MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385828203 · doi:10.5539/apr.v15n2p80

Three Serious Mistakes in Einstein’s Original Paper of Special Relativity in 1905

2023· article· en· W4385828203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mei Xiaochun, Canlun Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEinsteinLorentz transformationClassical mechanicsElectromagnetic fieldOne-way speed of lightTheory of relativityClassical electromagnetismPrinciple of relativityTheoretical physicsSpacetimeTransformation (genetics)General relativityMathematical physicsField (mathematics)Quantum mechanicsMathematicsNumerical relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is revealed in this paper that there were three serious mistakes in the Einstein’s original paper in 1905. Einstein did not prove that the motion equation of classical electromagnetic field could satisfy the invariance of the Lorentz coordinate transformation. The Einstein’s derivations on the formulas of transverse and longitudinal masses, as well as the calculation on the mass-energy relation are wrong. 1. In order to prove that the classical Maxwell electromagnetic field equation satisfied the invariance of Lorentz transformation in free space without charged and current, Einstein introduced the transformations of electromagnetic fields themselves, called the Einstein’s transformations of electromagnetic fields. However, these transformations are completely different from the Lorentz transformations of electromagnetic fields themself, which leads to contradiction and does not hold. 2. For the electromagnetic field equations in non-free space with charge and current, the Einstein’s transformations can not make the electromagnetic fields unchanged under the Lorentz transformation. 3. The constitutive equations of electromagnetic theory in the medium do not satisfy the invariance of the Lorentz transformation too. Therefore, the classical electromagnetic field equations have no the invariance of the Lorentz transformation actually, and the most important theoretical and experimental basis of special relativity do not exist. 4. The Einstein's derivations on the formulas of transverse and longitudinal masses have a series of elementary mistakes in mathematics and physics. Einstein took the relative speed between two reference frames as the arbitrary moving velocity of a particle, and the obtained formulas were completely different from the existing mass-velocity of special relativity. 3. When Einstein derived the mass-energy relationship, he only calculated the work done by the force in the x-axis direction of particle’s motion, ignoring the work done by the force at the y- and z-axes directions. Meanwhile, the constant relative motion velocity between two reference frames was misused as the variable arbitrary velocity of a particle. Therefore, Einstein had not derived the mass-velocity formula and mass-energy relationship used in the present special relativity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207