Because X-rays are electromagnetic radiation, in the quantum régime, photons, that are massless particles, which can be consistently described in special relativity. E = m c^2 holds in the rest frame of a massive particle (a massless particle doesn't have a rest frame).  In general E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2, so, for a massless particle, E = |p|c-consistent, incidentally,  with the dispersion relation w = |k|c, in free space (assuming E=hbar w and |p|=hbar|k|).

This is standard material that can be found in any textbook on special relativity.

Because X-rays are electromagnetic radiation, in the quantum régime, photons, that are massless particles, which can be consistently described in special relativity. E = m c^2 holds in the rest frame of a massive particle (a massless particle doesn't have a rest frame).  In general E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2, so, for a massless particle, E = |p|c-consistent, incidentally,  with the dispersion relation w = |k|c, in free space (assuming E=hbar w and |p|=hbar|k|).

This is standard material that can be found in any textbook on special relativity.

Aleksei Bykov, and Stam Necolis, Thanks for immediate response. From your understanding, what could be the velocity of X-rays in relation to light?

Also please peruse the following paper and make comments, if possible:  http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-ja...rs/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522

:-) Of course, but did you think about simply "dividing the mass" out of these equations and working with E/m and p/m in order to compare to radiation? :-) Most of all due to the very basic definition of the measurement of a mass in relation to another mass (like with charges). So one should really think about the tribute to pay in order to introduce "mass" by this approach into theory.

Once more: X-rays are electromagnetic radiation, whose wavelength is just much shorter than that of light. They travel at the speed of light, as the relation E=|p|c shows and their wavelength is related to their frequency by omega = k c=2 pi c/lambda, consistent with the previous formula. Regarding solar emissions, particular care should be taken for systematic effects, before any conclusions can be drawn. In any case the appropriate expression for massless particles is E=|p|c and not E=mc^2.

Dear Vladimir Kibitkin, Would you be so kind as provide a link or more information about "related discussion in "Advances in Physical Sciences" journal"?

Aleksei Bykov, You said link is not working. 

M. A. Padmanabha Rao,

Discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation challenging the validity of Einstein’s formula E= mc^2, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), .Volume 4, Issue 4 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 08-14, DOI: 10.9790/4861-0440814

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522

The formula E = mc2 can be applied to X-rays if these X-rays have an energy higher than 1.022 MeV  (two times the mass of an electron ( 511 keV) because the electron is the lightest particle.

Mr. Rao,

How is it ruled out that

1) Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) radiation and X-rays are emitted at different times or from different depths when the solar flares in question occur?

2) EUV and X-rays experience different refractive indices in the material media intervening between the points of emission and the points of observation?

In particular, why is it assumed that EUV travels at c and therefore X-rays above c, rather than assuming that X-rays travel at c and EUV below c?

Aleksei Bykov, How did you arrive at the conclusion that 'the X-rays velocity (in vacuum, of course) is exactly equal to the speed of light (since X-rays are electro-magnetic radiation, as well as light)'. Can you prove from the above formula?

Miguel Carrion Alvarez, Regarding your doubt,  ' Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) radiation and X-rays are emitted at different times or from different depths when the solar flares in question occur?  When 235Uranium fission takes place, beta particles, gamma rays, X-rays, and Bharat radiation are simultaneously emitted from fission products present in solar flare .

Solar radiation is not due to Uranium fission.

Miguel Carrion Alvarez, Before we discuss whether Solar radiation is due to Uranium fission or not, please examine whether Bharat Radiation wavelengths from 12.87 to 31 nm really exists in solar spectrum. 

Please also peruse the following for better understanding:

IMMEDIATE NEED TO REVIEW SOLAR PHYSICS

The experimental observations made in solar physics are very reliable and appreciable. However, their interpretations need to be reviewed as the solar physics still believes fusion powers Sunlight.

THE FIRST EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT FUSION DOES NOT CAUSE SUNLIGHT IS THE DISCOVERY OF BHARAT RADIATION IN SOLAR SPECTRUM REPORTED IN 2013.

Solar physics became clueless due to lack of significant developments since last 50 years.

• The source of X-rays, EUV, UV remained mysterious. Secondly, X-rays and UV are believed to be independent emissions, while latest reports show solar X-rays cause EUV and UV.

• Until 2013 what the three distinct wavelength regions that look like mounts in solar spectrum: (1) until 12.87 nm, (2) from 12.87 to 31 nm, and (3) beyond 31 nm actually represent remained unclear to solar physicists since last 50 years. For the first time, the wavelengths up to 12.87 nm have been identified as solar X-rays. Wavelengths from 12.87 to 31 nm have been identified as Bharat Radiation, and beyond 31 nm as EUV.

Reference:

M.A. Padmanabha Rao,

Discovery of Sun’s Bharat Radiation emission causing Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) and UV dominant optical radiation,

IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), Volume 3, Issue 2 (Mar. – Apr. 2013), PP 56-60, DOI: 10.9790/4861-0325660

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol3-issue2/H0325660.pdf

Solar X-rays, Bharat radiation and EUV successively lying in solar spectrum as in the case of XRF source hinted that solar X-rays cause Bharat radiation, which in turn causes EUV, UV, visible light, near infrared radiation by previously unknown radiation now known as Padmanabha Rao effect.

M.A.Padmanabha Rao,

UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources,

Braz. J. Phy., 40, no 1, 38-46,2010.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332010000100007

Sun’s Bharat Radiation pinpointed that Sun’s core surface has radioisotopes that can happen only when 235-Uranium fission takes place, on the basis of which as many solar lines as 153 could be identified for the first time from solar spectrum. Refer Table in the following paper. How 235-Uranium fission powers Sun light by Padmanabha Rao effect is described with unprecedented detail in the following paper.

M.A. Padmanabha Rao,

Discovery of Self-Sustained 235-U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect,

IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 06-24, DOI: 10.9790/4861-0420624

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf

Jean Louis M Genicot, You are trying to set a upper limit of energy beyond which the formula is applicable to X-rays. The questions is yet unanswered since X-rays remain yet in the form of X-rays. THE BASIC QUESTION REMAINS HOW AND WHAT TO ATTRIBUTE MASS TO LIGHT, AND X-RAY PHOTONS? 

Miguel Carrion Alvarez,  Your question is very pertinent. I forgot to answer. You have asked, " In particular, why is it assumed that EUV travels at c and therefore X-rays above c, rather than assuming that X-rays travel at c and EUV below c?"

In the measurements made by Woods et al reported in my paper in 2013, the highest wavelengths measured are of EUV and not visible light.

Interestingly, measurement of visible light from Sun is difficult to measure even at 103 km height above Earth's surface because of absorption in the intervening space. So I have taken EUV to represent visible light as a compromise.

Please note in Fig.2. EUV Wavelengths at 300 A are almost absorbed at around 103 km above Earth's surface.

Reference: Discovery of Sun’s Bharat Radiation emission causing Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) and UV dominant optical radiation. http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol3-issue2/H0325660.pdf )

Answering to M Padmanabha Rao:

The photons (Light, X-rays, Gamma-rays) have NO rest mass. They have an energy E = h.v   (v = nu = Frequency). To this energy we can associate a virtual mass with the formula E= mc2.

But if the energy of the photon is Higher than 1.022 MeV, when then pass in a very high electic field (near a nucleus or near an electron), they can be transformed into true particles with mass for example into an electron and a positron, eah witha mass of 0.511 MeV.  

Jean Louis M Genicot,  You are right. in saying the photons (Light, X-rays, Gamma-rays) have NO rest mass.   In true sense, light, X-ray, and gamma photon can not exists at rest so they will not be having No rest mass. They exist only when they are on constant move, so they will have some mass, however small it can be. 

The main purpose is to see that the formula is applicable to  light, X-ray, and gamma photons. Frankly speaking, no clear experimental data is available on mass of the three photons. Therefore, I simply gave a value of 1 to photons.

Then the formula becomes E= C2.     

I have changed C into velocity V, so that we can know the velocity of X-rays, gamma rays and Bharat Radiation from Sun. 

FINALLY THE FORMULA BECOMES IN THE CASE OF PHOTON : E= V2.  

This modified formula explained why solar X-rays traveled faster than EUV in the measurements made by Woods et al. The authors Woods et al did not say that  solar X-rays traveled faster than EUV . However it is my interpretation of their data in my paper published in 2013.

in that formula m is the relativistic mass, i.e., the rest mass times the lorentz factor (gamma). Approaching the speed of light,  gamma goes TO infinity and only for particles with zero REST mass one can have a finite enErgy value

Pier Giorgio Rancoita, Thanks for your response and valuable comments. After Einstein's Special theory of relativity a few thousands of research papers might have been published, mostly on theoretical aspects of the formula.  HARDLY YOU FIND RESEARCH PAPERS ON HAPPENED REALLY. My main task was to explain the solar spectral measurements made by solar physicists from University of Colorado. I appreciate if you can please examine my paper from your point of view and see where you agree or disagree on any aspect. 

The famous formula written as E=mc2 is wrong.

The correct expression for massive particles of mass m, hence not for photons X rays included that are massless,  is E0=mc2 were E0 is the rest energy

More generally, for any free (namely without any force acting on it) there are two relevant kinematic quantities, energy E and momentum p. The general expression of the momentum, both for massive and massless particles, of velocity v is p=(E/c2)v. If m≠0 the energy is  E=gamma m c2 (not E=mc2), where gamma is the Lorentz factor gamma=(1–v2/c2)–1/2 and the above expression of the momentum becomes p=m gamma v.

The often met concept of "relativistic mass" (which is m gamma), which depends on energy, is a wrong and misleading concept. This is the cause, in particular, of your misunderstanding.

The mass m is a relativistic invariant, does not depend on velocity. It is a characteristic of the particle (like the charge, the spin,..). The mass is related to energy and momentum by the relation

(mc2)2=E2-(pc)2

E=mc2 is valid only for a particle at rest. To be at rest it must be massive. X rays, like all the massless particles, can have only one velocity, c, they cannot be at rest.

Alessandro Bettini,·I saw many equating velocity of X-ray the same as light without going into all the details you have discussed. By saying E=mc2 is valid only for a particle at rest, you are also indirectly agreeing with me that the formula cannot be directly applied to X-rays.

That is why I have modified the formula as E=V2 with which I have succeeded in explaining how solar X-rays traveled faster than Extreme UV.  What is your opinion?

Dear Rao,

X rays travel (in vacuum) with the speed of light. They are the same thing, only with shorter wavelength. There is nothing to modify. You have only to use the expression of relativity. I have recalled what you can find in any elementary text book

Alessandro Bettini, You have asserted that X rays travel (in vacuum) with the speed of light. However, earlier arrival of short wavelength 13.3 nm than 33.5 nm emission at the detector from solar flare in Fig 1 in the following paper do not support your view. The said spectral measurements of C8.8 flare on 2010 May 5 were made by Woods et al in 2011. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THESE FINDINGS?

Discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation challenging the validity of Einstein’s formula E= mc2

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522

Alessandro and M.A. Padmanabha,

For a new approach the the energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 please see my new article "The electron is a charged photon" at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266392325_The_Electron_Is_a_Charged_Photon . The equation is seen to apply as much to a proposed circulating charged photon as to an electron.

You write: "As such, the formula is applicable to the particles having mass....."

Yes, when an electron ( e -)  encounters a positron (e +), they annihilate and generate two photons in opposite direction each with energy 511 keV.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. AFAIK the matter is exactly as stated by Alessandro, and as he says in elementary text books. Case closed, unless someone has extraordinary evidence that to the contrary.

A difference in arrival times of light with different photon energies can be caused by lots of effects. The first one that comes to my mind is the ionosphere. An ionospheric expert can tell you how much this difference might be. I haven't read the paper you refer to, though, to know. Better write those people for their view rather than suggest something that goes completely against what we have found to be true so  far.

Nino Pereira, You said you haven't read my paper. If possible, please spare some time and peruse the paper, so that we can discuss better. 

M.A. Padmanabha Ra's paper is a bit qualitative for my taste. It seems to neglect that the space between the Earth and the sun is not a perfect vacuum but a refractive medium as is the Earth's atmosphere and a solar flare. We also need to consider that a solar flare is not a point source of radiation but quite a large and structured object nor can we know that the emmissions are at the same time time and not emmitted sequentially. It is only after all these effects have been accounted for, quantitatively do we need to explain any residual effects. 

Andy Biddulph,  Nice discussion from you. You said, "It seems to neglect that the space between the Earth and the sun is not a perfect vacuum but a refractive medium as is the Earth's atmosphere and a solar flare. We also need to consider that a solar flare is not a point source of radiation but quite a large and structured object". 

While published papers on theoretical aspects of the formula can be in several hundreds, hardly you find papers on actual measurements. The paper published by Woods et al  comes under that rare category. They have provided solar spectral measurements with unprecedented detail. (Ref: NEW SOLAR EXTREME-ULTRAVIOLET IRRADIANCE OBSERVATIONS DURING FLARES doi:10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/59 ).

There is an advantage in considering their data. The distance between Sun and the detector is large enough to provide statistically valid data. It is impossible to recreate an atmosphere you have imagined like 'space between the Earth and the sun is not a perfect vacuum and a point source'. Just examine the data which provide definite evidence that X-rays arrived faster than Extreme UV.  I have simply provided an explanation of their valuable data.

You also commented, "nor can we know that the emissions are at the same time time and not emitted sequentially".  AFTER YEARS OF RESEARCH, I HAVE SHOWN THAT SOLAR X-RAYS AND EUV START AT THE SAME TIME FROM U235 FISSION PRODUCTS. What is essentially required is to read and understand three research papers published in 2010 and 2013. I would suggest you to first read and understand my papers, then you may appreciate my findings. First try to understand discovery of Bharat Radiation wavelengths (12.87 to 31 nm) in solar spectrum just by bird's eye view from the papers listed below.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332010000100007

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol3-issue2/H0325660.pdf

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf

The eqation(?)is alwa just a definition of m.

You should always use the equation of energy momentum conservtion involving

the rest mass

Surendra Khadkikar, The problem is we cannot apply rest mass m to X-rays? Therefore, I have shown a modified formula. Please discuss further after seeing above discussions. 

In my research paper published in 2013, the experimental measurements of solar spectrum by solar physicists unfolded solar X-rays arrived faster than EUV. My contribution is explanation of their results indicating solar X-rays traveled faster than EUV.

Theoretically, I have shown how that is possible by modifying the formula E=mc2

Dear Mr. Rao,

I suspect you don't get more traction with your assertions because no one believes you: I certainly do not. Maybe I'm too lazy or have too little time to get into a matter that seems closed to me. Then, when you say that 235U exists in the sun and that its fission produces the radiation that you make your extraordinary claims about, I wonder about your sanity. I'd be highly surprised if there were enough U in the sun to be noticed among the hydrogen and the helium. There is iron, and others too, but those are well identified.

Sorry, I won't spend time reading your papers. I realize this is not the way that real scientists should behave in an ideal world, but this world is not ideal and I have to do the work I'm supposed to be doing, not chase down chimera.

Nino Pereira, You do not need to use very harsh words when you express your views. You have done research work in X-ray physics. How can you comment in solar physics without going through what research work was published lately in 2013?

1. You said, I'd be highly surprised if there were enough U in the sun to be noticed among the hydrogen and the helium.

My answer: There is no evidence of existence Hydrogen and Helium in solar spectrum. Did you ever see how solar spectrum looks like? Can you understand it? Why the three mounts in solar spectrum could not be identified since 50 years? What you said was the very old belief since Galileo but there was no proof.

2. You also said, ‘There is iron, and others too, but those are well identified’.

My Answer: There is no proof of presence of iron in Sun’s core surface, when you compare solar Fe lines in solar spectrum with latest atomic spectrum of Fe from NIST. YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN SOLAR PHYSICS IS INADEQUATE TO CHALLENGE WHAT I REPORTED IN SOLAR PHYSICS IN 2013.

You have such harsh words “I wonder about your sanity”. I never came across any one in my life using abuse of words against me. Instead of appreciating you started abusing for the breakthroughs done. You are not able to judge the difference in accomplishments between you and me in the subject of X-ray physics in which you have published number of papers. You have simply published routine papers using X-ray sources. In comparison, UV dominant optical emission was experimentally discovered by me from XRF sources of AMC2084, U.K. using bare photomultiplier tube. Please tell me what breakthroughs you have done in X-ray physics to challenge me. 

References

M A Padmanabha Rao, DISCOVERY OF LIGHT EMISSION FROM XRF SOURCES, Presented in 50th Annual Denver Conference, Steamboat Springs, Colorado State, U.S.A., 2001, (Sponsored by the International Centre for Diffraction Data, Newtown Square, Philadelphia,U.S.A,) Abstract F-01, p.124. www.dxcicdd.com/01/pdf/F-01.pdf

M.A.Padmanabha Rao,

UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources,

Braz. J. Phy., 40, no 1, 38-46,2010.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332010000100007

Dear Mr. Rau,

I'm sorry you think my response was a little harsh. That was not the way it was intended: instead, I wanted to make clear to you  why no one, including me, resonates with what you say. In my opinion, the primary reason is that there is an excellent quantum theory of electromagnetics that has, so far, passed every test it has been subjected to with an absolutely astonishing level of precision, IIRC something like 10-9 or 10-12, up to some high order of the expansion parameter alpha. As I said before, unless some really mysterious phenomenon were to appear that can not be explained some other way, this theory will stand as one of the highest accomplishments of human thought.

So, try to first explain the  observations you worry about with conventional theories, learn about them as needed, and when this doesn't work at all, mention the alternate technique. I think you will  find this ignored as well. So be it, it's happened before and will happen again, many times.

Also read up on N-rays and similar miscues: they can be very enlightening.

By and large I'm very sympathetic to pioneers and rebels, but they shouldn't pick fights they can not win.

Nino

Nino Pereira, As a fellow scientist, you did not have the courtesy of appreciating my experimental discoveries done in your own filed, X-ray physics.

You said, ‘ In my opinion, the primary reason is that there is an excellent quantum theory of electromagnetics that has, so far, passed every test it has been subjected to with an absolutely astonishing level of precision, IIRC something like 10-9 or 10-12, up to some high order of the expansion parameter alpha. As I said before, unless some really mysterious phenomenon were to appear that can not be explained some other way, this theory will stand as one of the highest accomplishments of human thought’.

My answer: I have published 4 research papers in 2010 and 2013. You have not referred any particular aspect in my papers while making the above statement. Why did you make this long statement unnecessarily? First please try to verify my experimental findings, UV dominant optical emission from XRF sources in your laboratory. If you have good working knowledge in nuclear physics, then only you will understand the kind of paper published in 2010. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE COMPLETE PAPER (Braz.Jour. Phy, March 2010). Then only you will be able to have further discussion.

You also said, ‘By and large I'm very sympathetic to pioneers and rebels, but they shouldn't pick fights they can not win’.

My answer: In your own subject X-ray physics, you have just published routine papers, not any breakthroughs. I have already published my paper on E=mc^2. You were unable to prove that I am wrong on a particular aspect in my published papers.  If you wish to prove yourself as a disciplined scientist, learn how to converse with fellow scientists politely rather than using harsh words like 'they can not win’.. 

Dear Mr. Rao,

I'm sorry if you didn't appreciate my reaction. I tried to be helpful, by telling you why I will not read your papers: I suspect there's an error in there somewhere, and I don't have the time or inclination to get into it.

You are quite right about my papers (many of which you can find on my web site, ecopulse.com: there's only one that that more than 200 references, and only a few with more than 100 references). The remainder are humdrum, nothing fundamentally new. I hope that they are well enough written to be read easily and understood properly, even by non-experts, but that's as far as my ambitions go. They were mostly written because  that's what you have to do in academia, and because I wanted to understand something better myself. For example, the one with Gary Smith in the late 1970s, which has recently gotten some traction, has a whole appendix on a special kind of function that I learned about in the process of doing the work, but understood in a different and easier way than I had found in the literature. So, I wrote it up.

Good luck getting attention for your views. I suspect, though, that you'd be better served by studying the existing theory of whichever phenomenon you worry about.

Hope this helps,

Nino

Nino Pereira, BASICALLY YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS PROGRESS OF SCIENCE MADE BY FELLOW SCIENTISTS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

You said," I tried to be helpful, by telling you why I will not read your papers: I suspect there's an error in there somewhere, and I don't have the time or inclination to get into it".

My answer: Without reading and able to understand the paper how can you suspect an error somewhere? You are not able to pinpoint where the error is. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO THROW MUD ON THE PROGRESS IN SCIENCE. I hope researchgate team will make a note of this.

Instead of throwing mud, you should have asked questions to understand my paper (UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources). It has been very easy for you to publish papers in X-ray physics having previous references. Such papers can be published with nearly 2 months efforts. This is what you did. I am sure you have a good experimental laboratory, yet I am surprised why you were unable to do original work. The Variable Energy X-ray source AMC, 2084, U.K. was used by hundreds of researchers after the discovery of characteristic X-rays by C.G. Barkla. You must realize I have made 2 fundamental physics discoveries (refer my profile in researchgate). YOU HAVE NOT APPRECIATED MY TWO EXPERIMENTAL DISCOVERIES FROM XRF SOURCES PRESENT AS SALTS OR METALS. Even when you are not able to publish a single paper on entirely new to X-ray physics, at least try to appreciate the work done by me so that X-ray physics will make progress. You are hampering the progress of X-ray physics by your unnecessary criticism.

In comparison to your papers, previous references on light emission from radioisotopes and XRF sources are not there in my paper, since entire paper is new to physics. The paper claims six fundamental physics discoveries (refer my profile in researchgate).

REFERENCES

Without reading my paper and without able to understand the paper how can you throw mud, "I suspect there's an error in there somewhere". THIS IS NOT A HEALTHY TREND YOU HAVE OPTED TOWARDS BREAKTHROUGHS IN PHYSICS. PLEASE LEARN THE NOBILITY OF APPRECIATING OTHER’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS. I have claimed nine fundamental physics discoveries, after carefull verification of facts and spending nearly 25 years on the research work. If you gain knowledge in future, please feel free to challenge (with polite words) my findings and claims, but keep in mind that they are all published.

Dear Mr. Rao,

what any normal person would do at this point is to ignore you. While such would be the best response for one's sanity, I do agree with you that science progresses by being open to new developments. I think I am, so I'll try to give you your due.

From this perspective I did glance at the paper that you so thoughtfully provided in a link,  http://www.discovery.org.in/PDF_Files/d_20130402.pdf.

Having been associated with a topic that was once heavily marketed to the US DOD for its potential as a new and revolutionary weapon, nuclear isomers, I have (I think) a pretty good nose for crackpot science. I even have a list of 10 markers that distinguish a crackpot paper from one that has some possible merit. Unfortunately, I can't find that any more, and googling for  it brings up other web sites that discuss the topic slightly differently from what I remember. Still it is worth looking at: http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2014/march/millerqa.html.

In this context Chris Miller distinguishes 4 types. To me you seem to be an honest person, so you do not fall into the first two of Miller's categories (Mountebanks and con-men); instead, you are what he calls a heretic. I did the same thing earlier. Then, he separates heretics into two types:"The first are the heretic-heroes who end up moving their fields forward, like Oswald Avery who discovered that genetic material comes from DNA or Barbara McClintock who discovered genetic transposition. The other type of heretics are the crackpots, who get stuck on a contrarian idea, become religiously attached to it, and can’t let it go in the face of steadily increasing evidence to the contrary. Like every good scientist, you would love to be one of the former, a hero. My fear is that you are one of the latter, an honest, forthright physicist who believes that he has made a great discovery, but who is wrong. I do not think you are a fraud, someone who is trying to deceive others on purpose, for personal gain (money, prestige, promotions, women...); instead, I think you are excessively in love with your own views.

Why do I even care? I like honest people who stand up for their beliefs, even when they are wrong.

Please accept that I don't say this out of malice: I have no personal stake in the matter.

On the substance of your  work: a quick glance leads me to believe that you misunderstand the series of events that happen with radioactive decay. Remember, Mme Curie had 1 g of radium that was furiously decaying at an enormous rate that is now considered to be extremely dangerous and subject to all kinds of rules (she had 1 Curie, by definition; you can get radioactive samples without too many restrictions up to maybe 1 or 10 micro-Curie). She delighted people by showing them the mysterious substance that 'glowed in the dark'. I understood this to mean all by itself, without the scintillators like ZnS or the platinum compound that was later used by others such as Rutherford, Becquerel, and Roentgen. It seems to me that you have re-discovered the series of electronic transitions that must occur in an atom as it changes its nuclear charge. Or something like that.

Just to show that I'm not trying to be nasty to you, but instead helpful, you are most welcome to continue the discussion in private, at ninorpereira, then the at sign, and then at google com.

Nino

Nino Pereira,

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

I thought you would stop throwing mud. you continued stating, 'My fear is that you are one of the latter, an honest, forthright physicist who believes that he has made a great discovery, but who is wrong'.

MY ANSWER: You continue to throw mud without pinpointing where the discovery went wrong. You seems to have a serious problem that is racial discrimination, nothing else. 

Dear Mr. Rao:

I did pinpoint a problem that I would look at more seriously if I were you: namely, how does an atom re-equilibrate after a radioactive decay? When something happens to the nucleus, all the electrons have to rearrange themselves as has been known ever since Mme Curie had her 'glowing in the dark' radium. This statement, which I sent you earlier, is not 'mud', it's a reasonable suggestion.

On your claim of racial discrimination: I assume that you are from the Indian Subcontinent, and as such you consider yourself as someone who's being discriminated against by the world's powerful white minority. It might be interesting to know that I myself could be considered as a minority, of a kind that has been discriminated again quite a bit in the past although no longer. And, if you look at my papers, you will see that the first few were written together with my well-known professor of plasma physics Ravi Sudan, a proud Indian from Mumbai IIRC; another one is with Abhijit Sen, who used to be the associate director of the Indian Institute of Plasma Physics whose director, Prediman Kaw, studied at the same time as I did. He just retired though. One of my present colleagues is an Indian lady whose car has the license plate 'Bharat'. Arati Das Gupta. No, racial discrimination is not my problem.

Please look at your physics again with open eyes, and let me know if the shakedown of electrons, which of course causes all kinds of photons to be emitted, might not be the origin of what you claim to see.

Nino

Mr. Rao

some comments on your paper published on IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) e-ISSN: 2278-4861. Volume 4, Issue 4 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 08-14

www.iosrjournals.org

This is an obscure journal, but it is fortunately available on line, so that I had a chance to read it.

To simplify, the starting point is that the lines at wavelengths 33.5 nm and 13.3 nm seen in the solar spectrum are emitted at the same time and in the same point. You claim this to be true for other X ray lines also. These statements are the results of some previous work you did publishing the results in the same journal. While your analysis does not appear to be supported by strong arguments, let me take it as a working hypothesis. Before accepting it as scientifically valid, all its consequences must be confronted with all the available data. But you fail by far to do that.

Your paper does not even give the relevant experimental numbers and even less their uncertainties. The relevant differences in the arrival times of the two above mentioned lines and the other ones  should have been quoted, but are not.

Lacking that, a semi-quantitative value can be extracted from Fig. 1. 33.5 nm appears some 400 s after the 13.3 nm. You then assume, but do not prove, that the electromagnetic radiation at the former wavelength travels with the light speed in a vacuum, c. Knowing c and the distance of the Sun we know that it took 500 s to reach us. Consequently, the same radiation, at abut three times smaller wavelength, 13.3 nm, takes only 100 s to reach us. The speed of the EM waves has increased by a factor 5. You seem to claim that this fast increase continues. But that would imply enormous speeds for EM radiation of MeV, GeV, TeV etc energies. Before advancing such a revolutionary hypothesis it was your scientific duty to verify if it is compatible to the available experimental and observational data, both from astronomical X and gamma sources and from laboratory experiments (we have been working with GeV gamma beams for several years, for example; they do not travel billions times faster than light).

You could also have done an experiment on your own, being pretty easy to measure the time taken by an X ray to travel on a, say, 10 m long baseline; whether it is 30 ns or 6 ns

You also write: "EUV is expected to travel faster than near infrared radiation". Why you do not look at the data, or make your own measurement, before making such claims?

Then you propose Eq 1 in which you give to the photon a mass. You do not define the mass, so that I assume it is what it is for any physicist. Any physicist knows that there is an enormous experimental evidence that the mass of the photon is 0, or, to be precise

Alessandro Bettini , I appreciate for going through my paper and your interaction. You are aware the experimental measurements are of solar spectra recorded by Woods et al. My contribution is just interpretation of their data available in the form of research paper.

You said, ‘The relevant differences in the arrival times of the two above mentioned lines and the other ones should have been quoted, but are not. Lacking that, a semi-quantitative value can be extracted from Fig. 1. 33.5 nm appears some 400 s after the 13.3 nm’.

My answer: Since the Figure is very small, I thought estimation of actual differences in arrival times of two different wavelengths such as 33.5 nm and 13.3 nm is inappropriate, so I have not attempted. I am not sure how accurate is your estimated time difference, 400 s. In my paper, the aspect of exact time difference in arrival of 33.5 nm and 13.3 nm was not mentioned, so I will not discuss on that. Data of Woods et al have shown short wavelengths arrived fast. My roll in the paper has been to show short wavelengths travelled faster, when considered their starting time is same. 

You said, ‘The speed of the EM waves has increased by a factor 5’.

My answer: Your figure of 5 is not correct. 

Theoretically I have shown why short wavelengths travel fast in my paper.

Energy of a photon E = v^2 (Eq. 2, modified Einstein's formula).

On dividing E1=V1^2 by E1= V1^2 , 13.3 nm (93.22 eV) travels 1.587 times faster than 33.5 nm (37.01 eV).

Better models might come from others in future.

You said, it was your scientific duty to verify if it is compatible to the available experimental and observational data, both from astronomical X and gamma sources and from laboratory experiments.

My answer: Solar data is statistically more reliable than laboratory experiments because of great distance involved.

You also write: "EUV is expected to travel faster than near infrared radiation". Why you do not look at the data, or make your own measurement, before making such claims?

My comment: Data of Wood’s et al in Fig.3 in my paper showed earlier arrival of ‘70A GOES X-ray band than 133A Bharat Radiation band, which shows earlier arrival than 335A EUV band. A comparison among X-ray wavelengths shows earlier arrival of 70A GOES X-ray band than 94A X-ray band. Among Bharat Radiation bands shorter wavelengths showed earlier arrival, when compared blue bands among the pairs 171A and 180A; 180A and 195A; 195 and 202A, 202A and 284A; and 211A and 284A. On comparison of right edges of green bands, earlier arrival of 284A Bharat Radiation band than 335A EUV band can be evident’.

On the basis of above data short wavelengths traveled fast, so I simply expected. Please peruse my words carefully, ‘ EUV is expected to travel faster than near infrared radiation’. There is a reason why I said so. Near infrared radiation cannot be detected even at 100 to 130 km above Earth.(Ref: Fig.2 in the following paper:

M.A. Padmanabha Rao,

Discovery of Sun’s Bharat Radiation emission causing Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) and UV dominant optical radiation,

IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), Volume 3, Issue 2 (Mar. – Apr. 2013), PP 56-60, DOI: 10.9790/4861-0325660

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol3-issue2/H0325660.pdf

You said, Then you propose Eq 1 in which you give to the photon a mass. You do not define the mass, so that I assume it is what it is for any physicist. Any physicist knows that there is an enormous experimental evidence that the mass of the photon is 0, or, to be precise

Just a couple of elementary stements

In natural units mass and energy are measured in the same unit

A number of GRBs (for example GRB 050820A which is pretty far away having redshift = 2.5) have been observed at multiple wavelengths, radio, visible, UV, X rays, gammas; all signals are contemporarily

Alessandro Bettini, You said,  'mass of the photon is 0, or, to be precise

We teach to our undergraduates that In natural units the unit of time is the same as in SI (the second), the unit of length is distance traveled by light in vacuum in a second (or putting c=1). The choice of the unit has nothing to do to with the masses of the particles

10–18 eV is the experimental upper limit of the photon mass, meaning that its mass is 0 to all practical purposes, for all wavelengths X rays included

Your questions have nothing to do with that. Try to understand basic physics