass of an object
that moves uniformly close to the speed of light relative to some inertial
frame. However, if an object P moves with a velocity u very near the speed
of light relative to an inertial frame K and the mass mK of P relative to K
is very small, the rest-mass m of P must be significantly smaller than mK
since m = mK / (u), where (u) is the usual Lorentz factor.
de Broglie now suggests that given the Einstein-Planck expression for
the energy of a photon, i.e., E = h, and given that Einsteins theory of
special relativity entails that the total energy of a particle is given by2
m0 c2
E= , (1.1)
1 2
it follows that, for a given photon,
m0 c2
h =  , (1.2)
1 2
where = v/c. Solving for in Eqn. (1.2), we have:

m2 c 4
= 1 20 2 . (1.3)
h

2 For the remainder of this chapter, for convenience we use m for the rest-mass while
0
discussing de Broglies paper.
4 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

Finally, using a familiar series expansion for the right-hand side of Eqn. (1.3)
and neglecting terms of the second and higher orders, since we are dealing
with a case in which v c and hence 1 2 is a very small quantity, we
obtain

v 1 m20 c4
= =1 . (1.4)
c 2 h2 2
de Broglie uses this last equation to conclude that It then seems that m0
should be at most of the order of 1050 gr. [2, p. 447]. Somewhat surpris-
ingly, his approximation is within one order of magnitude of some recent
experimentally determined upper limits on the mass of a photon such as
Luo et al., who find this limit to be 1.2 1051 g [5]. Yet, de Broglie does
not explain how he arrives at his approximation and it cannot be merely by
substituting empirical values into Eqn. (1.4), for we would need to know at
least the approximate velocity of photons. However, when it comes to the
velocity of photons, de Broglie says:

The light quanta would have velocities of slightly different values, but
such that they cannot be discriminated from c by any experimental means
[2, p. 447].

So de Broglie cannot be deriving his limit on the mass of a photon directly

from Eqn. (1.4). Conversely, if we assume de Broglies limit on the mass
of the photon, the value of v/c for a (red) photon would be approximately
1 5 1015 which, as de Broglie says, would arguably make the velocity
of a photon quite difficult to distinguish from c.

1.3 THE MOMENTUM OF A PHOTON

In Section II of his paper, de Broglie focuses on deriving results about black

body radiation by treating the black body as a gas of photons (light quanta).
These results, and even their derivations, are not so important for our limited
purposes here. However, it is instructive to examine how de Broglie uses
Einsteins massenergy equation to derive the expression for the momentum
of a photon.
Again, de Broglie begins with the assumption that the speed v of any
one photon is very near, though not identical with, the speed of light c. The
total energy of such a photon, when we treat it as a particle of finite and
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 5

small but nonzero mass m0 , is

E = m0 c2 . (1.5)

The relativistic momentum for such a particle is

p = m0 v. (1.6)

From these two equations, de Broglie now infers that the momentum of a
photon is approximately given by
E
p= . (1.7)
c
One immediately recognizes this last equation, when treated as an exact
relation and not an approximation, as the equation for the momentum of
a photon in special relativity when we assume that the photon has zero
rest-mass.
However, de Broglie arrives at Eqn. (1.7) by assuming that, for the
photon, v c and hence p m0 c. It is also worth noting that de Broglies
derivation of Eqn. (1.7) depends crucially on the assumption that m0  = 0,
because de Broglie seems simply to be dividing Eqn. (1.5) by Eqn. (1.6).
Notice that without the approximation and allowing for the possibility
that m0 = 0, we could write
E
= m0 . (1.8)
c2
Substituting into the equation for the relativistic momentum of a particle,
viz., Eqn. (1.6), we have
E v
p= . (1.9)
c c
Using the familiar expression = vc , we can also write

E
p= . (1.10)
c
The advantage of obtaining the expression for the momentum this way is
that now, for any particle whose velocity closely approximates the speed of
light, we have p = Ec . No assumption needs to be made regarding the mass
of the particle.
It is remarkable, nevertheless, that given Einsteins relation for the
energy of a photon from the photoelectric effect, i.e., E = h, we can now
6 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

write down, though de Broglie does not, an equation of the momentum of a

photon that is entirely independent of both the photons rest-mass and, in a
sense, its velocity, i.e.,

h
p= . (1.11)
c
Although c does appear in the formula, it does not appear as the velocity of
any one photon or collection of photons whose frequency one might mea-
sure.3 To illustrate the importance of this, consider the analogous classical
case. For a classical particle of mass m moving with velocity v, its total
(kinetic) energy is given by

mv 2
T = . (1.12)
2
Given the classical definition of momentum p = mv, we have

2T
p= , (1.13)
v
where, significantly, v is the velocity of the particle. The significance of v in
this last equation can be illustrated if we imagine an experiment to determine
the momentum of the particle. It would not be sufficient simply to measure
the energy of the body, e.g., through some calorimetric process. Even if we
could infer the value of T by measuring the energy of the particle, we would
also need to know the particles velocity v to determine its momentum.
However, in the case of a photon, once we measure the energy of the
photon, we know everything we need to know to determine the momentum
of the photon. Of course, we also need to know the value of the limiting
velocity c in relativity. However, this limiting velocity could be measured
by experiments that do not involve electromagnetic interactions. It seems de
Broglie must have had something like this in mind since even if we could
measure the speed of a given photon, he has already assumed this would not
be equal to c.
de Broglie uses Eqn. (1.7) to derive a variety of results such as the
pressure on the walls of the enclosure of the gas. With regard to the latter,
de Broglie points out that the pressure calculated using Eqn. (1.7) is the

3 This curious remark, which is bound to appear either confused or false, is grounded on the
distinction between c as a limiting velocity in special relativity that arises in the derivation of
the Lorentz transformations and c as the invariant value of the propagation of electromagnetic
interactions, which arises from Maxwells equations. See 2.7.
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 7

same as the one given by the electromagnetic theory, whilst without using
the Relativity formulae we should have found a result twice as great as this
[2, p. 448]. de Broglie is, of course, correct. However, we could arrive at
exactly the same result, which begins to connect relativity with quantum
theory, or at least the study of black body radiation, in the traditional way,
i.e., by assuming that the photon has zero rest-mass.

1.4 PHASE WAVES OF MATTER

Section III of de Broglies paper, which is titled An Important Theorem

on the Motion of Bodies, is key. We begin by considering a body whose
rest-mass is m0 moving uniformly with velocity v = c ( < 1) relative to
fixed observer. de Broglie says:

In consequence of the principle of energy inertia, it must contain an

internal energy equal to m0 c2 [2, p. 449].

Clearly, we are here talking of the bodys internal energy as obtained from
Einsteins massenergy equation and not the bodys total energy. de Broglie
then says:

Moreover, the quantum relation suggests the ascription of this internal

energy to a periodic phenomena whose frequency is
0 = 1h m0 c2 [2, p. 449].

This passage is crucial. The quantum relation to which de Broglie is refer-

ring is E = h. de Broglie is suggesting that the internal energy m0 c2 of
any material body can be understood as arising from a periodic phenomenon
of frequency 0 , though de Broglie remains silent concerning the nature of
this periodic phenomenon. By rearranging the terms in the equation for
the frequency 0 , we arrive at the following expression for the rest-mass of
the body:
h0
m0 = . (1.14)
c2
de Broglie does not discuss this version of his equation. Yet, it is an important
one to keep in mind as we try to distinguish the frequency 0 associated with
the rest-mass m0 from the more familiar frequency (or wavelength ) of a
particle that moves with a velocity v. Notice also that de Broglies equation
(1.14) relating the rest-mass of a body to an internal frequency is consistent
8 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

with the view, which was fairly common at the time, that inertial mass may
have an electromagnetic origin.
Following de Broglie, let us now consider a particle P that moves with
velocity v relative to some inertial frame K. In K, the total energy of P is

E = m0 c 2 . (1.15)

de Broglie now simply states that the corresponding frequency is... (449)
and writes (in our notation)
 
m0 c2
= . (1.16)
h

The frequency here is not the same, of course, as the frequency 0 in Eqn.
(1.14). Given what de Broglie goes on to argue, he arrives at the expression
for the frequency associated with the body by simply equating the total
energy of the body, as measured in K, with the expression h. In other
words, de Broglie is now freely applying the quantum relation E = h to
an arbitrary body. This is quite a leap, because the Planck-Einstein relation
was uniformly treated at that time as applying only to the energy of a photon.
Still, as de Broglie himself points out, at this stage, the frequency does
not really have a physical interpretation, because we have not established
any relationship between the frequency 0 of the periodic phenomenon as
measured in the rest frame of P and this frequency .
de Broglie now asks us to consider the following. Suppose that an
observer at rest in K is looking at the internal periodic phenomenon [2,
p. 449]. Because of time-dilation, if the frequency of the internal periodic
phenomenon in the rest-frame of P is 0 , its frequency in K, in which it has
the Lorentz factor , is
 
1
1 = 0 . (1.17)

If we assume the periodic phenomenon to be sinusoidal, i.e., to vary in its

rest frame as sin 20 t  , where t  is time as measured in the rest frame of P,
such a phenomenon will vary in K according to

sin 21 t, (1.18)

where t is time as measured in K.

 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 9

Using the expression for 0 , we can see that

 
m0 c2 1
1 = , (1.19)
h
which is clearly different from . The expression for has the Lorentz factor
in the numerator, whereas the expression for 1 has the Lorentz factor in
the denominator.4 We can also see, as de Broglie himself points out later in
Section III, that

1 = (1 2 ). (1.20)

The key lies in de Broglies observation that the Lorentz transform 1 of

0 , which is the frequency associated with the internal energy, is not equal
to the frequency one obtains by equating the total energy E of P in K
with h.
For de Broglie, the key question concerning the different frequencies
0 , , and 1 , we have been exploring is that one can prove an important
theorem which gives the physical interpretation of [2, p. 449]. As we
have noted, the frequency is in need of a physical interpretation because,
strictly speaking, we can only assume the quantum relation E = h from
which it was derived to apply to light quanta. When we set h equal to
the total energy m0 c2 of a moving body in Eqn. (1.16), we do not have
a clear physical interpretation of what physical process is vibrating with
frequency and how that physical process is related to the inherent physical
properties of P.
de Broglie now asks us to consider a wave, which we will designate s ,
whose frequency is as given by Eqn. (1.16). This wave s moves, relative
2
to K, with velocity c = cv and coincides P at time t = 0. de Broglie is
careful to point out that this wave, however, cannot carry energy, according
to Einsteins ideas [2, p. 449]. In the original note from 1923 in which de
Broglie introduced this wave, he says:

nous la considrerons seulement comme une onde fictive associe au

mouvement du mobile [6, p. 508].

However, the remark that the wave is to be considered only as a fictitious

wave associated with the motion of the particle is absent from the 1924
paper. Instead, in the 1924 paper, with the single qualifying sentence quoted
above about the inability of the wave to carry energy, de Broglie is asking

4 Of course, approaches as v approaches c.

1
10 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

us to consider superluminal waves (because for any material body v < c

and hence the velocity of the wave is greater than c). de Broglie is not
particularly concerned with the unusual nature of this hypothesis, or its
physical interpretation, though he carefully points out that s cannot carry
energy.
de Broglie now states his theorem:

If, at the beginning, the internal phenomenon of the moving body is in

phase with the wave, this harmony of phase will always persist [2, p. 449].

To illustrate, though perhaps not prove, his theorem, de Broglie expresses

the following argument. After a time t has elapsed in K, the body P is at a
distance x = vt from the origin. Consequently, its internal phenomenon,
which we will designate as the wave 1 , will be described, relative to K, by
x
1 = sin 21 , (1.21)
v
where 1 is the frequency of the internal phenomenon as reckoned in K.
At the same place, i.e., at the location x reached by P after it travels
from the origin with velocity v for a time t, the wave s is given by
 
x
s = sin 2 t . (1.22)
c

Since s moves with velocity V = c , it arrives at x after traveling for a time

  
t Vx . So, s arrives at x after traveling for a time t x
c .
Using t = v and rearranging terms in the last equation, we get
x

 
1
s = sin 2x . (1.23)
v c

The wave s will be in phase with the wave 1 that describes the internal
periodic phenomenon relative to K just in case
 
1 x
2x = 21 . (1.24)
v c v

Solving for 1 as a function of , we find that the harmony of phase will

occur [2, p. 449] just in case

1 = (1 2 ). (1.25)
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 11

As de Broglie points out, this last relation between 1 and is one that
we already know is satisfied from the definitions of these frequencies.
Recall that:

1
1 = 0 . (1.26)

Consequently, we have

1 1
1 = m0 c2 . (1.27)
h

However, we also have

1 
= m0 c2 . (1.28)
h

From the last two equations, we see that

 
1
1 = = (1 2 ). (1.29)
2

Extending de Broglies reasoning to its logical conclusion, we can see

how to arrive at the familiar expression for the wavelength of a particle.
First, recall that the wave that is associated with the particle is the wave s ,
2
which has frequency and moves with velocity c = cv . For s , we have:

c2
= . (1.30)
v

However, from Eqn. (1.16), we know that = 0 and we also have

2
0 = m0hc . Substituting and solving for , which is the wavelength of the
associated superluminal wave s as measured in K, we have

h
= . (1.31)
m0 v

Assuming the familiar definition for the relativistic momentum, we can also
write

h
= . (1.32)
p
12 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

Using the penultimate equation, we see that when v << c, the wavelength
of s is approximately given by
h
= . (1.33)
m0 v
For de Broglie, the most significant conclusion to derive from all of
these considerations is this

We are thus inclined to admit that any moving body may be accompa-
nied by a wave and that it is impossible to disjoin motion of body and
propagation of wave [2, p. 450].

Note again that his conclusion applies to any body and not just a light
quantum. The emerging view is not quite that any physical object has a
wavelength but rather that any physical object has with it associated a wave
with a specific frequency and wavelength. The key significance of this latter
form of expression becomes clear when we consider de Broglies remarks
about dynamics.
In Section IV, de Broglie argues that in a situation in which a particle is
acted upon by a force, one can use Fermats principle to derive the following
important result:

The rays of the phase wave are identical with the paths which are
dynamically possible [2, p. 451].

This finding takes de Broglies investigation to a new height. For what

he is now arguing is that the dynamically possible paths of a given par-
ticle of matter are strictly correlated with the rays of its corresponding
phase wave. This is what leads de Broglie a little later in the article to
suggest that:

Since an intimate connexion seems to exist between motion of bodies and

propagation of waves, and since the rays of the phase wave may now be
considered as the paths (the possible paths) of the energy quanta, we are
inclined to give up the inertia principle and to say: A moving body must
always follow the same ray of its phase wave [2, p. 451].

In a very concrete sense, we have here the birth of a new mechanics that
begins with a dual description of matter and thereby can be founded upon
a new fundamental law that governs how the particle and wave like
aspects of matter are related and fully replaces the law of inertia, which de
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 13

Broglie recommends we can now abandon. As if to forecast how this new

mechanics might explain some hitherto unexplained phenomena, de Broglie
suggests that in the Bohr model of the atom, we have a stable orbit for the
electron just in case its corresponding phase wave is tuned with the length
of the path [2, p. 451]. The tuning condition de Broglie specifies requires,
very roughly, that the phase wave fits within one period of revolution so
when the electron returns to its starting point in the orbit, the corresponding
wave is still in phase.

1.5 PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTIONS

ON PHASE WAVES

de Broglies stated aim in his 1924 paper is, as we have already quoted, to
assume the real existence of light quanta, and reconcile with it the strong
experimental evidence on which was based the wave theory [2, p. 446]. His
goal, is not, to attribute to any particle of matter (i.e., anything other than
a light quantum) a wavelength with which one can explain the wave-like
behavior of matter. de Broglie assumes that light has a particulate nature and
that light particles have a finite, though very small mass. However, nothing in
his calculations appeals to the fact that he happens to be discussing particles
of light. Consequently, his results seem to be entirely general, i.e., his results
are applicable to any particle of matter.
To put it differently, although de Broglie is focusing on light, he treats
light quanta as having the same physical properties as any other material
particles. Notably, de Broglie treats light quanta as free particles with a
rest-mass m0 that move with a constant velocity v relative to some inertial
frame K. According to relativistic point-particle dynamics, the rest-mass
of the particle, and the closely related rest-energy E = m0 c2 , are both
internal properties. The meaning of internal, one quickly understands,
is not very well-defined. However, there is a rough and ready distinction
between the properties of a system that depend on states of the physical
system outside the physical boundaries of the body in question and the
properties that do not. The latter are the internal properties. From this
perspective, both the frequency of the internal periodic phenomenon 0
and how this frequency is reckoned as 1 in K are internal or intrinsic to the
particle P.
It is not clear, however, how one could use entirely internal properties
of a particle of light P to account for wave-like phenomena such as interfer-
ence or diffraction. The wave-like behavior of light was already understood
14 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

not to be something that one could explain by the ordinary mechanical inter-
action of streams of free particles colliding or interacting in some other way
that this governed by their intrinsic properties. For instance, one would not
expect to be able to explain interference or diffraction phenomena by look-
ing for an explanation based on two streams of free particles. The intrinsic
properties of any one given particle, such as its rest-mass or rest-energy,
seem to be inadequate for explaining phenomena that seem to require that
each light particles behavior somehow responds to either its environment
or other particles of light or both.
However, the key to de Broglies solution is that the phase wave asso-
ciated with any particle has rays that are identical with the dynamically
possible paths of the particle in a given physical situation. It is from this
result that we get the notion of a pilot wave in Bohms interpretation of
quantum mechanics. From a philosophical perspective, we have seen that de
Broglie begins at first to regard the phase waves merely as useful fictions
in 1923. Merely one year later, he seems to have changed his philosophi-
cal mind and has begun to treat them as genuine parts of nature. However,
despite this philosophical change, de Broglie does not really say that the
phase waves causally interact with particles, nor does he explicitly defend a
metaphysics that has particles being guided by their corresponding waves.
Instead, he continues to regard the superluminal phase waves as nonma-
terial though strictly correlated with the dynamically possible motions of
material objects.
There are three physical hypotheses that seem roughly equally important
to de Broglies hypothesis concerning phase waves

1. E = m0 c2
2. E = h
3. Light quanta (i.e. photons) have a nonzero, small but finite mass
and move at varying velocities which are close to, but empirically
indistinguishable, from the speed of light.

Although he does not put it this way, de Broglies reasoning seems to boil
down to this: since for a photon, we can equate the right-hand side of Ein-
steins massenergy equation with the right-hand side of the Einstein-Planck
equation, i.e.,

h = m0 c2 . (1.34)

Since photons have the same fundamental physical properties as ordinary

particles, viz., they have a finite velocity different from the speed of light and
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 15

they have a finite mass, we can use the same equation to describe ordinary
matter. Still, while it is clear that Einsteins massenergy relation is central
to this reasoning, arguably de Broglies entire line of reasoning is only a
heuristic for framing his phase wave hypothesis.

1.6 MASSENERGY AND GRAVITATION

Let us now turn our attention to the role Einsteins massenergy relation
played in Einsteins development of general relativity. We limit ourselves to
some preliminary remarks that help us see the general direction of Einsteins
thinking. A careful analysis of this aspect of the development of general
relativity is beyond the scope of one chapter and, in any case, we wish
to focus on the historically and philosophically significant aspects of this
development as it relates to Einsteins massenergy relation.

1.7 FIRST STEP: EINSTEINS 1907

REVIEW ARTICLE

In the review article on relativity for Jahrbuch der Radiaktivitt und Elec-
tronik [7], Einstein begins to explore more systematically the consequences
of the inertia of energy for gravitational physics. We will focus on this
development.
However, we wish first to note an important remark he makes about the
electromagnetic field, which relates to our discussion of the metaphysics of
contemporary physics. Einstein says:

Only the conception of a luminiferous ether as the carrier of the electric

and magnetic forces does not fit into the theory described here; for elec-
tromagnetic forces appear here not as states of some substance, but rather
as independently existing things that are similar to ponderable matter and
share with it the feature of inertia [7, p. 253].

There are two important things to extract from this seemingly casual remark:
one metaphysical, the other physical. First, with regard to the metaphysics,
notice that Einstein is clearly indicating an important shift in the metaphys-
ical picture of the world. Prior to relativity, it was reasonable to regard the
aether as an Aristotelian substance and the electromagnetic field, e.g., an
electromagnetic wave, as a property or state of that underlying substance.
However, with special relativity, the notion of an aether as the underlying
16 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

seat of the electromagnetic field was finally found to be entirely otiose.

Having expunged it from the metaphysical picture of the world empiri-
cally supported by physical experiments, electromagnetic fields began to
take a life of their own. However, fields do not easily fit in the Aristotelian
substance-attribute distinction, though Einstein himself will begin, as he
announces, to treat them metaphysically on a par with matter.
The second important consequence of Einsteins remarks about the
electromagnetic field concern gravitational physics. Since Einstein is antic-
ipating that a central result of relativity is that energy has inertia, which
he earlier showed in 1905, it follows that the energy of the electromagnetic
field has inertia. Indeed, in Einsteins first demonstration of the massenergy
relation it is precisely the emission of light that carries away some of the
inertia of the radiating body.
Given the proportionality (which is conventionally set to equality)
of inertial and gravitational mass, which Newton had discovered and
empirically verified (see 1.2 of Volume 1), it is a short step to the con-
clusion that electromagnetic energy will gravitate, i.e., that electromagnetic
energy, like all energy, has gravitational mass. For example, an electrically
charged body will have a larger inertial mass, and hence a larger gravita-
tional mass, than an identical body without the corresponding net electric
charge.
In outlining the different parts of his review article, Einstein tells us that
the fourth part deals with the general inferences regarding the energy and
momentum of physical systems to which one is led by the theory of relativity
[7, p. 254]. He then tells us that the most important result concerns the
inertial mass of the energy, which raises the question of whether energy
also possesses heavy (gravitational) mass. The question is one that Einstein
will clearly answer in the affirmative.
When we turn to the fourth section of the paper, we see that Einstein
first demonstrates the massenergy relation and concludes: With respect to
inertia, a mass is equivalent to an energy content of magnitude c2 [7,
p. 287]. In his discussion of possible ways of verifying this relation, all of
which he deems to be well beyond then current experimental accuracy, he
begins to make the connection between energy and gravitational mass.
Einstein has, in effect, considered rather rudimentary experiments one
can imagine for testing the massenergy relation. For example, one might
allow a sample of radium to radiate for long time, and measure its mass at the
beginning and end of that time to determine whether the energy emitted is
numerically equal to the mass lost. However, to perform such an experiment,
Einstein points out, It has been tacitly assumed above that such a change
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 17

in mass can be measured by the instrument we usually use for measuring

masses, i.e., by the balance [7, p. 288]. The significance of this is clear.
The assumption is that the massenergy relation obtains not only for the
inertial mass but also for the gravitational mass, or, in other words, that a
systems inertia and weight are strictly proportional under all circumstances
[7, p. 288]. Einstein then explains that one of the consequences of this is that,
e.g., what we today call a photon gas has not only inertia but also weight
[7, p. 288].
When Einstein returns to a discussion of the gravitational mass of energy,
he does it in the last section of the paper titled The effect of gravitation on
electromagnetic phenomena [7, p. 307]. However, the details of this section
we can overlook, because in light-bending paper from 1911, Einstein tells us
that he was unhappy with this part of his 1907 review article and discussion
in the 1911 paper supersedes it. However, it is important to notice that both
in the 1907 and the 1911 papers, the key to showing that electromagnetic
energy has weight is an analysis of electromagnetic interactions facilitated
by the principle of equivalence. By examining an electromagnetic process in
a uniformly accelerated reference frame instead of a homogeneous gravita-
tional field, in the 1907 paper, Einstein concludes: Thus, to each energy E
in the gravitational field there corresponds an energy of position that equals
the potential energy of a ponderable mass of magnitude cE2 [7, p. 311]. It
is only a short step from this conclusion to light bending, which as Einstein
points out in the introduction to his 1911 paper, is an empirically testable
prediction.

1.8 SECOND STEP: EINSTEINS 1911 LIGHT

BENDING PAPER

After a brief introduction indicating his dissatisfaction with his prior discus-
sion of light bending in his 1907 paper, Einstein begins his investigation, in
Section 1 of his paper On the influence of gravitation on the propagation
of light [8], by introducing the equivalence principle. He asks us first to
consider a stationary system of co-ordinates K in a homogeneous gravi-
tational field with gravitational acceleration . The acceleration points in
the negative direction of the z-axis of K. We are then to consider a second
coordinate system K  that moves, relative to K, with uniform acceleration
in the positive z-direction. If we confine ourselves to Newtonian mechanics,
Einstein says, we are certain of the equivalence of the systems K and K 
[8, p. 100]. However, Einsteins novel contribution is to propose that all
18 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

physical processes, and not just the laws of mechanics, are equivalent in K
and K  . Einstein correctly remarks that

By assuming this to be so, we arrive at a principle which, if it is really

true, has great heuristic importance. For by theoretical consideration of
processes which take place relatively to a system of reference with uni-
form acceleration, we obtain information as to the career of processes in
a homogeneous gravitational field [8, p. 101].

Here, for the first time, we encounter the great tool for performing calcula-
tions about gravitational phenomena: If one wishes to know how X behaves
in a homogeneous gravitational field, examine X relative to the equivalent
accelerating coordinate system. This is precisely the approach Einstein uses
for determining how light behaves in a gravitational field, viz., that is light
bent by a massive source of gravity such as the sun. More importantly
for our discussion, Einstein also uses the equivalence principle as part of
an argument to show that if a body emits energy, its gravitational mass
decreases.
The first thing to notice, Einstein points out, is that if the gravitational
mass of a body did not change in accordance with a change to its inertial mass
as a result of, e.g., radiating energy, then objects would fall at different rates
in a gravitational field depending on their energy content. We can easily see
why this must be the case. Consider an object P with inertial mass mi mov-
ing slowly in the gravitational field of a much more massive object of mass
M . Using a Newtonian expression for the acceleration on P, whose (pas-
sive) gravitational mass is mg , induced by the (active) gravitational mass M ,
we have
 
mg GM
a= , (1.35)
mi r2
where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant. Clearly, if the bodys iner-
tial mass mi changed as a result of it emitting or absorbing energy but its
gravitational mass mg did not change accordingly, the acceleration of P
would be inversely proportional to the change in the objects inertial mass.
For Einstein, one of the reasons why this is undesirable is that it would force
us to have two separate mass conservation laws and we could not unify mass
conservation with energy conservation in special relativity. Thus, this cir-
cumstance, Einstein says, must be regarded as very improbable [8, p. 101].
Yet, as Einstein points out, there is nothing in special relativity that sug-
gests that changes to the gravitational mass of an object occur in step with
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 19

changes to an objects inertial mass that result from a change to the objects
energy content. Happily, this circumstance can be remedied by a judicious
application of the principle of equivalence.
Einstein asks us to consider two material systems S1 and S2 [8, p. 101]
that are located in a coordinate system K in which there is a homogeneous
gravitational field with acceleration . From his discussion, it is clear that
each of these systems consists of a body that can emit energy in the form of
electromagnetic radiation and some sort of instrument to measure both the
amount of energy emitted and the internal energy of each system. Einstein
is careful to point out that energy measurements are made by contrivances
whichbrought to one place in the system z and there comparedshall
be perfectly alike [8, p. 102].5 S2 is located higher along the gravitational
potential than S1 , so we can regard S1 as being at the origin of K and S2
some distance h along the positive z-axis as depicted in Figure 1.1.
Our goal is to determine the change to the gravitational mass of S2 , if
there is any, after S2 emits a finite amount of energy E2 that is absorbed
by S1 . However, instead of attempting to examine the emission-absorption
sequence in a gravitational field, we can instead examine this sequence
relative to an accelerating coordinate system K  that has zero velocity the
instant the energy is emitted form S2 and moves along the positive z-axis

Figure 1.1. Though experiment using the equivalence principle to demonstrate

energy has gravitational mass. The accelerating inertial coordinate system K  is
deliberately offset from the origin in the diagram.

5 Likely, there is a typographical error in the passage we have quoted and the sentence should
refer to the measurement devices being brought to one place in the system K, not z.
20 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

of K with constant acceleration . Einstein then shows that to maintain the

principle of conservation of energy, we must ascribe to S2 an excess amount
of gravitational mass that is equal to E22 /c2 , where E2 is the amount of energy
emitted by S2 . The argument to support this claim is straight forward partly
because it uses results about how the value of the electromagnetic energy
transforms from one inertial frame to another relatively moving one, which
Einstein derived in 1905.
Let E1 be the amount of energy absorbed by S1 . Adapting a result Ein-
stein had used in his original demonstration of the massenergy relation,
Einstein states that E1 must be greater than E2 and, neglecting quantities of
second and higher orders, is given by
 v
E1 = E2 1 + . (1.36)
c
However, in the case we are now considering, the relative velocity of K and
K  is not constant. Yet, at the moment S1 absorbs the energy emitted by S2 ,
its velocity is
h
v= , (1.37)
c
given that we have assumed that the time elapsed, again to a first approx-
imation [8, p. 102], since the emission of the radiation by S2 is h/c.
Consequently, the energy absorbed by S1 is
 
h
E1 = E2 1 + 2 . (1.38)
c
Finally, because of the equivalence principle, this result, which we calculated
by considering K  to be moving with uniform acceleration in the positive
z-direction with respect to K, is equivalent to what happens in a gravitational
field with gravitational potential  = h. Thus, we arrive at the important
conclusion that
E2
E1 = E2 + 2 . (1.39)
c
This shows not only that the energy absorbed by S1 is greater than the energy
emitted by S2 , but that the latter is greater than the former by exactly the
amount of gravitational potential energy of a mass E2 /c2 . Thus, Einstein
concludes, if we wish to retain the principle of conservation of energy, we
must assign to the energy E, before its emission in S2 , a potential energy
due to gravity, which corresponds to the gravitational mass E/c2 [8, p. 103].
To illustrate his result even more clearly, Einstein presents a thought-
experiment that is reminiscent of an earlier thought experiment involving
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 21

a cyclic process he used in 1906 to demonstrate the massenergy relation

[9] (see Volume 1, 2.3). Using the same configuration we have already
discussed, we are to imagine S2 emitting an amount of energy E in the form
of electromagnetic radiation, which is subsequently absorbed by S1 . We have
already seen that S1 will absorb an amount of energy
 
h
E 1+ 2 .
c
Now suppose a body W of mass M is lowered from S2 to S1 thereby doing
an amount of work M h. W the absorbs an amount of energy E from S1
so that its gravitational mass increases to a value M  , which we will now
determine. Let W be raised back to the height h of S2 , which requires an
amount of work M  h, and emit an amount of energy E that is then absorbed
by S2 .
The gravitational mass of the object increases and decreases by the same
amount, because it both absorbs an amount of energy E from S1 and radiates
an amount of energy E to S2 . S2 both emits and absorbs the same amount of
energy E. The only energy changes in the entire cycle are (a) the increase
in the internal
 energy  of S1 , which occurs because it absorbs an amount of
energy E 1 + c2h but radiates only an amount of energy E and (b) the
difference between the amount of work done by W when it is lowered to
S1 and the amount of work required to lift W back to S2 . Consequently, to
satisfy the principle of conservation of energy, we must have
E
M  h M h = h, (1.40)
c2
or simply M  M = E/c2 . For Einstein, this shows quite clearly that the
increase in the gravitational mass of W is exactly the same as the increase to
its inertial mass as predicted by the massenergy relation of special relativity.
Thus, Einstein concludes, energy must therefore possess a gravitational
mass which is equal to its inertial mass [8, p. 104].

1.9 THIRD STEP: MASSENERGY AND

GENERAL RELATIVITY

With compelling arguments to show that just as the energy of a physical

system contributes to its inertial mass it also contributes to its gravitational
mass, Einstein knew that any relativistic account of gravitation would have
to include the energy of a physical system as contributing to its gravitational
22 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

mass. Our main purpose here is to begin to illustrate, albeit in a general sort
of way, how Einsteins massenergy relation figured into his development
of general relativity. We shall restrict ourselves to some general, qualitative
remarks, as a detailed discussion of Einsteins search for his field equations
would be quite beyond the scope of our work.6
For our purposes, there are two key insights concerning the relation-
ship between Newtonian gravitation theory and special relativity to bear in
mind. First, Newtons theory of gravitation is not Lorentz invariant; e.g., the
strength of the gravitational force is a function of the distance between two
masses. However, the distance between two masses is a frame-dependent
notion in special relativity. Consequently, one has either to give up special
relativity or find a relativistic theory of gravity. Second, according to New-
tons theory of gravity, a change in the mass distribution in a physical system
instantaneously brings about a change in the gravitational field throughout
all of spacetime. However, according to special relativity, physical interac-
tions cannot be mediated at speeds faster than the speed of light. Again, this
strongly suggests the need for a relativistic theory of gravitation.
Qualitatively, the key components of Einsteins theory of general rel-
ativity, which is his relativistic gravitation theory, include the following.
First, the gravitational field is represented by the intrinsic curvature of
a four-dimensional spacetime.7 The curvature of a spacetime is obtained
mathematically from the metric (of Lorentzian signature) of the spacetime.
Objects that couple to the gravitational field move along the geodesics of
the curved spacetime.
As a local field theory, in general relativity we need two different types
of equations. First, we need an equation that determines the geodesic paths
in spacetime that will be followed by freely falling particles, which are
typically idealized as point-masses. Second, and more famously, we need an
equation that correlates the massenergy content in spacetime (or a region of
spacetime) to the curvature of spacetime. In general relativity, the equation
that establishes this relationship is called the Einstein field equation.8

6 See, e.g., Part V of [10].

7 The notion of intrinsic, as opposed to extrinsic, curvature is mathematically well-defined.
Very roughly, we judge the extrinsic curvature of an object when we consider its shape
relative to a space in which it is embedded. We judge the intrinsic curvature of an object when
we consider its shape by performing measurements confined to that object. For example,
we can determine the intrinsic curvature of the surface of a sphere by making measurements
on its surface. Thus, intrinsic curvature is a measurable property of a space that does not
require that we construe it as embedded within a higher-dimensional space.
8 Because this is a tensor equation that can be written in component form, physicists often refer
to it as the Einstein field equations (in the plural).
 MASSENERGY, WAVE MECHANICS, AND GRAVITATION 23

Despite the mathematical complexity, dealing as it does with tensors

and their components, which we can only understand in the context of the
mathematics of differential geometry, there is a certain simplicity about
Einsteins field equation that has captured the attention of physicists. For
example, Taylor and Wheeler say:

Its message comes in a single simple sentence: Spacetime grips mass,

telling it how to move; and mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve
[11, p. 275].

The term mass here refers, as we have seen in Einsteins discussion from
his paper on light-bending, also to the massequivalent of the internal energy
of a physical system (or body). For example, as a planet radiates thermal
energy, its gravitational mass, and hence the gravitational field it produces
decreases ever so slightly. Similarly, Wald suggests that the entire content
of general relativity can be expressed like this

Spacetime is a manifold M on which there is defined a Lorentz metric

gab . The curvature of gab is related to the matter distribution in spacetime
by Einsteins equation [12, p. 73].

In this quotation, Wald seems to be using the term matter in much the way
Einstein did in his original paper on general relativity. Einstein says:

We make a distinction hereafter between gravitational field and mat-

ter in this way, that we denote everything but the gravitational field as
matter Our use of the word therefore includes not only matter in the
ordinary sense, but the electromagnetic field as well [13, p. 143].

Thus, e.g., a massive object with a net electric charge will give rise to a
curvature of spacetime that is different from the curvature of spacetime
correlated to the same object without a net charge.
To arrive at the field equations for gravitation, Einstein explains, one
wishes to satisfy a variety of constraints. First, the field equation should be
roughly analogous to the field equation for gravitation in Newtonian theory.
Second, the field equations should be generally covariant, though there is
now fairly wide-spread agreement that this is merely a formal constraint
and not a physical one. Finally, although Einstein does not quite use it as a
constraint, it is certainly a bonus if the laws of conservation of energy and
momentum are a consequence of the field equations.
24 EINSTEINS MASSENERGY EQUATION, VOLUME II

With these requirements in mind, Einstein says:

The special theory of relativity has led to the conclusion that inert mass is
nothing more or less than energy, which finds its complete mathematical
expression in a symmetrical tensor of second rank, the energy-tensor.
Thus in the general theory of relativity we must introduce a corresponding
energy-tensor of matter T [13, p. 148].

The energy-tensor, which is also called the stress-energy tensor or the

energy-momentum tensor, is the analogue, Einstein explains, in general
relativity of the mass density in Poissons equation in classical Newtonian
gravitation theory. However, an important difference in general relativity is
that the energy of the gravitational field itself has a gravitational mass and
must be included as part of the source of the gravitational field. This, in
effect, is why the field equations of general relativity are nonlinear.
 INDEX

A E
Abduction, 35 E = mc2
radiation, 2829 belief and Einsteins
Anderson, Carl D., 41 demonstrations, 3940
Aristotelian metaphysics, 6162 centenary test of, 4043
Cockcroft & Waltons 1932 paper,
2931
B philosophically speaking, 3339
Baierlein, Ralph experiment and results, 3132
mass, and energy, 6062 first empirical test of, 2528
and teaching, 5256 understanding results, 3233
radiation, 2829 , , and ? radiation, 2829
Bohm, David, 30 The Effect of Gravitation on
Electromagnetic Phenomena, 17
C Einstein
Centenary test of E = mc2 , 42 1907 review article, 1517
Cockcroft & Waltons 1932 paper, light bending paper, 1721
2931 field equation, 8
philosophically speaking, 3339 Einstein-Planck expression, for
energy of photon, 2
Complex of radiation, 58
Energy Has Mass: A Common
Composite systems, and E = mc2 ,
Misunderstanding is
6271
Re-examined, 46
Conversion, massenergy relation,
Energy-momentum tensor. See
4652
Energy-tensor
Energy-tensor, 24
D Equivalence, massenergy relation,
De Broglie, Louis, 1 4652
Degree of belief, 3638
and Einsteins demonstrations, G
3940 radiation, 2829
Duhem, Pierre, 3435 Geiger-Nuttall law, 30
82 INDEX
General relativity
key components of Einsteins
theory of, 22
massenergy and, 2124
Gravitation, massenergy and, 15
H Nuclear physics, and E = mc2 ,
Heat transfer, 74
Hill, Leonard, 27
I P
Inertia of energy, 39
Internal periodic phenomenon, 8
K Phase-waves, 2
Kuhn, Thomas, 42
L on, 1315
Law of aberration, 57
Light bending paper, 1721
Lorentz factor, 47
Lorentz metric gab , 23
M
Massenergy relation
Baierlein and teaching, 5256,
6062
contemporary physics
literature, 45
Einsteins 1946 demonstration,
5660
equivalence and conversion,
4652
and general relativity, 2124
and gravitation, 15
nuclear physics, composite
systems, and, 6271
philosophical conclusion and
future directions, 7375
Matter waves, hypothesis of, 12
photons of finite mass, 24
Momentum, classical
definition of, 6
N
Neutron capture reaction, 67
New York Times, 32
Newtonian gravitation theory
versus special relativity, 21
Normal science, 4243
6271
Particle accelerators, 69
Particle physics, 69
Periodic phenomenon, 7, 8
of matter, 713
philosophical reflections
Photoelectric effect, 56
Photon
of finite mass, 24
momentum of, 47
Proton, 30
Q
Quantum relation, 7
R
Relativistic momentum, 5
of particle, 50
S
Spacetime, 23
Special relativity versus Newtonian
gravitation theory, 21
Stress-energy tensor. See
Energy-tensor
T
Tunneling, quantum
phenomenon of, 30
 FORTHCOMING TITLES IN OUR ENERGY
PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING COLLECTION
Jonathan Swingler, Editor
Einsteins Mass-Energy Equation, Volume I: Early History and
Philosophical Foundations by Francisco Fernores
Utilization of Variable Energy Sources by Wolf-GerritFrh
Electrical Power and Energy: Transformers, Synchronous Machines, and
Power Networks by Siong Lee Koh
Energy in Electrical Fields by Paul Weaver

Momentum Press is one of the leading book publishers in the eld of

engineering, mathematics, health, and applied sciences. Momentum Press
offers over 30 collections, including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil,
Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical, and many others.

Momentum Press is actively seeking collection editors as well as authors.

For more information about becoming an MP author or collection editor,
please visit http://www.momentumpress.net/contact

Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced
engineering topics by leaders in their eld. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides
practitioners, researchers, faculty, and students in engineering, science, and
industry with innovative electronic content in sensors and controls engineering,
advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and materials science.

Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

perpetual access for a one-time fee

no subscriptions or access fees required
unlimited concurrent usage permitted
downloadable PDFs provided
free MARC records included
free trials

The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to

buy in future years.

For more information, please visit www.momentumpress.net/library or to

set up a trial in the US, please contact mpsales@globalepress.com.