From: Ashish Sirohi

To: Select Indian Physics Departments    

Sent: March 28-30, 2024

Subject: Your department is teaching students a wrong derivation, violating both logic and ethics

Dear Professors,

Special relativity has the two postulates, which continue to pass all experimental precision tests. It also has Einstein’s derivation that there could only be one set of equations – namely the Lorentz transformations – consistent with both postulates of special relativity. That derivation, taught in college physics courses in India and the world, has recently been shown to be wrong; this has been done by showing the existence of an alternative set of equations that are consistent with both postulates and thus are a counterexample to Einstein’s derivation. In continuing to teach students a derivation that is today verifiably wrong, without informing them of this recent development, your physics department is violating both logic and ethics.

How could Einstein have gotten the 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. Within Indian knowledge systems there has been long been acceptance and contemplation of actual physical infinity. Further, pondering the importance of zero has been part of Indian philosophical and scientific practice – beyond just the role of zero in creating a scientifically superior number system. Pondering along such Indian leanings, 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 non-technical general reader is here, https://medium.com/@ashishsirohi28/infinity-x-zero-c-explains-constancy-of-the-speed-of-light-topples-einsteins-special-ac06e5bdf987 . The actual technical physics paper is attached.

There are frivolous attacks on special relativity, why is this not just another one of those? The failed attacks generally challenge the validity of the constancy of the speed of light postulate; here both postulates are kept as perfectly correct and unchanged.

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. However, they have not addressed the matter of physics continuing to teach students a wrong derivation. 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. In fact, for 19 years Western physics authorities have evaded this matter. It does not seem that any physicist will come now come forward to challenge that the infinity-zero approach leads to alternative equations consistent with both postulates. You and your department colleagues are invited to review this matter of alternative equations.

Meanwhile, there has developed a 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. In the new and alternative equations, time variance depends on clock mechanism, and that time equation actually predicts zero time variance for certain cosmic clocks. (Of course, the postulates have continued to pass increasingly stringent tests.   However, the new and alternative equations are also consistent with both postulates so the postulates passing all tests is an experimental victory for these alternative equations too, and do not favor the Lorentz transformations over these equations.)

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. Physics authorities and science media have been working to hide these developments. As a result, even physicists who are lifetime experts on relativity are mostly ignorant of these, as are students who trust the professors teaching special relativity to provide them with full and correct information regarding the theoretical and experimental status of these foundational physics equations. Going beyond conflicting cosmological observations, a controlled clock experiment can be done today that will allow repeat violations of the time dilation equation of the Lorentz transformations at will. Details are in my October and November 2023 letters to the European Space Agency and Elon Musk (SpaceX), respectively, available at https://churchofphysics.org/developments/.

Using actual physical infinity to explain the constancy by applying infinity as an actual number is an obvious and logical path because it would directly explain some physical quantity (speed of light) remaining unchanged and unaffected when other similar physical quantities (speed of observer) are added or subtracted. Western systems dismissed the existence of actual physical infinity, and never thought about roles that zero can play; the equation ∞ • 0 = c, coupling infinity and zero, would not have been reached by Einstein or others confined to thinking within the belief constraints of such a system. Not pondering such a possible path of a hidden infinity, Einstein, instead, gave a wrong and logically flawed derivation that there can be no other equations consistent with both postulates.

The methodology being practiced by Western physics authorities of suppressing the logic of the role of infinity-zero in forming a counterexample to Einstein’s derivation is an unfortunate development. Along with the wrong derivation that the Lorentz transformations are the only possible equations consistent with the postulates, students are also wrongly taught that the Lorentz transformations have passed all tests.

As a counter to the long and continued evasions by physics authorities and media regarding the matter of an invalid derivation and time dilation experimental controversies, in December 2022 I wrote a book to reach out to the general reader. Chapter excerpts are available at https://churchofphysics.org . While generally science does not get steeped in dogma, sometimes foundational theories can rise to the level of being considered settled beyond question. The nature of scientific dogma can be such that leading authorities want to collectively evade what goes against their worshipped theory and to keep teaching students the old but wrong foundation as being beyond doubt. Special relativity has today become such a worshipped theory. The truth is that scientific dogma can often be greater than religious dogma. This is illustrated in historical chapter 6, excerpt available at https://churchofphysics.org .  What is worse today than that previous episode is that physics authorities have a new partner in the form of a very pro-Einstein science media that has been working to hide from the physics community and the world experimental failures of the Lorentz transformations’ time dilation equation.

Let us recap the developing status of time in physics. Newtonian “flow of time” was replaced in Einstein’s special relativity with “time flow affected by motion” whereby all clocks in the same (inertial) frame of reference would show the same time dilation. However, clocks not being equally affected by motion and not giving the same time dilation is the emerging experimental reality, with other experiments using diverse clocks inevitable. With the time dilation equation of the Lorentz transformations not holding up experimentally, the common Newton-Einstein philosophy regarding there being “time flow” is poised to fall. The pre-Newton ancient Indian philosophy that time is a measure of change and thus there needs to be some physical change for time to exist (rather than time being a separate entity that “flows”) is experimentally emerging to be the correct one. The time equation of the new alternative equations is based on this ancient philosophy of time. In that time equation, time itself neither dilates nor flows, and that equation shows that, within the same frame of reference, time variance depends on clock mechanism; this is emerging to be the experimental reality. Chapter 3 of the book is on the matter of time foundations and clock experiments.

Indian physics departments should not be laggards in pursuing their own knowledge systems and the infinity-zero logic and truth that flows from them and shows the invalidity of Einstein’s derivation. If that logic cannot be countered by Western physics authorities then no further consultation with them should be needed.   India must stick with truth and logic, and respectfully decline their guidance on what is taught in India regarding Einstein’s derivation.

Western authorities should not be allowed to keep Indian and world physics students from learning of the infinity-zero path, founded on two favorite physical entities of Indian knowledge systems, that has already shown the invalidity of Einstein’s special relativity derivation. With this first step taken regarding the derivation, the next special relativity step – controlled experiments that bring about the invalidation of the Lorentz transformations and the spacetime that rests on them – is now one technologically feasible clock experiment away.

Because Einstein did not think of infinity-zero should not make such logical infinity-zero thinking fringe or unacceptable. However, that very reason seems to make it unacceptable to devout relativity worshipping Western physics authorities and to world physics they inculcate with their methodology of blind worship of special relativity, which shuts out facing the reality that infinity-zero topples Einstein’s derivation. Such blind faith in special relativity seems to have taken over Indian physics too; however, teaching students the infinity-zero reality that Einstein did not have a valid derivation of Lorentz transformations should put India back on its tradition of an intellectual path of rigorous logic and pursuit of truth.

Pending further experimentation, the Lorentz transformations will continue to be taught as the accepted equations, but the logically incorrect derivation should not continue to be taught as correct. Again, 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.

A counterexample to a claimed derivation would be a serious problem within the rigorous traditions of Indian logic systems; teaching that derivation to students without mentioning the logical reality of a counterexample would, additionally, violate traditional Indian teacher-student responsibilities and ethics. A counterexample to a foundation is not dealt with in Indian logical traditions by evading addressing it and hiding it from students taught the subject. In Indian knowledge systems it is through open debate and rigorous examination, rather than evasion, that logic could maintain a primary role and defeat wrong conclusions propounded by authority. Independent India should not accept and teach Western scientific dogma that would be seen to be logically incorrect if that examination was not evaded. I am thus writing to entire Indian physics departments to decide and then to act regarding infinity-zero and the implications for special relativity. Indian physics professors should teach Einstein’s derivation only with the additional note that it is logically not correct, noting that infinity-zero allows an alternative set of equations.

In my pursuit of scientific truth, refutation has always been sought and welcome.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi

(I have put a copy of this email on my churchofphysics.org website.)

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

Emails sent to entire physics department faculty of below:

Alagappa University
Aligarh Muslim University
Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women
Banaras Hindu University (BHU)
Bharathiar University – Coimbatore
Bharathidasan University – Tiruchirappalli
Birla Institute of Technology – Mesra
Birla Institute of Technology and Science – Pilani
Central University of Tamil Nadu
Chennai Mathematical Institute
Gauhati University – Guwahati
Gujarat University
Harish-Chandra Research Institute (HRI)
Indian Institute of Astrophysics – Bengaluru
Indian Institute of Science (IISC) – Bangalore
Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) – Berhampur
Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) – Bhopal
Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) – Kolkata
Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) – Mohali
Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) – Pune
Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) – Thiruvananthapuram
Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) – Tirupati
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Bombay
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Bhilai
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Bhubaneswar
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Delhi
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Dharwad
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Gandhinagar
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Goa
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Guwahati
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Hyderabad
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Indore
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Jammu
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Jodhpur
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Kanpur
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Kharagpur
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Madras
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Mandi
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Palakkad
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Patna
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Roorkee
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Ropar
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Tirupati
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-BHU) – Varanasi
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-ISM) – Dhanbad
Indian Statistical Institute – Kolkata
Institute of Physics – Bhubaneswar
International Centre for Theoretical Sciences – Bengaluru
Inter-University Centre for Astronomy & Astrophysics
Jadavpur University
Jain (Deemed to be University) – Bangalore
Jamia Millia Islamia
National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER)
Panjab University – Chandigarh
Raman Research Institute
Savitribai Phule Pune University
Sharda University – Greater Noida
Shiv Nadar University – Greater Noida
SRM Institute of Science and Technology – Chennai
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR)
The Institute of Mathematical Sciences – Chennai
University of Calcutta – Kolkata
University of Calicut
University of Delhi
University of Hyderabad
University of Mumbai

Related Developments and Links

Homepage