This is Part I of website. Click here to go to Part II.
To the person or persons who hacked and brought down this website and my other websites, parts of ashishsirohi.com, for three days starting Oct 5, 2013: did that make you happy, what is happiness? We are addressing important matters, and this website offers a blog where you can post your opinion against me and/or against what I put on my website; I don't delete arguments/opinions but please say something intelligent, if possible.
Here is the physics paper (in PDF Format) that this website is about.
Part I gives these physics Specifics:
Points out that Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Derivation was based on Unstated Assumptions, Invalidates that "Derivation" with an actual counter-example, gives correct space and time equations, and points out a desktop experiment whose result would end Relativity.
Go to Part II. Part II deals with the issue in a wider sense and discusses: Thomas Kuhn, The Messy Business called Physics, and the Powers-That-Be who Run the Current Mess. Also examination of some of the arguments proactive physicist-leaders have offered about the nature of Science, Religion and God; Jokes (or attempts at humor) regarding today's physics and physicist-leaders included..
News - Feb 2011: Fields Medalist specializing in GR-QFT-Strings emails expressing reservation but not dismissing paper. (If my paper is correct it would particularly be bad news for people in these particular fields).
News - Jan 2011: Physics Nobel Prize winner, in replying to an email about the behavior of physics authorities regarding my paper, gives implicit support by suggesting the possibility of abuse of power by these physics authorities.
This website is based on
1) below paper pointing out an
unstated assumption, and resulting
mistaken conclusion, made by the physics community
2) a unique photon-experiment, suggested by Einstein, whose result would devastate modern physics.
1) Physics community's mistaken belief that Einstein's two 1905 postulates could only lead to one possible set of equations (except for one highly-respected physicist who broke from the crowd in mid-20th century and suggested otherwise). Don't think their belief is wrong? Click here for paper.
2) The Photon Experiment suggested by Einstein that we are urging experimenters to perform, in some table-top form
3) We show how physicists are wrong even about what "classical physics" said about time, and failed to realize a key subtlety!
Website blog, where comments can be posted
Unique photon-experiments are needed to test Special Relativity's time dilation
Recent ingenious use of technology shows that it possible Right Now to perform a photon-clock experiment that will further confirm (or disprove) special relativity. Such an experiment (and its possibly devastating result to the foundations of modern physics) is, we believe, months away, or years away at latest if experimenters procrastinate. See below letter to Dr. James Chin-Wen Chou whose team recently conducted ingenious clock experiments that confirmed special relativity. What is wrong with the clock they used? What is wrong is that, when it comes to motion, matter behaves differently from light and therefore we need a light-based clock (because time measurement in clocks is based on motion of its parts, exact details in my paper).
There is no doubt that Special Relavity's two postulates are correct. However, our paper explains a very basic difference in motion of matter vs. light and suggests doing an experiment using a photon clock (means no ions or atoms involved) moving in a certain manner. This experiment was actually suggested by Einstein himself, but no one has ever tried to implement it (because technology was lacking, but it seems it no longer is.) Getting rid of the metal ion (matter) in Dr. Chou's experiment and doing the photon experiment of Einstein would be a great technological feat. Relativity says this would confirm that it actually is "time" itself that flows differently. While agreeing that some clocks would confirm relativity, our paper suggests that the photon experiment will give negative results because Einstein was mistaken about the nature of time, as it relates to motion of matter and light. So this suggested experiment of Einstein, which he thought would confirm the basics of relativity, could actually end up disproving it. The real test is to build the photon clock, and get away from the misleading darkness of material clocks we have been experimenting with. It is time to upgrade the technological capability and perform this experiment suggested by Einstein.
Letter to Dr. James Chin-Wen Chou about testing special relativity using a photon-experiment.
Dear Esteemed Dr. Chou,
Congratulations on your recent unique special relativity experiment, and
the brilliantly creative use of available technology. However, there is another
version of the experiment I would like to suggest because no one has ever done
anything like it. Use a clock that avoids matter entirely. This experiment is
based on using a photon (and avoiding any material objects such as ions), and
testing using motion in a certain specific manner. This experiment was actually
suggested by Einstein himself, but no one has ever tried to it (because
technology was lacking, but it seems that is no longer the case, and this
combined with your unique talent can lead to pulling it off).
Please check out my website http://www.physicsnext.org/ regarding your recent special relativity experiment. My paper, "Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light," is a simple read; do take a look at the photon-based experimental situation mentioned there, which can lead to the further verification (or nullification) of special relativity. For reference on the theoretical issues in my paper you may contact Professor P.R. Holland of Oxford University, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~gree0579/ or Professor Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/Lee-Smolin (named in alphabetical order, no other reason for who is mentioned first). [See below note added 2013 on contacting these professors. Do NOT bother them for their further opinion.]
Almost 100% of physics professors would agree (and the above two are probably not an exception) that anybody questioning special relativity today is a crackpot; nevertheless, I feel these two professors are capable or evaluating that there is no theoretical or mathematical flaw in my paper, and realizing that it is consistent with both of Einstein's postulates. They have read my paper, thought it may have been a while back. (I have not had any recent communication with either of them and have NOT taken their permission to put their names into this letter).
Getting rid of the metal ion (matter) in your experiment and doing the
photon experiment of Einstein would be a great technological feat. So I am
asking you to view the matter with an open your mind, and after your recent
experiments "confirming special relativity" (and gaining worldwide acclaim), do
consider doing this further experiment which Einstein suggested. You can do this
novel photon clock experiment to further show, in a dramatic way that moves
beyond only matter-based-clocks experimentation that has been done so far,
how correct special relativity is. However, be warned, that the experiment could
give a negative result and topple the theory so admired by you, your colleagues,
and by the entire entrenched physics bureaucracy. Given this possibility,
assuming you have the ability to do this experiment, you must consider
whether it is worth running the risk.
P.S. (I have posted a copy of this letter to you on my website http://www.physicsnext.org/).
Update (do NOT bother the two professors mentioned in
P.R. Holland replied in 2005 as Editor of Physics Letter A, in response to my submission for publication: "I have read your paper with interest but regret that it is not suitable for publication" (Emphasis mine), and he rejected the paper with that line and did not go to the step of sending to referee(s). From his line and from correspondence with other journal editors I got the feeling he is among the group of editors (as I describe below) who accept, but do not seem to like, the religion-like rigidity of the system that is forced upon them. I don't think he will elaborate. His line is all we have and, the way I read it, I believe he has made a clear statement.
Lee Smolin: I emailed again recently and asked if he thinks I am a "crackpot." Apparently he is not going to give a verdict on that. Does NOT want to be bothered because of time commitments, so please don't contact him. Smolin's interest in my paper was because of his interest Doubly Special Relativity (DSR), but he is committed to complicated DSR versions, including his own, that build on and extend the foundations of relativity; we take a simple approach aimed specifically at refuting the mathematical foundations (with a counterexample).
How come no one else ever suggested that Einstein's postulates could lead to an alternative set of equations?
1. Well, there was someone else (as stated of top of this page). However, so strong is that faith in "special relativity" that after the celebrated wide acceptance of Einstein's 1905 theory (which took a couple of decades) there has only been one respected physicist (details below) who has dared questioned Einstein's "derivation." Just one, and believe me you cannot claim that this person did not understand special relativity. He could raise questions because he could rise above the "mediocre minds" for whom special relativity had become a religion. We are hitching on to him because this free-thinker cannot be dismissed by the relativity-worshipping powers-that-be. So the words of this genius (quoted below) are support for our call for further experimental testing of special relativity, and we have specified what kind of experiment is needed.
2. Mediocre minds are seemingly incapable (more due to lack of intellectual courage than lack of intellectual ability) of examining the 1905 derivation and its unstated assumptions. Blind Faith (not logic or intellectual ability) prohibits them from questioning Einstein's sacred 1905 paper. As from one generation of priests to next was passed the teaching that "the earth is the center of the universe with everything revolving around it," so today from one generation of physicists to next the sacred words of faith are passed stating "special relativity is beyond doubt." There are thinkers in physics, but all stop at the well-defined religious border -- the Lorentz transformations (Einstein's 1905 paper) are not to be questioned.
3. Our paper gives not simply a suggestion that Einstein's postulates could lead to an alternative set of equations, but our paper gives a counter-example to Einstein's claim that special relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations. A counter-example is the worst thing that can happen to a claim. It means the claim is history! But in today's world of physics where there is limited intellectual freedom and little respect for genuine independent thinking that goes against the accepted foundations, even counter-examples don't matter; only physics dictatorial government matters -- what the controlling "mediocre minds" say goes, because they control the journals and shut out "great spirits"! Yes, they know what a counter-example means, but they ignore its meaning because they are persons of power and faith, not facts and logic.
As Einstein noted, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" and, unlike in Einstein's time when freedom reigned in physics, today the "mediocre minds" have becoming dictatorial controllers, who are determined to keep revolutionary papers out of journals. See below a perfect example of the situation.
Physics community's mistaken belief that Einstein's two 1905 postulates could only lead to one possible set of equations (except for one highly-respected physicist who broke from the crowd in mid-20th century and suggested otherwise).
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 consistent 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 light 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. Our paper gives a specific experiment that will show that while different observers may measure different times, there is a basic flaw in Einstein's philosophy of time. A specific experiment that can confirm this flaw is the photon-experiment.
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.
In fact, Einstein's 1905 paper had a "derivation" that showed how the postulates led to special relativity's equations, and once it became apparent that the postulates were true it led all the crowd to accept that the equations "derived" from the postulates must be therefore true (because they are "derived" from the postulates, and that means all is settled). Einstein's derivation was based on unstated assumptions (physics professors for a 100 years have not been able to see this, and none of the hundreds of published accounts and versions of this derivation realizes this). It is accepted today by all physics professors that the postulates and the equations are the same since the latter is derived from the former. The only exception to the physics crowd was one highly-respected physicist who suggested in the mid- 20th century that the special relativity's postulates may lead to be a different bunch of equations and relativity's equations could be entirely wrong. (Of course it could be possible that some physicists in these hundred years were independent thinkers and not just "mediocre minds" and boldly tried to see if they could find alternative equations consistent with the postulates, but failed; however, since I succeeded here it would be further blowing my own trumpet). What was the name of this lone highly-respected physicist who suggested in mid-20th century that Einstein's derivation was based on unstated assumptions and thus could be wrong? You can find the answer on p.8 of my paper. See below for an analysis of what this rebel (who we I call "A" said):
"A" said: Physics may need to abandon "continuous structures." "In that case, nothing remains [of relativity and its equations]." He never doubted that special relativity's postulates were correct. But special relativity has two parts, the postulates and the equations. His statement meant that he began to doubt that the equations were necessarily correct, given they were based on unstated assumptions such as continuous motion. Ask any physics professor today -- Stanford, Cambridge...anywhere they will confirm the derivation is correct, many adding that derivation is so "beautiful" (a popular word used to describe Einstein's derivation by non-questioning, mediocre physics minds over the century). But what was "A" thinking that all these physicists could not even imagine?
Well, "A" (above), the lone person to suggest that the derivation had hidden assumptions that could mean the equations were wrong was no other than Albert Einstein and he expressed this fear in 1954, one year before his death. In fact Einstein's thinking was moving away from the assumption of "continuous", as his quote on p.8 of my paper shows. Einstein's fear was in fact right on the mark. But Einstein's bigger wrong unstated assumption was "linear" velocity addition (details below), as explained in our paper.
In January 2005 we found the correct equations that are consistent with the two postulates of special relativity. Key motivations for our paper were: (1) disagreement with Einstein's view of the nature of time (a "yawn" issue for today's physicists, most of whom do no philosophical thinking on this or any other physics matters, but a deep one for philosophers and scientists (including Einstein) through the ages) (2) a need to bring in an infinity into the mathematics of relativity, that could explain why all observers always see light moving at the same speed, no matter how fast the observer is him/her self moving (in mathematics such behavior is a property of infinity, and infinity is missing from Einstein's 1905 paper!) (3) a desire to remove the "length contraction" claim of relativity, which we felt was dubious and could cause too many physics issues (and thus was unlikely to actually happen in the physical world). In our paper we accept both the postulates of special relativity, show that Einstein's "derivation" was flawed, and state the correct equations which show that different time measurements will happen for different observers, but NOT different length measurements (experiments have confirmed the former but no experiment has confirmed the latter). However, the photon-experiment (below) we specify will NOT show the non-simultaneous behavior that relativity predicts, because the two theories make different time measurement predictions in this case .
If you don't want to read the paper, let us just summarize a few points from it.
Our paper says (material) objects do not move continuously, while light does,
and we introduce "discrete motion." Regarding observers measuring different
times, on p. 6 of paper we explain: "Thus the different jump lengths (of
discrete motion) of the object as seen by the observers is responsible for
different time measurements."
We get the same different time measurements by observers that relativity gets (in the case of some clocks).
But on p. 7 of our paper we show a simple photon-clock for which different
observers will measure same time, in violation of relativity. This is the clock
we refer to at top of page, in our above
to Dr. Chou, as now being technologically possible. In our theory, as in
relativity, two events may be simultaneous as seen by one observer but not by
the other. However for the case of ux = c we will have t0
= t and relativity's thought experiments centered around this case will fail to
create the non-simultaneity predicted by relativity. The case ux = c
is special because of the infinity that relates to c in the mathematics of our
paper. It should be possible to set up a clock based on ux = c to
experimentally confirm that t0 = t (Details are in the paper
for how this kind of clock will NOT show any time dilation).
(For those who do not know what ux = c is about, it refers to cases such as below traincar experiment)
The Photon Experiment suggested by Einstein that we are urging experimenters to perform, in some table-top form
Consider the famous traincar-and-platform thought experiment, suggested by Einstein (actually Einstein suggested a slightly different version, but we choose below version because this seems most widely used nowadays to illustrate the implications of special relativity).
This (thought) experiment consists of one observer midway inside a
speeding traincar and another observer standing on the platform as the train moves
A flash of light is given off at the center of the traincar just as the two observers pass each other. The observer onboard the train sees the front and back of the traincar at fixed distances from the source of light and as such, according to this observer, the light will reach the front and back of the traincar at the same time (simultaneously).
The observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, sees the rear of the traincar moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off and the front of the traincar moving away from it. As the speed of light is finite and the same for all observers (a fact our paper acknowledges as true), the light headed for the back of the train will have less distance to cover than the light headed for the front. Thus, special relativity notes, the observer on the platform will see the flashes of light strike the ends of the traincar at different times (and the event of light striking the ends will appear non-simultaneous to this observer).
Why would above not happen, even though it seems perfectly reasonably explained. Again, in our paper, different observers can measure different times but NOT in this specific case. Here the light will be seen by both to strike the ends of the traincar simultaneously.
The predicted non-simultaneity will NOT happen, because Einstein's velocity addition is "linear" just as a Newton's was. Einstein failed to abandon this flaw in of "linear" thinking in Newton's laws and thus failed to get the right equations. Let me note here that Newton did not have any data that would suggest that light is not obeying classical velocity addition, so there was no reason for him to think beyond classical velocity addition. Einstein had the facts about the behavior of light but was unable to abandon the "linear" thinking of classical physics, and built relativity on this continued and flawed "linear" thinking. From p. 6 of our paper: "This (ux+v) term denoting simple "linear" addition appears in both Newtonian physics and relativity. In relativity (ux+v) is not the speed of the object as seen by either observer but is still a linear velocity addition. In our theory velocity addition is not linear."
From p. 10: "Relativity's prediction of different time measurement by observers has been experimentally confirmed and in certain cases our theory gives the same factor relating time measurements as relativity. But the theories differ fundamentally on the nature of time and we have mentioned how to use time measurements to experimentally test between the theories."
How does one get the table-top traincar in
the above proposed experiment to travel at high enough speed? Well, one doesn't
need a speed with that many zeros, because these zeros can be provided by the
other device in the experiment -- "The fastest high speed camera has the ability
to take pictures at a speed of 200 million frames per second"
We need a experimentalist who, like Einstein, would classify as a "great spirit" and who can move away from these ordinary matter clocks and build the right clock, as suggested above. Beyond issues dealing with relativity, we believe this experiment will give a result that also settles the ageless philosophical debate on the nature of time.
We show how physicists are wrong even about what "classical physics" said about time, and failed to realize a key subtlety.
We have been saying since 2005 in our paper that, while different observes will measure different times in many cases, Einstein's time-dilation equations are wrong, and we give the correct equations.
Forget relativity’s equations about time dilation, even relativity’s claim about time itself being an independent physical quantity (its equations require this) is wrong. Our paper also shows how to build a clock that will not undergo any time dilation at all.
Physicists are wrong even about what "classical physics" (i.e.pre-Einstein physics) said about time, and failed to realize a key subtlety. Physics books widely state that in classical physics time was "absolute " by which they mean that is was an independent quantity that "flows" at a constant pace. Doesn’t matter what these books say, they are ALL wrong! No equation of classical physics implies any such thing about time, and if physics is equations then these writers failed to even understand Newton’s laws and equations, and what these equations imply about time. (They went for some Newton quotation from here and there, but those quotes are not physics, they are just secondary opinion with no physics to back it up. You can either go after the superfluous OR you can try to understand physics and what it implies; physics writers have unanimously chosen the former when it comes to Newtonian Physics and Time). Unfortunately and shockingly, Einstein, throughout his life, held the same wrong view that in "classical physics" "absolute time" "flow[s]" (quotes from pp. 186, 206 of the 1938 book, "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld).
Einstein’s physics and Einstein’s equations were the first time that physics was required to incorporate the claim that time "flows" as an actual independent physical quantity; this claim about time we consider to be highly questionable philosophically, and this was a major motivation in our finding alternative equations that are consistent with Einstein’s two postulates.
Below paragraph, taken unedited from p.7 of our paper, gives the actual situation about classical and relativistic time.
While doing away with the concept of "absolute time," relativity presented a new thesis of "relative time flow" between inertial frames. We do not take the absolute time of Newtonian physics to have meant that time itself "flows" as an independent physical quantity -- it only meant that the equations worked in such a way that all observers measured the same time for the same event. We could attempt to make a similar statement about observers in different frames and relativity's relative time -- however, in relativity time is an independent physical quantity and we have actual time dilation.
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: it is possible to form an alternative set of space-time equations that are consistent Einstein's own postulates, and states these equations! Thus the claims by Einstein and all physicists that that special relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations 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 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. But Howard Georgi of Physics Letters B stood out in showing editorial power by issuing a lifetime ban from the journal (details below). 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 (as editors), were simply not open to the possibility of Einstein's Special Relativity being wrong; these editors proved incapable of being able to examine with an open mind a paper that goes against what is deemed sacred in physics and refused to send my paper to referees. Either I have a valid counter-example to Einstein's derivation or I don't. No editor was able to get me a referee report stating that I don't! One editor did get me a referee report, and that report is below!
Special Relativity to most physics professors is about as sacred as earth-centered word of God was to the church, and they get as angry at anyone questioning it, just as the church did at Galileo's blasphemy! Yes, modifications, that limit down to Special Relativity's equations can be considered for publication, but not an overthrow of its basics.
Why are journals unwilling to address the technical merits
of the paper as intelligent people should do? The answer might be: Editors then
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
*I must make a note that not all editors are themselves hardball; I got the feeling some do not seem to like the religion-like rigidity of the system that is forced upon them, and long for Einstein's time when original thought that challenged the foundations was quite publishable.
My paper (with below letter) was submitted to Professor Howard Georgi, Editor, Physics Letter B. Note that the referee found no specific fault in the paper whatsoever. The referee and editor seem to have gotten rather angry at the suggestion that special relativity can be wrong, and anger and objectivity do not make good partners. Einstein talked of "violent opposition" from physicists. Below is a prime example of such violent reaction.
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.
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.
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,
and have above given a specific experimental test it will fail. 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?
Howard Georgi's relationship to special relativity and how he continues to teach an incorrect derivation to his students, year after year, though knowing full well that it is incorrect: Georgi has for years been regularly teaching a course on special relativity. This course includes a formal derivation of Einstein's 1905 equations (Lorentz Transformations) starting from the two postulates. The derivation shows how Einstein's 1905 postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz Transformations. 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 our paper is a counter-example to the "derivation" (because our paper shows that another set of equations are also consistent the two postulates ). Whether correct or not, they will still continue to teach the derivation as correct all over the world, because they rule :-) Well, the church continued to play this kind of game and could teach what they wanted, so why should physics professors not have the same freedom to continue to teach their students a derivation they know is incorrect? :-)
Howard Georgi, like many of his colleagues, seems to be a more a priest than a physicist. At Galilieo's time some of the highly-intelligent priests in the church must have realized that their sacred statements were facing serious challenge, but instead of facing reality they turned to prosecution and banned all publication of Galileo's work (perhaps thinking that, with their power, they could also confiscate telescopes forever)! Telescopes could not be taken away and similarly, with technology, experiments that go deeper into testing special relativity cannot be stopped. The priests would say there are no deeper experiments needed, we can look up and see everything goes around the earth, isn't that test enough? No, one must make full use of technology available to test even the accepted foundations, that is the lesson learned from history! You can do tests today one could not dream of a few decades ago, as Dr. Chou and his team have shown.
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 Special Relativity's Lorentz transformations, Einstein would have responded with intelligence, not anger!
The above described experiment,
we predict, will be the end of Einstein's 1905 theory and its philosophy of
so-called "spacetime." It might be time to face the new possibilities, however
disturbing they might be to one's absolute faith in special relativity.
Physicists have put all their eggs in one basket and that basket will very soon be
broken because experimental technology has caught up and some decisive
experiment, such as a version
of above famous experiment which was only supposed to be a "thought
experiment," will actually be done.
Website blog, where comments can be posted
Comments are welcome, please post at blog created for this website.
Email: as7y at yahoo.com OR physicsnext at gmail.com.
This site was started April 2, 2007.
News - Feb 2011: Fields Medalist specializing in GR-QFT-Strings writes expressing reservation but not dismissing the paper. (If my paper is correct it would particularly be bad news for people in these particular fields).
Feb 2011: My gratitude and thanks to Professor [Y1], Fields Medalist for writing back, despite the reality that that if my paper is correct it would particularly be bad news for his own work.
I wrote a letter to Fields Medalist [Y1] stating:
Strings is a favorite among the community (and you are part of that), and your own physics work PARTICULARLY assumes special relativity to be true (QFT). So why should I be asking the "enemy" camp to go against their own thinking. Because Einstein was a free thinker and Einstein in 1954 was open to go against his own original thinking.
I got the reply:
I don't want to take the time to carefully read your paper and will only make some comments.
I find painful the way you speak in term of length or time contraction. For me the natural way to state special relativity is to say that space time is a Minkowski space. This dictates the notion of inertial coordinate system and the formula for the change from one such coordinates system to another. I could not make sense of what you propose instead. I don't see either how your jumping matter story could make sense independently of the chosen inertial coordinate system. Less importantly, it also seems gratuitous.
Physicists surely don't see special relativity as sacred, as for them it is only an approximation of general relativity; while Maxwell equations can be stated independently of the observer in special relativity, gravity cannot : only in general relativity both can be.
I wrote back:
Thank you very much for replying, and I know how precious your time is.
Behavior of the physics establishment is evidence that special relativity indeed IS sacred! Special relativity has a derivation of the Lorentz transformations from the postulates, to which I have a counter-example. Journals will not acknowledge that I have a counterexample, nor can they find an error in my paper saying why I don't. Journals and professors can't get themselves to face that Einstein's 1905 derivation was invalid any more than the church could face Galileo's evidence. As my website says: "The church continued to teach what they wanted, so why should physics professors not have the same freedom to continue to teach their students a derivation they know is incorrect?"
For you general relativity, quantum field theory, strings and their mathematics is part of daily language. But note that the order of appearance of these theories: Special Relativity in 1905 with Minkowski spacetime formalism following, then general relativity in 1915 (which was aimed to be consistent with special relativity, it wasn't an independent theory that further confirmed special relativity) and then these more modern theories, all based on being consistent with relativity (special and general).
Note that "jumping matter" is just discrete motion and my equations have the same two coordinate systems (and observers) as special relativity. If you "don't want to take the time to carefully read [the] paper" then I cannot help you further on this; the paper is an easy read and answers your questions.
You write: "I find painful the way you speak in term of length or time contraction. For me the natural way to state special relativity is to say that space time is a Minkowski space." I agree, but I put it this way on website only in the informal notes on my 3 philosophical motivations which caused me to look for an alternative to special relativity. The PDF paper which is the actual physics paper does not contain these informal comments.
The notes on my 3 philosophical motivations may have been welcomed by Einstein. As Einstein states: "This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Going beyond what can be termed "empty" philosophical rambling of reasons to question special relativity, we give the correct space and time physics equations and how to test them.
Special relativity and my theory make many of the same predictions and these have been experimentally tested to be correct; they differ on the basic nature of space and time. I have suggested the kind of experiment, which I believe can be done today, which can be proof that special relativity is wrong and my theory right.
You take the risk of addressing controversial physics issues (despite your star-stature and my zero-stature); the current physics establishment would use this stature advantage to ignore or suppress controversial matters that could potentially devastate their life’s work (yes, I know you will not agree with this view of the establishment, but I believe that power corrupts!). You represent the best of human intellect and the academic world could learn a lot from you. (I certainly have)! I end with the highest respect.
News - Jan 2011: Physics Nobel Prize winner, in replying to an email about the behavior of physics authorities regarding my paper, suggests the possibility of abuse of power by these physics authorities.
Jan 2011: My gratitude and thanks to Professor [Z1], Nobel
Prize winner in Physics, for standing up and acknowledging the possibility of
abuse of power by physics authorities. Given the hostile behavior towards my paper by
the powers-that-be and their journals, I had expressed this possibility in a
letter to Professor [X1], another Nobel Prize winner in Physics. The letter was
sent to [X1] with CC to [Z1] and other prominent physicists.
I wrote a letter and a follow-up letter to a Physics Nobel Prize winner [X1], with CC to same group, challenging them "to confidently tell me that I DO NOT have a counter-example." I expressed to them that view:
"The powerful church heads in Galileo's time were another example of exact same behavior that physicists are [now] exhibiting," when they are not able to state that I do NOT have a counter-example, "just like Howard Georgi and his referee could not while giving me a lifetime ban."
In the follow-up up letter to Physics Nobel Prize winner [X1] I further stated:
"[W]hat does it take for good people to do evil things? When people come into a position of authority (political, scientific, financial etc.) they often get consumed by power! They begin to demand a world where, in their domains, "what they say goes!" Power corrupts many or most good people, but not all good people."
Thanks to to Nobel laureate Professor [Z1] for replying and marking his mail to all the physicists the letter was sent to, with this note on my above quote:
"That makes a lot of sense to me!"
In my opinion, the physics authorities are no better than those in other professions, when it comes to being corrupted by power. Physicists also have to grovel before power and, to have a career, they have to build on the papers of the powers-that-be. Doing independent thinking, and questioning foundations that the physics authorities have declared "absolute faith" in and built their life-work on, would ruin a physicist's career by making him/her a pariah overnight! A new major theory could be okay if it limits down to the equations of the accepted one, but going beyond that to overthrow the foundations is an absolute "No-no"! Physics authorities will not allow a rethinking of special relativity, given the century of work that generations of physics powers-that-be have built on the assumption that it is correct. In this end this evasion will just compound the disaster, because special relativity will eventually fall on experiment (such as the one suggested above).
The above emails to [X1] had the subject: Your friend Howard Georgi, Special Relativity, and Religious barriers.
I will continue my battle because it is wrong for physics authorities like Georgi, his referee, and (seemingly) his powerful friends such as [X1], to withhold information from their physicist peers. Attacking someone's paper is fair game, but withholding it from a wider audience because it would disrupt accepted thinking is wrongdoing (unless the paper is obviously flawed). As I explained in my letter to [X1]:
"If special relativity goes down, what a disaster it will be for people's life work which is built on theories that are built on assuming special relativity to be correct; the cause of this disaster would be that special relativity was protected by the church! If physicists had been allowed to know that the 1905 derivation was invalid and had seen alternatives, some of them might have been chosen to pause and think, rather than blindly follow the church of "Absolute Faith in Special Relativity." "
Again, here is the paper (PDF).
Identities of Nobel Prize Winners [X1] and [Z1] will be released later, my major aim is to address the physics issues in my paper, and the communication with [X1] and [Z1] went to larger issues.
August 2013: We abandon the stance in previous sentence and declare [X1] to be Professor Steven Weinberg. He plays the role of villainous leader whose Absolute Faith in Special Relativity leads him to abuse his power and withhold knowledge from fellow physicists that may make them question the 1905 Special Relativity scriptures . Weinberg's friend Howard Georgi has his full support to keep teaching to students what both Weinberg and Georgi know (or should know, given that there is now a counter-example) to be a wrong derivation. This is today's physics!
End of Part I.
Go to Part II. Part II deals with the issue in a wider sense and discusses: Thomas Kuhn, The Messy Business called Physics, and the Powers-That-Be who Run the Current Mess. Also examination of some of the arguments proactive physicist-leaders have offered about the nature of Science, Religion and God; Jokes (or attempts at humor) regarding today's physics and physicist-leaders included.
Comments are welcome, please post at blog created for this website.
Email: as7y at yahoo.com OR physicsnext at gmail.com.
-- Ashish Sirohi