SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 117:
Line 117: − +
The Cockcroft-Walton experiment -- we already point that out; no need to say it again.
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."
==The Cockcroft-Walton experiment, not to be taken as a verification or "proof"==
==The Cockcroft-Walton experiment==
This experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal. The generally accepted important tests of this equation are the measurements of alpha decay energies, described above.
This experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal. The generally accepted important tests of this equation are the measurements of alpha decay energies, described above.