'The Restless Monkey' is a trove of scientific errors

Recently, an emerging Facebook writer, Vijay Singh Thakurai, penned a science-related book titled *Bechain Bandar* (Restless Monkey). *Bechain Bandar* was warmly received on Facebook, particularly among that demographic that had remained largely distanced from science. A controversy also erupted over religious sentiments being hurt by the book, because this work on science offered criticism of religion along with erroneous citations from religious scriptures—a tendency that also risks breeding caste animosity in society. Furthermore, persistent questions have been raised regarding the book’s contents; however, we firmly advocate for an objective appraisal of the work. For this reason, this article undertakes a scientific critique of *Bechain Bandar*, bringing to light several of the book’s scientific blunders. This will also aid readers in exercising better judgment when selecting literature.

Vijay Singh Thakurai ji, first and foremost, congratulations on your maiden book. When I first heard about your book, observing your enthusiasm for science led me to hope that Hindi readers were about to receive a commendable work. Thus far, I have read the first three chapters of *Bechain Bandar*, and having read them, I am utterly disappointed. Your book is rife with factual blunders, even though, by your own admission, the manuscript was vetted by science experts.

Some Scientific Errors in *Bechain Bandar*:

First Error

◆1. The very first error I encountered was on page 12, where you wrote that if a star is approaching us, its light has a longer wavelength (Red shifted), whereas when it is moving away, its light is of a shorter wavelength (blue shifted). In reality, according to the Doppler effect, light from an approaching star should be blueshifted, and light from a receding star should be redshifted.

Second Error

◆2. On page 18, you wrote in bold letters that in blackbody radiation, the time required to descend from a higher to a lower temperature is directly proportional to the square of the difference in temperature. From which scientific theory or research did you lift this correlation between temperature and time? Even by the logic of this relationship, the calculation you have presented is flatly incorrect. According to this relation, a 1/10 drop in a temperature of 1 billion translates to a difference of 10,00,000 Kelvin between the two temperatures; squaring this difference would require the time to scale by a factor of 1,00,00,00,000,000, not 100 times.

Third Error

◆3. On page 22, you wrote that the energy of a photon at 1 degree Kelvin is 0.00008617 ev. This is not the energy of a photon; it is the value of the average kinetic energy of an atom or particle present in an ideal gas system at a temperature of 1 Kelvin.

Because,

Energy of a photon (E) = planck constant (h) x light speed (c) / wavelngth (λ) Or,  E = h x f (frequency) h = 6.626069959x10^-34 joule.second or (4.135667662×10^−15 eV.second) C = 2.99792458x10^8 meter/second

Since the wavelength of a photon at a temperature of 1 degree Kelvin is 2.997x10^-3 meters or a frequency of 1.0x10^11 Hertz, the energy E of a photon at 1 Kelvin comes out to 6.626069959 × 10^-23 Joules or 0.00041356 eV. It appears to me that the calculation for the temperature required for electron production was derived from the Kinetic Theory of Gases, since in its primordial epoch, the universe existed essentially as a cloud of gas.

According to the Kinetic theory of Gases, the temperature T of an ideal monoatomic gas is proportional to the average kinetic energy (kinetic energy) E of its atoms or particles (particles),
E ~ T or E = kb.T
Here, kb is the Boltzmann constant (kb), the value of which is 0.00008617 eV/Kelvin. Thus, for the production of an electron-positron pair, the kinetic energy of the colliding photons must exceed the rest mass energy of an electron (511003 eV); to attain that amount of kinetic energy, the temperature must be T = E/kb = 51106 eV / 0.00008617 = 5.93 billion Kelvin, exactly as you recorded.

Fourth Error

◆4. On page 25, you wrote that the Jeans mass is inversely proportional to the cube of radiation pressure. There exists no such direct relationship between the Jeans mass and radiation pressure. It seems you conflated internal gas pressure with radiation pressure. A cosmic gas cloud remains in a state of equilibrium (undergoing neither collapse nor expansion) only so long as the kinetic energy of its internal gas pressure is equal to the potential energy of its gravitation:
2K = U
Hence, should either energy fluctuate higher or lower, the state of equilibrium is disrupted, and the cloud begins either to contract or to expand.

Furthermore, the Jeans mass is proportional to the square root of the cube of temperature (T^3/2) and inversely proportional to the square root of density. Consequently, during the universe's early epoch, the value of the Jeans mass was exceedingly high owing to the extreme temperature. If we hold density constant and compute the ratio of the Jeans mass at 10 seconds after the Big Bang to that at 380,000 years post-Big Bang: at 10 seconds, the temperature hovered around 1 billion (10^9), the square root of whose cube is roughly 10^14; whereas 380,000 years later, it stood at approximately 3000 Kelvin, the square root of whose cube is roughly 10^5. The ratio between these two figures is 10^9:1. Thus, the Jeans mass at 380,000 years was approximately one-billionth of the initial Jeans mass—a condition vital for gravitational collapse to occur within the cosmic cloud. It was precisely for this reason that the formation of stars and galaxies commenced 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

The opening three chapters of *Bechain Bandar* are utterly devoid of engaging substance; what is worse, these unreferenced assertions thoroughly bewilder and frustrate the intellect. For now, I have consigned the book to cold storage; should the inclination return at some future date, I may look at it again.
Jai Shri Ram.

- Shri Sanjay Agrawal, the author is a dedicated scholar of science

(All views expressed are strictly the author's own)

Also Read,

He Who Truly Understood the "Innumerable": Srinivasa Ramanujan