Debating the Validity of a Conversion Factor for Mass-Energy Equivalence

[suoercat]

γ = 1 / √（1 + v²/c² ）

Someone posted above formula, claiming that this conversion factor can also be used to derive the mass-energy equation. Therefore, it's the second formula in the world to do so. Furthermore, the atomic bomb fits this conversion model even better.

I think this is incorrect. That formula is useless.

I'd appreciate your expert opinions.

 

[Ibix]

If there were a minus not a plus in the denominator it would be the Lorentz gamma factor, which is a part of SR and arguably a part of the derivation of things like $E=mc^2$ (or $E=\gamma mc^2$, which is a more general formula including kinetic energy).

As written, it's no part of relativity.

 

[Nugatory]

"Someone posted" is not a good start to a thread, as without the source we have no way of knowing whether you've misunderstood something or the source is just plain wrong.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Furthermore, the atomic bomb fits this conversion model even better.

If someone is claiming that $\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(v^2/c^2)}}$ can be used to better model something than $\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(v^2/c^2)}}$ that sounds to me like a crackpot idea.

The latter is simply a definition used throughout relativity as part of the modeling process. It's mainstream. The former is unheard of, so if someone is claiming it's a discovery of an idea missed by mainstream physics they are deluded.

 

[weirdoguy]

Furthermore, the atomic bomb fits this conversion model even better.

Nonsense.

Besides, gamm favtor with + sign would give wrong non-relativistic limit.

 

[suoercat]

"Someone posted" is not a good start to a thread, as without the source we have no way of knowing whether you've misunderstood something or the source is just plain wrong.

You're right.

 

[berkeman]

You're right.

Your image is mostly illegible and does not help. Post a link to the paper please. Also, it does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be a problem here at PF.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

A google search turns up a date of Jan 14, 2008, but the link to the paper (http://www.paper.edu.cn) is broken.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Your image is mostly illegible and does not help.

With a bit of magnification I was able to read every word. It's the abstract, not the paper itself. It doesn't appear to be worthy of publication. I could comment more, but I don't know if it's worth the time and effort to do so.

 

[suoercat]

Your image is mostly illegible and does not help. Post a link to the paper please. Also, it does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be a problem here at PF.

Sorry. The paper is in Chinese. Only the Abstract is in English.

 

[berkeman]

Thank you for the much clearer image. Can you post a link, or is the link old and broken as @Herman Trivilino reports?

 

[suoercat]

Here you are. The link works. Just verified. In chinese though.

https://www.docin.com/touch_new/preview_new.do?id=195568547

 

[berkeman]

Here you are. The link works. Just verified. In chinese though.

https://www.docin.com/touch_new/preview_new.do?id=195568547

I'm still waiting on Google to translate the Chinese version to English so that I can review it, but so far it appears to be nonsense that is self-published. That does not meet our PF rules criteria of peer-review in the Clarivate list of acceptable journals. Thread is closed for review of the reference.

 

[Nugatory]

It is nonsense. The thread can remain closed.