Discrete Motion Joins With Actual Infinity To Give the Missing Explanation for the Constancy of the Speed of Light & Also Give a Path To Solving the Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity.

Compare with Other Attempts to use Discrete, such as the widely followed Loop Quantum Gravity Where Discrete Spoils the Constancy of the Speed of Light.

From: Ashish Sirohi

To: Certain Physicists in Quantum Gravity, Modified Gravity, Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics (& Some Others)

Sent: May 2024 & Ongoing

Subject: Discrete Motion + Infinity Explains Light Speed Constancy

Dear Esteemed Physicist,

An important paper authored by you suggested that you would be interested in below. Perhaps it would be wise to read on and invest some minutes to learn truths you would not have heard before and which could substantially impact your work.

The constancy of the speed of light is the most famous foundation of modern physics, being the basis for special relativity. Actual Infinity has made its first appearance within the natural sciences by providing a mathematical explanation for this postulated phenomenon. Discrete joins with infinity to provide the long-missing explanation for the postulated constancy of the speed of light, and (details below) also gives a path to solving the problem of time in quantum gravity. Compare this with other attempts to use discrete, such as the widely followed Loop Quantum Gravity where discrete spoils the constancy of the speed of light.

The new equation   0 = c, where c is the speed of light, gives an actual explanation for the constancy of the speed of light. For specifics of the left side of the equation see links below or attached paper “Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light.” The math of the explanation involves the speed of light staying constant by “annihilating” the speed of the observer, which is a property of addition/subtraction involving actual infinity.

One of the most famous episodes in math history is that of Georg Cantor bringing actual infinity into mathematics, battling mathematics authorities who dismissed that reality. Physics, through the equation   0 = c and its explanation of the constancy of the speed of light, has now encountered actual infinity. It might be time for physics researchers to move into the realities of the 21st century and stop being Aristotelians when it comes to being against such existence of actual physical infinity.

The special relativity constancy of the speed of light has continued to pass all precision experimental tests. Special Relativity also has Einstein’s derivation that there could only be one set of equations – namely the Lorentz transformations – consistent with both postulates. That derivation, taught in college physics courses across the world, has now been shown to be wrong; actual infinity combined with discrete motion leads to an alternative set of equations that are consistent with both postulates (keeping them perfectly unchanged) and thus are a counterexample to Einstein’s derivation. Again, both postulates are perfectly correct and do not need to be modified in even the slightest way to get alternative equations consistent with them.

While the Lorentz transformation have a space and time that is dramatically incompatible with quantum mechanics, the alternative equations have constancy of length and do not having time itself dilating (while still having different clocks give different times).

How could Einstein have gotten the special relativity derivation wrong? Einstein never thought in terms of infinity or zero, which are both needed to realize this alternative set of equations. Einstein never pondered actual physical infinity, and thus never realized that a hidden infinity can lead to an alternative set of equations. Further, pondering the importance of zero has not been a standard part of most scientific practice. It is not clear to what extent Einstein considered the possibility of discrete motion, and when. Incorporating discrete motion and coupling infinity with zero leads to the equation   0 = c. This equation not only leads to alternative equations consistent with both postulates but actually explains the constancy of the speed of light, which Einstein only postulated. A quick read explaining how infinity and zero bring this about, written for the general reader is here, https://medium.com/@ashishsirohi28/infinity-x-zero-c-explains-constancy-of-the-speed-of-light-topples-einsteins-special-ac06e5bdf987 . Here one can see the related details involving Cantor vs. Aristotle on infinity, and the actual infinity that has appeared in physics. The technical physics paper is attached. Or you can see the first few pages of my book. Chapter excerpts are available at https://churchofphysics.org .

Many in physics have acknowledged reading the counterexample in the attached paper. They have not stated it to not be a counterexample to Einstein’s derivation or to be a crackpot or pseudoscience claim. Three Nobel Prize winners and other top names, who have acknowledged reading the paper, had the option of openly denying the existence of a counterexample; however, they have only evaded that question.

Experiments can test between the Lorentz transformations and the new alternative equations. There has developed a time controversy regarding certain cosmic clocks (quasars and gamma-ray bursts) showing zero time dilation in some studies and thereby violating the time dilation equation of the Lorentz transformations, starting 2001. Chapter 3 of the book, excerpts available at https://churchofphysics.org , is on the matter of clock experiments that can be done today.

The history of special relativity foundations has been: (1) there never were any alternative equations consistent with the constancy of the speed of light and the Lorentz transformations were accepted, based on Einstein’s derivation, as being the only ones possible and (2) there were no experimental controversies involving the Lorentz transformations. (1) and (2) were true previously but are no longer the reality.

One does not need an experiment to see that there exists a valid counterexample to Einstein’s derivation; that is only a matter of logic, which follows from infinity-zero considerations.

David Hilbert proclaimed: “The definitive clarification of the nature of the infinite has become necessary, not merely for the special interests of the individual sciences, but rather for the honor of the human understanding itself.” Physics authorities, instead, are evading the link between actual infinity and the constancy of the speed of light, and have been working to prevent its publication, discussion and dissemination (peer review details are in chapter 4 of above book).  Hilbert, searching for a role of actual infinity in the physical world, looked at many places in physics but did not see a role. However, that has now changed.

I urge experts interested in the objective pursuit of truth in physics to seek “definitive clarification of the nature of the infinite” in physics, with regard to its joining with discrete motion to topple Einstein’s special relativity derivation.

Any feedback is welcome and appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi

Attachment: Paper – Space is Discrete for Mass and Continuous for Light


Related Developments and Links


Scroll to Top