Letter To Math Professors: Physics Departments are teaching students a Wrong Derivation.

The equation Infinity x Zero = c brings Cantor's Actual Infinity into Physics and Topples Einstein's Special Relativity Derivation.

Physics authorities of today are still Aristotelians when it comes to being against such existence of actual physical infinity.

From: Ashish Sirohi

To: Math Professors in Number Theory, Set Theory, Logic, (& Some Others)

Sent: May 2024

Subject: To Math Professors: Physics Departments are teaching students a Wrong Derivation, Evading both Actual Infinity and Logic

Dear Esteemed Mathematician,

There has been a dramatic physics development in that the new equation ∞ • 0 = c, where c is the speed of light, gives the long-missing explanation for the constancy of the speed of light. For specifics of the left side of the equation see links below or attached paper. 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. The need to bring this to the attention of mathematicians is detailed below.

One of the famous episodes of math history is how Actual Infinity was brought into mathematics by Georg Cantor, who spent his life battling mathematics authorities who dismissed that reality. Physics, through the ∞ • 0 = c explanation of the constancy of the speed of light, has now encountered actual infinity. However, physics authorities are evading this reality and not allowing such actual infinity to become part of physics. They are doing this by continuing to preserve and propagate a wrong derivation – Einstein’s famous Special Relativity derivation – which does not consider actual infinity. Physics authorities of today are still Aristotelians when it comes to being against such existence of actual physical infinity. Other direct reasons why today’s physics authorities may be determinedly evading this reality are near the end of this letter.

Special relativity has the two postulates (which are that the speed of light has the same value in all frames of reference, and the classic postulate that there is no special frame). These postulates have continued to pass all experimental precision 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 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, physics departments are 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. Further, pondering the importance of zero has not been a standard part of most scientific practice. 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 without a physics background is here, https://medium.com/@

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.

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.

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. Chapter 3 of the book, excerpts available at https://churchofphysics.org , is on the matter of clock experiments.

Scientific dogma can often be greater than religious dogma, and can make physics authorities resort to evasion as the methodology to preserve scientifically wrong foundations. This is illustrated in historical chapter 6, see https://churchofphysics.org .

Because Einstein did not think of infinity-zero should not make such logical infinity-zero thinking fringe or unacceptable. 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. 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, the situation has changed. Actual infinity has entered physics through the equation ∞ • 0 = c, and from this equation follows a counterexample to a foundational modern physics statement and derivation.

A counterexample to a claimed derivation should be a serious problem within the sciences, which are supposedly founded on rigorous logic and a methodology of open examination. A counterexample to a foundational physics derivation should not be dealt with through professors evading addressing it, and hiding it from students taught the subject. 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. However, physics authorities do not want that.

If physics authorities see mathematicians openly examining the matter of an infinity-zero counterexample, they may give up evasion and feel forced to address this logical reality.

Why can’t physicists address the matter of logic on their own – after all, corrections happen in the sciences? Besides the derivation of the Lorentz transformations being part of the basic first college course in modern physics, a hundred years of further advanced modern physics work and textbooks are now founded on building on the Lorentz transformations. The logical reality of alternative equations consistent with the two postulates would be a path to utter devastation of spacetime, other major parts of physics and many personal lifeworks. Thus the infinity-zero counterexample to Einstein’s special relativity derivation (which derivation rules out the possibility of alternative equations) is unpublishable within physics (peer review details are in chapter 4 of book); special relativity is too big to fall.

Given that this is a matter of actual infinity and logic, mathematicians are the ones fully capable of independently examining the matter. The extension of Cantor’s actual infinity to workings of the physical world should also be of interest to many mathematicians. I urge mathematicians to seek “definitive clarification of the nature of the infinite” in physics, with regard to its toppling of Einstein’s special relativity derivation.

Any feedback or suggestion is welcome and appreciated.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi

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

**Related Developments and Links**