Einstein's mistaken belief: That his two 1905 postulates could only lead to one possible set of equations. Don't think his belief was wrong? Click here for paper.
Gravity Probe B:
This was a much yyped decades-long space experiment to settle the
"frame dragging" of Einstein's general relativity ( I had been waiting for
it to produce reliable date to show that Einstein was wrong and allow an opening
for a correct theory of space and time. I had predicted here that such an
experiment would prove Einstein was wrong*) . However, it seems
the experiment was a failure and the data was dismissed as error-prone and their
funding pulled by NASA after this disappointment -- so those of us who had
expectations of a resolution got nothing!
*In fact this website was started anticipating this
experiment settling that Einstein was wrong after
all!
Website blog, where comments can be posted
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.
To bring gravity into the picture Einstein had to extend his 1905 Lorentz transformations and had to invent a "curved space-time" called general relativity. Of course, if the 1905 theory is wrong then general relativity cannot be reality.
(As above, Gravity Probe B was an experiment designed to test Einstein's curved space-time far more rigorously then ever before, and I had been waiting for it to produce reliable date to show that Einstein was wrong and allow an opening for a correct theory of space and time).
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.
Let me state again that the paper makes a simple technical point: that from Einstein's own postulates an alternative set of space-time equations can be derived and then does this derivation! Thus the claims by Einstein and all physicists that only the Lorentz transformations follow from his postulates is shown to be wrong. How much simpler in its thesis and in its invite to find a flaw in the technical arguments could a paper be?
Starting January, 2005 the paper with the same derived
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. The very first
journal I sent it to rejected the paper without sending it to a referee with the
editor saying: "I have read your paper with interest but regret that it is not
suitable for publication in" the journal. 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 and they could not see any technical flaw,
but that given the absolute acceptance the current theory has they did not feel
it was the right time for their high-profile journal to publish the paper. But
physics professors, who run almost all the journals, were simply not open to the
possibility of Einstein's Special Relativity being wrong.
Why are journals unwilling to address the technical
merits of the paper as intelligent people should do? The answer might be: Editors then and now!
1905: Independent, responsible editors who respected freedom of thought and
allowed revolutions in physics. 2005-now: Hardball editors whose agenda for
decades has been to preserve the party-line and banish papers that point out
problems with "approved" theories, thus contributing to a theoretical crisis in
physics. (The theoretical crisis is that Einstein's general relativity is
inconsistent with quantum mechanics, so one of these has to be junked or
substantially modified!)
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
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: Georgi 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
continue to 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!
Website blog, where comments can be
posted
Comments are welcome, please post at blog created for this website.
Email: as7y (at) yahoo (dot) com
This site was started April 2, 2007.
My other sites:
infiniteseriestheorem.org
Infinite Series and their basic property regarding convergence to rational and
irrational numbers -- the simple truth that holds in all known cases but was
never realized
cuspeech.org
Columbia University and Lee Bollinger's use the New York Police Department and
U.S. Justice Department to prosecute freedom of speech
-- Ashish Sirohi