From: Ashish Sirohi

To: Authors of DES Supernovae paper

CC: DES leadership team

Sent: Aug 2024

Subject: Your Supernovae Time Dilation Paper Does Not Exclusively Confirm Time Dilation & Would Also be Consistent with Alternatives

Dear Researchers,

I refer to the June 2024 paper by DES Collaboration, The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Slow supernovae show cosmological time dilation out to z ∼ 1, https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05050 .

You state in the Abstract that “We present a precise measurement of cosmological time dilation … ruling out any non-time-dilating cosmological models at very high significance.” On p. 2 you state: “… conclude in Section 6 that the null hypothesis of no time dilation is inconsistent with the data.” Despite what you think and state, your supernovae data is also consistent with a universe where time itself does not dilate.

What does your phrase “no time dilation” mean? “No time dilation” means there is no dilation of time itself. The “the null hypothesis of no time dilation” would not be “inconsistent with the data” because “no time dilation” could actually be consistent with certain moving clocks showing time variance i.e. their reading varies in the predicted way with speed from other similar clocks. Thus your data does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that time itself dilates. It could be that while a large set of many moving clocks (say, this includes supernovae) follow the relativity formula connecting measured clock-time and speed, another set of moving clocks do not follow this formula.  If this were true about clocks in our universe then, logically, it (1) would be consistent with your supernovae data and (2) would also necessarily mean that time itself does not dilate. Only if all clocks show the exact same time dilation can one suggest that they show that time itself dilates. You also have not logically “rul[ed] out any non-time-dilating cosmological models at very high significance.” Again, your data does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that time itself dilates; the data could just mean you have found a clock that obeys the relativity time formula, with your additional conclusions from the data being based on what assumptions or beliefs you are working with.

Similarly and logically, a cosmic clock showing no time dilation does not necessarily mean that the universe is static because a null reading in a cosmic clock could also mean that the universe is expanding but this cosmic clock has a mechanism that does not follow the relativity formula. Nor does the choice of possible clock results, logically, need to be limited to two choices: zero or having the value given by relativity. It could well be the reality of our universe that that time itself does not dilate and the reality, consistent with your data, is: some clocks perfectly obey the relativity formula, some show zero time variance with speed and some show a different time variance and do not obey the relativity formula precisely.

Many tests on quasars and gamma ray bursts have previously not shown the time dilation to precisely match that given by relativity. You can choose to ignore this detail but one has to keep the history in view, rather than act as if all has been well with cosmic clocks and time dilation. Consideration of such data from other cosmic clocks keeps the above possibility of no time dilation (i.e. time itself not dilating) open.

What is making you not look at all of the above other logical possibilities but rush to your stated time dilation conclusion? It would be certain foundations regarding the two postulates of special relativity and time dilation. These would be: (1) Einstein’s special relativity derivation from the two postulates which says that time itself dilates and provides the formula (2) new claims (from Brian Greene and others) that the relativity principle/postulate alone would be violated if clocks did not have the same time dilation. Has anyone within the paper’s author group or the DES Collaboration ever critically and independently examined these?  It might be good for individuals to examine the foundations that they and their entire group spend their lives building on. Why (2) is a wrong claim and is not in line with what Einstein himself said regarding the relativity principle is explained in my recent article, https://medium.com/@ashishsirohi28/11ee5a75d98f . Regarding (1), Einstein did not have a valid derivation that time itself dilates, see attached paper. The attached paper has a counterexample to Einstein’s derivation. Many in physics have acknowledged reading the 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. (Note that the attached paper is part of the Appendix of book published Dec 2022, so it does not have later cosmic bodies observational results)

Thus there exists another possible option that is consistent with both postulates. This option is that time itself does not dilate and time variance depends on clock mechanism. For many clocks, including cosmic clocks, the precise clock mechanism is not known; if it were known, one could make a theoretical prediction for all individual clocks.

If a single clock can be repeatedly confirmed to not follow the time formula of relativity then that would necessarily mean that time itself does not dilate. Where is this clock? On Earth, the most common clock, which has a known clock mechanism, will not confirm the relativity formula.

See Book Chapter 3 Excerpt at https://churchofphysics.org/

The most common clocks in use today have an oscillating quartz crystal cut in the shape of a tuning fork. Tuning forks are used in physics labs as they produce excellent vibrations with fixed frequencies that depend only on the dimensions and properties of the material. One would think a tuning fork would not be substantially affected by motion of the clock it is a part of. Let us use these quartz tuning fork clocks to examine special relativity’s time dilation. T formula of this tuning fork clock shows T depending on: (1) dimensions (2) density and (3) elasticity. Density is mass/volume and elasticity of metals refers to the ability to return to original shape after distortion.

Dimensions of the tuning fork will undergo special relativity’s length contraction parallel to the direction of motion. Density depends on volume which would be affected by length contraction in special relativity. But T’ must always somehow come to vary to exactly match the time dilation gamma-factor of special relativity. If orientation relative to direction of motion is changed then dimensions and density will be variably affected, which is an additional problem. Elasticity is a property of the material and would not be varying substantially on motion, and certainly not in a specific formulaic way involving velocity that would be a requirement to make the formula conform to the needs of special relativity. How can dimensions, density, and elasticity necessarily change in sync to give the needed T’? We cannot sweep the matter under the rug by saying that the T’ formula stops being applicable when the tuning fork is at high speed, because T’ must similarly change for low and medium speed too, so as to precisely match special relativity’s gamma-factor. We do not see any possible path for the needed relationship between T and T’ emerging from the time period formula of this clock. And this is not our invented thought clock but is actually the clock that is most common today.

The details of how to do this tuning fork clock experiment are in a letter to Elon Musk (SpaceX), https://churchofphysics.org/elon-musk-time-dilation-spacex/ .

Any feedback is welcome and appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi

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