I have come across this article. The auther claims that he proved that E=mc2 is wrong and it is actually E=mbc
Can anyone make sense out of this?
European Journal of Scientific Research
ISSN 1450-216X Vol.26 No.2 (2009), pp.161-175
© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009
New Concept of Mass-Energy Equivalence
Bahjat R. J. Muhyedeen
Department of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Baghdad, Jadriyah
Baghdad, Iraq, Amman, Jordan, Retired in August 2007, Previously
Professor of Quantum and Nuclear Chemistry, MRSC
The correct meaning of E=mvv and E=mcc have been discussed. The discussion has
shown that the second v and c are conversion factors and not v2 and c2 in these two
equations respectively. These velocities (v and c) are used to convert the momentum units
to energy units. The first v and c in both equations should be multiplied with the mass to
form the momentum term. The essential issue is the momentum and not the mass where it
is an absolute quantity and it will not give any indication while the momentum give a clear
vision about the moving mass. The speculative Lorentz factor has also discussed to be
incorrect to be used in special relativity to increase the mass of the materials through
changing their velocities.
The concept of conversion between mass and energy is discussed in chemical and
nuclear reactions to show it is incorrect and the annihilation reactions of electron-positron
are pseudo processes.
A new non-relativistic mass-energy equivalence is used E=mbc as an alternative,
where b is a derived universal constant and equal to 0.624942 x 108 m/s which gives
to E m = 1.87354x1016 J / Kg or 1AMU= 194.18 MeV. The ratio of mbc/mc2 is equal to
(194.18) / (931.49) = 0.209 which gave 41.7 MeV for the Total Kinetic Energy (TKE) of
fission fragments of experimental value 29.4-37.8 MeV rather than 200 MeV given by
E=mc2. The magnetic constant of charged field ìoB was calculated from Maxwell formula
and found to be equal to 3.265 x
I am half way through this page... Great stuff... http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/37/New%2...20Issue%202.pdf
The author Bahjat R. J. Muhyedeen is going after some major misconceptions. Very similar to what I've been saying here... One that he disagrees with increasing mass and length contraction relating to velocity, as I do. The only mass increase and length contraction I've ever considered were under conditions of acceleration only. Compression on acceleration and deceleration with decompression on reaching linear velocity... With no connection to'relativity basis.
Getting rid of c2 and time and a few more of the not well considered ideas out there.., on the level of using a cylinder to avoid 'dishing' of a disk - something that would not happen.., is clearly in order..
As for sense of it... It seems to be relating very closely to what I've been saying in my last few posts.., which can be easily read if one wishes to do so. Specifically April 5th at 10:28 PM and since which are fairly detailed.
And of course norgeboy may be interested in this too...
8th April 2012 - 06:54 PM
Moderator: The previous user has been suspended 10 days for promoting anti-science, lying to a new user, endorsing fraud, and failing to understand the subject being discussed. Also, I hate when people lazily quote the whole body of a previous message in a way that adds zero value to the conversation.
Actually, E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² and v
E = p
c² have extremely good experimental support. The author and the previous poster are not engaged in the practice of science but the denial of science in favor of their preconceptions. The points raised in support of something different from special relativity are specious and unsupported by evidence. If anything, they reveal that the author does not understand the evidence being stated, and has built a castle in the air.
Specifically, c is not an assumed conversion factor but it is required when assuming that all inertial observers agree on Maxwell's equations as the laws of physics -- an assumption that the GPS system demonstrates is accurate thousands of times per minute around the world.
The paper is not written in the style of scientific paper, which tend to be concise and focused on a single topic while the paper gives a long history of physics which doesn't connect with the topic at hand. The history's only purpose would seem to pad the references with science that the author does not understand.
His 2008 paper: http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_22_4_14.pdf
mathematically contradicts itself in the abstract.
So what is "b" ?
In the 2008 paper, the author takes the Compton wavelength of a particle of mass m, λ = h/(m c) and Wien's displacement law for the relation between peak wavelength of emitted light from a blackbody of a certain temperature, λ = (1/x) h c / (k T), and the definition of Boltzmann's constant which relates temperature and the energy scale on a per-degree-of freedom basis, E = k T.
The author takes these equations, divorced from their physical theories and the assumptions that relate to their use.
E = k T = (1/x) h c / λ = (1/x) m c²
This is not physics -- just non-scientifically motivated abuse of algebra.
Then the author just assumes that this result is of some universal significance and asserts b = c/x should have the stature of a constant of nature.
What is x? x is the positive solution to x e^x = 5 (e^x - 1) and can be expressed in Mathematica as: 5 + ProductLog[-5 e^-5] and is approximately 427/86.
Thus b has the units of speed and is about 0.2014 c or to 19 digits of precision 60379770.53645369948+ m/s
To the extent that the author writes b = 62494236.2 m/s, this represents a calculation error which I trace to unreliable sources for physical constants. Instead of using 2.8977685 * 1.429 / 6.62606896 = 0.624942362, the best figures give 2.8977721 * 1.3806488 / 6.62606957 = 0.603797701 which is in good agreement with my algebra and the exact value of c.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelengthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Brog...article_dualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_lawhttp://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bwienhttp://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?khttp://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h
16th April 2012 - 02:12 PM
Thank you very much repenner.
Makes me wonder what credibility does the european journal of scientific research have.
Has anyone reviewed this paper or written about it? How did the author get away with such nonsense?
16th April 2012 - 03:21 PM
There are over 100 fake journals -- journals that strive to present the illusion of being peer reviewed but are actually vanity presses in which the author pays to get virtually any paper published. They have fake editorial boards made up of real scientists who were either conned into agreeing to referee a journal that had no intention of consulting them or were never consulted about being listed in the first place. Naturally, they have impressive titles or titles similar to those of real scientific journals.
There are other journals, while not designed to be fake, have low editorial standards and weak peer review. Sometimes this is in the beginning, sometimes the lead editor goes nutty.
Lots of scientists (not necessarily on a percentage basis) go nutty in their later years, a consequence of being right all the time + confirmation bias leads to the lazy conclusion that all their new ideas must be right. So it's something of a tragedy when this happens to a great light in a field or the editor of a highly respected journal.
Recently, I've found examples of plagiarism from book covers in the body of papers. It's hard to believe such a paper would ever be published in a journal of repute or by respectable authors with good intentions. Indeed, two different known crackpots used the same quote. Negative reputations like these are tracked also, because imitation of the form of science without doing science is not flattery -- it's just lying about important stuff and treated as such by people paid to chase down what is real and true in our universe.
So the only way to navigate this mess is familiarity and reputation. Scientists who practice science cluster around the journals that make sense to their profession. Librarians who have limited budgets to support such scientists endeavor to measure this reputation so as to invest funds in the more respectable journals. Like Google's PageRank system, it is not perfect, but is a big step in the right direction.