Einstein's mistaken belief: That his two 1905 postulates could only lead to one possible set of equations. Don't believe he was wrong in his so thinking? Click here for paper.
Website blog, where comments can be posted
How could physicists be so out of touch with reality that the upcoming Gravity Probe B experimental result showing that Einstein was wrong is not anticipated by any theorists?
One possible reason: Editors then and now!
1905: Independent, responsible editors who respected freedom of thought and allowed revolutions in
physics. 2005: Hardball editors whose agenda for decades has been to preserve the party-line and
banish papers that point out problems with "approved" theories or
alternatives to them, thus
contributing to a theoretical crisis in physics.
History of the paper: Starting January, 2005 the paper with the same space-time equations (but changes in text/sections between versions) was submitted to about a dozen journals. All rejected it, mostly with no attempt to have the paper refereed and no addressing the merits of the paper. But Howard Georgi of Physics Letters B stood out in showing editorial power by issuing a lifetime ban from the journal.
Einstein's mistaken assumption: That his two 1905 postulates could only lead to one possible set of equations.
Einstein's special theory of relativity starts with two postulates: (1) That all observers, irrespective of their own motion, always see light travel at the same speed in a vacuum (2) The laws of physics are the same in all (inertial) frames of reference. Stating with these two assumptions Einstein derives space-time equations, known as the Lorentz transformations. I have formulated an alternative set of equations starting with the two postulates, and shown how experiments can be done to decide whether the Lorentz transformations or my equations are correct. The equations is my paper also serve as a counter-example to Einstein's claim that special relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations.
My paper accepts both the postulates of special relativity, but states that light moves continuously through space while mass moves discretely. Velocity addition rules for such motion are introduced, and from these the second postulate of special relativity is derived. Two ways in which the theory differs from Special Relativity is that it provides an explanation (by bringing in an actual infinity for speed of light) for why an observer cannot catch up to light and its motion equations do not contain any length contraction. (Einstein's length contraction, yet to be experimentally tested, says that when an object moves relative to you its length (as observed by you) contracts -- the faster an object moves relative to you the shorter you will see its length to be). My below paper says that both the postulates are correct but they do not imply things such as length contraction, and experiments will show that such contraction does not occur.
Paper:
"Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light" in PDF format
Alternative title: "Do Einstein's 1905 postulates necessarily lead to the
Lorentz Transformations?"
Rigid physics journals: Professor Howard Georgi issues lifetime ban from journal for questioning Einstein's 1905 theory.
My paper (with below letter) was submitted to Professor Howard Georgi, Editor, Physics Letter B.
Dear Esteemed Professor Georgi:
I would like to submit my paper entitled “Space is discrete for mass and
continuous for light” for publication in Physics Letters B. I attach a Latex
copy as file “Space Duality PLB.tex”. I also attach a PDF version of the same
file.
I am aware of your interest in special relativity and related issues.
The paper accepts both the postulates of special relativity, but states that
electromagnetic waves move continuously through space while mass moves
discretely. Velocity addition rules for such motion are introduced, and from
these the second postulate of special relativity is derived. Two ways in which
the theory differs from special relativity is that it provides an explanation
(by bringing in an actual infinity for speed of light) for why an observer
cannot catch up to light and its motion equations do not contain any length
contraction.
The presented theory gives mathematical equations and experiments to verify the
predictions. Thus if your referee(s) would challenge it, they must do so by
addressing these specifics rather than on the basis of their surprise and their
bias in favor of the established theory. My theory presents an interesting
alternative and I am therefore requesting speedy publication. I urge that the
referee(s) be someone open to a new approach and not be a researcher whose work
assumes general relativity to be true.
Thank you.
Regards,
Ashish Sirohi
Email from Howard Georgi, Editor, Physics Letters B, in response to my submission
I have received the report below on your manuscript.
I agree with the referee that your manuscript is not acceptable for
Physics Letters B. Please do not resubmit it or submit other papers to
PLB. I will not be able to aknowledge [sic] further submissions.
Howard Georgi
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Report:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
report on 10113
Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light
by Ashish Sirohi
There is no physics in this paper. The author seems to believe that his
personal guesses about how to modify relativity are interesting, but
most readers of PLB will not agree. He seems unaware that special relativity
is actually one of the most thoroughly test [sic] theories in science, and he
cannot just make up alternatives. The editor should decline to accept
future submissions from this author, because this sort of nonsense is a
waste of everyone's time.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Is special relativity "one of the most
thoroughly tested theories in science" (emphasis mine)? I don't think so.
However, in 1905 Newton's equations of motion were
certainly one of
the most thoroughly tested theories not just in science but in everyday life
(motion of all objects). How come Einstein could "make up alternatives" and
publish them? The answer might be: Editors then and now!
Howard Georgi's relationship to special relativity: Like most physicists,
Georgi considers special relativity to be beyond question. He has for years
been regularly teaching a course on special relativity. This course includes a
formal derivation of Einstein's 1905 equations starting from the two postulates.
Here is the Derivation, downloaded from Course Site on April 2 2007
(see
link to course site). That
derivation is, of course, all wrong since my paper is a counter-example to the
"derivation" (because the paper shows that starting from the two postulates
another set of equations can follow). Whether correct or not, they will still
teach the derivation as correct all over the world, because they rule :-) !
Einstein, by the way, was a true philosopher and physicist. He would never have
approved of Howard Georgi and the like. If one had a paper that is a
counter-example to Einstein's derivation that his postulates necessarily lead to
the Lorentz transformations, Einstein
would have responded with intelligence, not anger and prohibition!
Gravity Probe B: Stanford/NASA is sitting on greatest experimental truth in physics -- Einstein was wrong!
To bring gravity into the picture Einstein had to extend his 1905 Lorentz transformations and had to invent a "curved space-time". Of course, if the 1905 theory is wrong then "curved space-time" cannot be reality. Gravity Probe B was an experiment designed to test Einstein's curved space-time far more directly and rigorously then ever before. "Preliminary results" will be announced April 14-17, 2007 and "final experimental results" will be announced "towards the end of 2007." See details at Gravity Probe B website. The upcoming results of the experiment: Einstein was wrong!
Re-submission plan to every physics journal that rejected my paper, with appeal to the editor-in-chief in each case. All communication with journals to be posted here.
Starting January, 2005 the paper with the same space-time
equations (but changes in text/sections between versions) was submitted to about a dozen journals,
and rejected by all, mostly with no
attempt to have the paper refereed or to address the merits of the paper. There
were a couple of positive experiences, but mainly from one journal (and a big
name one!) not controlled by professors but by a team of editorial
professionals. They addressed the content itself in a non-dismissive and
non-evasive manner and agreed that it was an experimentally testable alternative
but that given the absolute acceptance the other theory has they did not feel it
was the right time for their high-profile journal to publish the paper.
I am going to resubmit my paper to every journal (except Physics Letters B,
because of their above ban) and
will inform the journal that all correspondence from them, along with names of
editors and staff, will be archived on this website. The submission process
will include an appeal to each journal's Editor-in-Chief, regarding issue of rejection
without properly addressing content. Entire text of correspondesnce will be posted
here once interaction with a journal ends.
Archive list of Rejection Details:
(to be put here as rejections come in from journals)
Journal to which paper is currently submitted to or being submitted to next: Europhysics
Letters
Details of previous rejection by Europhysics Letters:
The co-editor at Europhysics Letters rejected the paper without sending it to any referee and without
saying a word about the merits (or lack thereof) of the paper, and
Editor-in-Chief, in response to my appeal, wrote:
"Our co-editor is quite knowledgeable in the domain of your submission and in
such a situation it is common practice for the rules of the
journal that a co editor can judge that a paper is not suitable for publication
without submitting to referees. I am sorry but I think your paper cannot be
considered for publication in EPL"
Next journal in line after rejection by above journal: Physics Letters
A
Details of previous rejection by Physics Letters A:
The editor at Physics Letters A rejected the paper without sending it to any referee saying: "I have read your paper with interest but regret that it is not suitable for publication in Physics Letters A." Further correspondence/explanations were declined.
Once done with Europhysics Letters I will update the next journal in line after Physics Letters A, and so on.
I have made many requests to individual professors to endorse the paper for posting to Arxiv. Many, of course, did not respond. Some read the paper and gave a curt "No!" Others did write back and a few seemed to be somewhat leaning towards giving the endorsement, but eventually chickened out suggesting that it was not their specialty, or that they only post for their Ph.D. students and/or people they know well, or that they will get back (but never did).
If anyone is willing to endorse the paper for Arxiv: hep-th (High Energy
Physics - Theory) please contact me.
Website blog, where comments can be
posted
Comments are welcome, please post at blog created for this website.
Email: as7y at yahoo.com
This site was created April 2, 2007.
-- Ashish Sirohi