89
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: − Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc<sup>2</sup>''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<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 authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1-?mc²/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."+ +
Fix edit conflict with AugustO. I rewrote the whole thing last night, but editing had been turned off at 11:30. So I had to wait.
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:
Probably the best empirical verification of '''E=mc<sup>2</sup>''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Simon Rainville, James K. Thompson, et. al ''World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc²''] Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>, as the authors write in their abstract:
{{cquote|Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1-?mc²/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.}}
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==