From: Ashish Sirohi

To: Attendees of Loops’26 International Conference on Quantum Gravity,

CC: Speakers – Ivan Agullo, Abhay Ashtekar, Eugenio Bianchi, Bianca Dittrich, Astrid Eichhorn, Kristina Giesel, Muxin Han, Baofei Li, Hongguang Liu, Yongge Ma, Luca Marchetti, Guillermo A. Mena Marugán, Alejandro Perez, Qiaoyin Pan, Carlo Rovelli, Hanno Sahlmann, Francesca Vidotto, Yue-Liang Wu, Xiangdong Zhang; Also – Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo

Sent: May 17, 2026

Subject: Quantum gravity substantially solved; Length, discrete incompatibilities removed

Dear Quantum Gravity Researcher,

This is regarding Loops’26, https://indico.global/event/14381/, the Loop Quantum Gravity Conference taking place May 24-29 2026 in China, where you are an attendee.

We have substantially solved quantum gravity, and this is very relevant to the future of loop quantum gravity.  Please read this full email very carefully.

It would be wise to read the writing on the wall and review the matter, since the future path of quantum gravity could be substantially impacted; specifically, loop quantum gravity will have no future. The paper (link below) is rigorous and technically correct, and we have successfully answered all queries. Thus I am not wasting your time here, and any questions you may have are welcome. The following short excerpts from the paper will explain its significance.

The Introduction to the paper has an insightful block quote (below) from two highly cited quantum gravity theorists regarding their discussions on quantum gravity and special relativity. We have substantially solved quantum gravity along the lines they were attempting and have mentioned where they went wrong.

I request your individual feedback. All comments are welcome.

Paper:

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29247.27049 or access via https://www.researchgate.net/publication/404556103_Space_is_discrete_for_mass_and_continuous_for_light

Abstract:

Special relativity is incompatible with quantum theory in some fundamental ways: it (1) does not have discrete motion, (2) has Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and (3) has time dilation. To remove such incompatibilities, many quantum gravity theories modify the Lorentz transformations. Our velocity addition equations bring in discrete motion to provide an explanation for the constancy of the speed of light. Thus our alternative distance-time equations do not need to have time dilation or length contraction formulas that apply between inertial frames as a means of incorporating this constancy. While removing incompatibilities (1)-(3), our alternative equations perfectly preserve both postulates of special relativity. No short scale or other complicated approach is needed. Our theory leads to different time measurements by observers and to special relativity’s momentum-energy formulas. However, it differs on time in that clock mechanism would play a role; while many clocks would exactly match the special relativity formula, not all will. Quasars and gamma-ray bursts, which are not showing the needed exact time dilation of special relativity, might be examples of such clock mechanisms. We suggest other time experiments. Unlike many quantum gravity and other recent theories, our alternative has simple equations and we give specific controlled experiments that can easily be done with today’s technology and would confirm or falsify our theory. The existence and potential role of actual infinity and zero in nature have long been in debate; our formulating equations by bringing in these two shows how they can lead to new results in the natural sciences.

Excerpt from Introduction:

That many quantum gravity theorists realize the need to make changes to special relativity, along the lines that we have done, can also be seen from discussions such as the forthright one below between Lee Smolin and Joao Magueijo, that led to their modification of the Lorentz transformations [4]:

“The root of all the evil was clearly special relativity . . . well-known effects such as length contraction, time dilation . . . The implications were unavoidable: To set up a consistent quantum gravity theory, whatever that might be, we first needed to abandon special relativity. We realized that many of the known inconsistencies of proposed quantum gravity theories probably also resulted from religiously assuming special relativity . . . special relativity should be replaced by something else that rendered at least one of Ep, Lp, and tp the same for all observers. Nothing larger than Lp should ever be contracted by motion to something smaller than Lp . . . special relativity results from just two independent principles . . . solution to our puzzle could be to drop the relativity of motion . . . [or] the speed of light would no longer be constant.” [10]

A popular article explains that experiments looking for violations of Lorentz invariance or symmetry are about “investigating the possibility that relativity’s postulates provide only an approximation of nature’s workings” [9]. However, our theory preserves both postulates exactly as they are but has equations that are different from the Lorentz transformations. The other theories that seek to modify the Lorentz transformations accept the claim that to change these transformations the postulates need to be modified in some way.

Our equations form a counterexample to Einstein’s derivation that aims to show that the two postulates lead to the Lorentz transformations and cannot be consistent with any other equations. Various other derivations of the Lorentz transformations from the postulates have since been published, and this link between the two postulates and the Lorentz transformations is a foundation of relativity. This foundation is wrong. Attempts to unite the two postulates of relativity with quantum theory have been greatly hampered by this constraint that the postulates necessarily imply the Lorentz transformations.

“The root of all” quantum gravity difficulties quote above notes that the problems with proposals may have “resulted from religiously assuming special relativity” but affirms the belief that “special relativity results from just two” postulates, and one of these must be modified to get new equations. However, the path out of the incompatibility between relativity theories and quantum theory requires abandoning the wrong and dogmatic belief that the two postulates of relativity necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations. There is no incompatibility between the postulates of relativity and quantum theory; it is only the Lorentz transformations that are incompatible.

Section 2 has our velocity addition rules and section 6 has the distance-time rules which are derived from the velocity addition rules

(paper excerpt ends)

Besides being experts at modifications of the equations and spacetime of special relativity, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin have written entire books on time. Thus they can certainly follow the role that time plays in our path to alternative equations (which equations are consistent with both postulates of special relativity).

Section 6.2 of the paper:

“Our philosophy of time is in line with that expressed by Leibniz, and by others before him. We believe that change (such as that represented by velocity) is associated with the very existence of time rather than time flowing as an independent physical entity, and that philosophy affected our choice of what we start with: velocity (change) or time. Thus we begin with velocity addition rules and from these get our time equation. The philosophy that time independently ‘flows’ is stated in the Principia, but the equations of Newtonian physics do not necessitate that time be an independent physical quantity that ‘flows.’ “

Quantum gravity research that involves fixing length contraction or bringing in discrete motion should not be pursued without understanding the reality that the two postulates of special relativity are already compatible with length constancy and discrete motion; it is only the it is only the Lorentz transformations that are incompatible. 

Joining with or continuing with quantum gravity research founded on fixing relativity along the lines of modifying length contraction or bringing in discrete motion can be detrimental to the long-term significance of one’s physics research career. Why pursue such complicated length constancy and discrete motion quantum gravity paths when experimentally testable simple alternative equations (which are consistent with both postulates of special relativity) naturally provide these two needed features? Given this verifiable reality of our alternative equations being consistent with both postulates, why pursue quantum gravity under the guidance of those whose continued work is based on evasion of the logic and the truth regarding both length constancy and discrete motion following simply and naturally from the two postulates?

Though Rovelli and Smolin have long been aware of the specific above truth and logic of alternative equations consistent with both postulates, they want to seemingly forever evade that and cling to and disseminate the wrong foundation that the two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations. There is only one logic, and there is no fringe logic and mainstream logic; we are correct and this foundation is wrong.

Again, there is no incompatibility between the two postulates of special relativity and quantum theory regarding length or discrete motion; it is only the Lorentz transformations that are incompatible. Our alternative equations show that length contraction does not necessarily follow from the postulates. No test of length contraction of the Lorentz transformations that uses an actual moving rigid object has been performed. In our alternative equations, discrete motion is not just consistent with the two postulates but actually explains the constancy of the speed of light. Given this, why are these and other quantum gravity theorists continuing to falsely teach that length constancy and discrete motion cannot simply follow from the two postulates, and have to be brought in via their complicated modifications?

It is often stated that there has been no progress in the foundations of physics for decades. The evasion methodology of physicists in power has been a big part of the trouble with physics. A return to the pre-WWII scientific methodology of the open pursuit of truth and logic is the way out of the continuing stagnation in physics. You can personally choose the path of pursuit of truth rather than become an expert at evading what is rigorous and logical when such truth goes against the foundations you have built upon.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi

P.S. Because of the number of recipients this email is being sent in two batches.

Related Developments and Links

Homepage