Einstein Got It Wrong, And How!

7/28/2019 Einstein Got It Wrong, And How!

1/8

4/26/13 Einstein got it wrong, and how!

www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=1259

FollowFollow

Back to Article ListBack to Article List

Home Search By Keyword Keyword / Author Name SearchSearch

Einstein got it wrong, and how!

by C K Raju on 12 Jun 2010 19 Comments TweetTweet 0

[Today, 12 June 2010, Dr C. K. Raju, Distinguished Professor and Director (Academic), Inmantec, receives the Gold Medal

for the year 2010 from the Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science, at the University of Pcs, in Pcs, a city in Hungary declared

the European Capital of Culture for 2010. The award is being conferred on Prof. Raju, among other reasons, for pointing out

a mistake made by Einstein and correcting it. The full citation is at

http://www.telesiogalilei.com/tg/index.php/academy-award-2010

In physics, he defined a product of Schwartz distributions, and proposed an interpretation of quantum m echanics, dubbed the

structured-time interpretation, and a model of physical time evolution. He also noted that every aspect of special

relativity was published byPoincar in papers between 1898 and 1905, and that Einstein made a mistake on which much of

modern physics rests. He has proposed appropriate corrections. This award is in recognition of these deep insights into these

areas of physics.

Prof. Raju played a key role in building Indias first supercomputerParam, and is well known for his path-breaking work on

mathematics and the calculus. His researches are described in several acclaimed books including Time: Towards a

Consistent Theory (Kluwer Academic, 1994; Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol. 65), The Eleven Pictures of Time

(Sage, 2003), andCultural Foundations of Mathematics (Pearson Longman, 2007). (See http://ckraju.net, for more

details.) - Editor]

*

Acceptance speech for the TGA Gold Medal Award, 2010

Dignitaries on the dais,

fellow Laureates,

friends,

Like 0
http://www.vijayvaani.com/AuthorProfile.aspx?pid=94http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=1259#LeaveCmtTitlehttps://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vijayvaani.com%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Faid%3D1259&text=Einstein%20got%20it%20wrong%2C%20and%20how!&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vijayvaani.com%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Faid%3D1259&via=vijayvaanihttp://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vijayvaani.com%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Faid%3D1259http://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=1259#LeaveCmtTitlehttp://www.vijayvaani.com/AuthorProfile.aspx?pid=94http://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vijayvaani.com%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Faid%3D1259https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vijayvaani.com%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Faid%3D1259&text=Einstein%20got%20it%20wrong%2C%20and%20how!&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vijayvaani.com%2FArticleDisplay.aspx%3Faid%3D1259&via=vijayvaanihttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxhttps://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fplatform.twitter.com%2Fwidgets%2Ffollow_button.1366232305.html&region=follow_link&screen_name=vijayvaani&tw_p=followbutton&variant=2.0


2/8



I am indeed honoured to be here today to receive this award in this august assembly in this historic city and cultural capital of

Europe.

Bernardino Telesio and Galileo Galilei are both symbols of resistance to authority. Therefore, it is apt that a key reason why

the award is being given to me is for having pointed out Einstein's mistake, and for having corrected itfor Einstein is one ofthe greatest figures of scientific authority today.

At the outset I would like to state that the issue is not so much the special theory of relativity, which is a very fine theory, even

though it is counter to Newtonian intuition. There is no doubt at all that the theory was the work of a genius. The question is

who was that genius: Poincar or Einstein? The second question follows naturally from the first: compared to Poincar, a

mathematician, did Einstein, a non-mathematician, even understand the full mathematical implications of the theory of

relativity?

The third question brings us back to the large mass of people who blindly follow scientific authority: following in the footsteps

of Einstein, have they fully understood the special theory of relativity? If not, how should its understanding be corrected

today? And what possible practical value does that correction hold for us tomorrow?

Unfortunately, instead of approaching these questions in the spirit of scientific enquiry, people react to them emotionally.

Einstein is, for them, the biggest symbol of scientific authority, and they want to somehow hang on to the story they have

heard about him from childhood. The less they know about the theory of relativity and its history, the stronger their belief, andthe greater their distress that this symbol of scientific authority is being attacked. The issues could be easily settled in many

ways: for example, the historical issue could be settled by reading the papers of Poincar, Lorentz, and Einstein.

Somehow, most people cannot or will not read those papers, and instead proceed in a roundabout way, by reliance on

authority, and through dubious guesswork. They guess that scientific authority cannot make such a mistake, exactly as people

in Galileo's time guessed that religious authority was infallible. They start questioning the motives of the critic, and so on.

Physics texts play their own role in propagating such myths. Most physics texts (fortunately, not all) maintain that the

Michelson-Morley experiment proved the absence of ether. The simple fact, which anyone can check (but most do not) is that

the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed to discriminate between two ether theories: those of Fresnel and Stokes. The

experiment came out in support of Stokes theory, which involved a mathematical absurdity, and was hence rejected by

Lorentz. The whole myth of the Michelson-Morley experiment obscures the key point of relativity, which is that Newtonian

physics never defined a proper clock; therefore it was impossible for the experiment to have measured the speed of light! Why

Newtonian physics never defined a proper clock is another story, and I won't go into that here.


3/8



If we follow Poincars line of thought from 1898 to 1904, this point about the need to define a physical measure of time comes

out with great clarity. Authoritative sources would tell us that Poincar believed in ether or that he waffled. However, those

are plain falsehoods, as anyone can check by reading Poincar, or even reading just the extensive quotes from him that I have

provided in my books. It was Poincar who coined the phrases principle of relativity, and Lorentz transform. In his

celebrated 1904 paper he spoke of an entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no

velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature can fall below absolute zero. That is the theory of relativity

in a nutshell.

Could Einstein have arrived independently at the theory of relativity? Such claims of independent rediscovery, just when a

dependent discovery was possible, are a scandalous part of current history of science. However, let us look at Einsteins case on

its individual merits. It is well known that Einstein had read Poincars work on relativity from 1898 until 1902 with great

excitement, and had discussed it with his friends. The only question is whether he read Lorentzs 1904 paper and Poincars

1904 paper. He denied reading those. However, as Whittaker first pointed out, Poincar used the word relativity for the first

time in his 1904 paper (he had earlier used the term principle of relative motion). Since Einsteins paper contained no new

idea or formula, and repeated that word, Whittaker concluded that Einstein had borrowed his ideas. I further pointed out that

Einstein casually used the strange terms longitudinal mass and transverse mass introduced very circumspectly by Lorentz

in the very paper Einstein later denied reading. Whittakers arguments, and mine, have been met with great hostility by those

in scientific authority, though no one so far could address the points raised.

Cases where one student copies from another, but denies it, are commonplace for a teacher. The simple way to resolve such

cases is to test the understanding of the students verbally. The one who does not understand has copied. One cannot thus

interrogate the past, but mistakes are proof of lack of understanding. If a person claiming independent rediscovery shows

lack of understanding through a mistake, that is proof of copying according to my epistemic test. That is exactly what

happened in this case: Einstein failed to understand what Poincar, the mathematician, understood: namely, that relativity

changes also the character of the equations of physics. They can no longer be the ordinary differential equations of Newtonian

physics, but must be functional differential equations (which, Poincar took for granted, must be retarded). Einstein never

understood this aspect of relativity till his death. That settles the matter: Einstein published later, his claims of independent

rediscovery are seriously suspect, and he never fully understood the implications of relativity. Possibly as a patent clerk he

realized that he could copy ideas from frontline thinkers, for there is no legal patent on ideas. For almost a century now, it

would seem, people have w orshipped a false god of science.

There is a saying that people who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. In 1994, I pointed out, in my bookTime: Towards a Consistent Theory (Kluwer), that the use of functional differential equations led to a shift away from

the Newtonian paradigm of ordinary differential equations, going beyond textbook relativity. For example, the century old

contradiction between Newtonian mechanics and the entropy law of thermodynamics could be easily resolved with functional

differential equations. In 2004, exactly a century after Poincars seminal paper on relativity, I published the first solutions of

the functional differential equations of retarded electrodynamics, in a significant physical contextthat of the classical

hydrogen atom. And, in 2005, exactly a century after Einsteins paper on relativity, and in a lecture intended to commemorate

that event, Sir Michael Atiyah, a person regarded as the leading mathematician in the world, repeated my claim, first made in

my 1994 book, that the use of functional differential equations could also explain the puzzling features of quantum mechanics.


4/8



Post a Comment

Atiyah claimed independent rediscovery, and even after he was personally informed of my w ork, the Notices of the American

Mathematical Society ran a prominent article on his lecture, in June 2006, crediting Atiyah with the suggestion to use

functional differential equations in physics, and referring to it as Atiyahs hypothesis. My earlier work was credited only after

a long correspondence, in a short and difficult-to-spot letter in the Notices of the AMS in April 2007.

I pointed out that such a belated acknowledgment, without an apology, was worth little. I again applied my epistemic test

and pointed out that Atiyahs hypothesis involved a serious mistake. Functional differential equations are a natural

consequence of relativity, their use requires no hypothesis, so the claim about Atiyahs hypothesis involved a conceptual

mistake, apart from a historical mistake in crediting Atiyah. I wrote a letter to the journal, along these lines. The journal

however refused to publish it, preferring to leave the mistake uncorrected. Although many prominent scientists from India and

abroad signed a petition that the letter should be published, and the matter debated publicly, the Editor of the Notices and the

American Mathematical Society ignored the petition and hung on to the decision to suppress the matter. This is how scientific

authority functions at the highest level. One can well imagine how it functions at lower levels, and how much it misleads us

about the truth. Those who place their trust in it deserve what they get: they and their progeny can continue to believe science

is all about implicitly trusting those in positions of scientific authority. As for me, I am not in the business of mobilising

popular opinion, or winning a popularity contest: my aim was to find the truth, and I have found itthe truth both about

science, and about scientific authority. Knowledge was what I sought, and I have found it. That is reward in itself.

On the pleasant side, there are a number of interesting possibilities that can be explored with the new technique of functional

differential equations. As I argued in my 1994 book, if we make absolutely no hypothesis, and drop even the traditional

hypothesis of causality, then the functional differential equations of physics must be of mixed-type, and not retarded, as

Poincar had thought. This leads to a number of interesting consequences, for quantum mechanics on the one hand, and for

biological organisms on the other. The qualitative consequences are already startling, for this physics is non-mechanistic, and

leads to a structure of time, as I have explained in my books and papers. The further quantitative consequences I hope to

explore in future. Apart from these fundamental areas, there are many other practical areas to which functional differential

equations could applyareas ranging from quantum computers, biological macromolecules, controlled fusion, the galaxy, and

even the stock market. Such applications would be a fitting answer to those who worship scientific authority.

I thank the Academy once again for the honour it has conferred on me, and hope that it will succeed in its mission to promote

reliance on open debate, rather than trust in authority, as more appropriate to science.

Thank you!

C. K. Raju

User Comments

Kudos to Dr C. K. Raju for correcting Einsteins mistake and also the fact that he did not acknowledge previous work of Poincar

that he was fully aware of; further also that Einstein, as a non-mathematician, did not fully understand the full mathematical

implications of the theory of relativity. What an achievement.

BACK TO TOP
http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=1259#top


5/8



Hari

June 12, 2010Report Abuse

Ashwani


Come Carpentier


Dr Damodar V. Nene


Incognito


Rabinder Koul


Arvind


NSR


After Jagdish Bose, Dr Raju has got his due. We are proud of you.

The fact that Raju was given this award shows that the merit of his finding has been recognised. There have been many critiques

(i.e. Leveugle in France and various others) of Einstein who seems to have claimed credit for other people's work without fully

understanding them, just as he never understood Quantum Theory which conflicted with his Biblical vision of a Creator, All

Knowing God "who does not play dice" (contrary to Sri Krishna's statement: "I am the game of dice").

Cudos to Sandhya Jain. Without her website we would not have known these bitter, burning facts. Sandhya, live 100 years,

Hindustan needs you and your skill in passing the knowledge to us ignorant readers.Dr Nene, Baroda

The link address needs to be corrected with hyphen, telesio-galilei.

namaste.

Thank you for bringing this forth. I am a Physicist by training but was not aware of Raju's work. Even though for some time I have

maintained that Newton etc were aware of the work by Pingla School of Mathematics in Kerala. Thank you

interesting reading this. Congrats to Dr Raju and even I feel pride in him as this comes after a long time. We have all read about

Sir CV Raman and from today will read about Dr Raju and many more!!!!

Thanks Vijayvaani for bringing this to its well deserved limelight!

This is a typical mathematician's response to a physical theory from one who doesn't understand the physical insight that went

into it. Nor is it new. Edmund Whittaker made same claim decades ago. This is more about history of science than science.

Poincare never made any such claims. Similar claims were made on behalf of Hilbert also (not by Hilbert) when Einstein came out

with his theory of gravitation (general theory). Raju may be a fine mathematician but he is beating a dead horse. It is a good

exercise though for students to learn.


6/8



C K Raju

June 13, 2010 Report Abuse

NSR


C K Raju


P.Mahadevan, Ph.D


C K Raju


Sorry, functional differential equations is not beating a dead horse, it is a new technnique which is the way to future physics.

Is NSR denying that functional differential equations are a natural outcome of relativity? Is he denying that Einstein did not

understand this all his life? Is he denying that functional differential equations lead to a paradigm shift from Newtonian physics?

Whittaker did NOT touch this point at all, though he did maintain that Einstein said nothing new. This shows that Rajaram has not

understood the first thing that I have to say, and is just proceeding on guesswork. Physics is not ancient history, where one can

take any position one likes.

Then Mr. Raju should explain Einstein's second relativity paper of 1905-- the one that derives his famous mass energy

equivalence or E = mc2. Was that also plagarized from Poincare? After all that was the truly revolutionary outcome of special

relativity.

Well I have already explained all this in detail in chap 3b, and chp 5b of my book Time: Towards a Consistent Theory, in technical

terms, and in my book The Eleven Pictures of Time in general terms, in chap. 5 and in chp. 9 under the section "Einstein's

mistake". (Chp 5b is available on the arXiv). The point is that Einstein mistakenly thought functional differential equations an be

approximated by ordinary differential equations, which is a mathematical error.. For references to Einstein 1935 work where he

made this mistake, see my books above. ## Einstein's 1905 paper is what we are talking about that a ll the ideas in it were taken

from Poincare's 1904 and possibly also 1905 paper. I could write another article, but am terribly short of time right now. It is

obviously easier for me to ask people to read what I have already written.

If another example is needed, refer to S.N.Bose's Bose Statistics and Bose Condensates which mysteriously transformed into

Bose-Einstein stats and Bose-Einstein Condensates; Also, Bose was never recognised for his work but a team of American

scientists,Cornell, Kitterley and Wieman were awarded the Nobel prize for precipitating the Bose condensates in the laboratory (

2001) It is not what you know that counts, but who all do you know.

You can try this link for a popular account. http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein.html. Also, some material which explains the mathematics

of Einstein's mistake -- first an extract from my 1994 book, Time: Towards a Consistent Theory (Kluwer Academic 1994). The

mistake is explained in Sec 2.5 on page 8. The full paper can be downloaded from http://arxiv.org,. The number is

arXiv.org:0808.0767. You can post a link to it if you like, or the whole paper etc. ## Second is my 2004 paper available at

arXiv.org:051123. ## Third my book The Eleven Pictures of Time (Sage, 2003). I will post it or some part on my website (after

returning to India). Hope this will be adequate.

Dr.Leveugle's book demonstrates that E = Mc2 was first formulated by Poincare. It has been accepted as a conclusive proof, at

least in the French physical cirlces where no one denies that anymore but for fairly obvius reasons, that has not had not get so

much international impact so far.


7/8



Come Carpentier


Krishna


C. K. Raju


Haarish


Michael Laurence

October 08, 2010Report Abuse

mahesh khati

October 08, 2011Report Abuse

what a pity that there is no mention of such a great achievement in any of the secular print or TV media

There has been some press coverage (see, http://ckraju.net/press/press.html). Also, the excerpts from my books and papers, and

links to papers are now clearly visible at http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein.html, so that both laypersons and physicists can

understand what is being said. However, it is true that Western journalists realize their role as propagandists, and tend to

suppress anything which goes against the authority of the West.

Dr. Raju's article above is indeed corroborated by these two articles-

http://web.archive.org/web/20061024003846/www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-einstein-hoax3.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20061024003841/www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-einstein-hoax2.html

Even from the point of simple common sense it's a little hard to believe how a person poor in studies could later on become 'the

genius of the century'

Congratulations, Dr. Raju.

I would appreciate having your reaction to the following summary:

"In Special Relativity, a coherent account of the behavior of supposed material elements (a light-conducting medium and photons)

of perception and measurement of the fundamental phenomena, length, mass, and time, require adducing a conspiracy of

changes in these phenomena with changes in the relative velocity of the observers thereof (as related by the Lorentz

Transformations") - which conspiracy would account for the failure to detect (or detect motion with respect to) the implied light-

conducting medium. The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-

conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - however a rationalization of the Special

Principle of SR (the reciprocity of measured effects) nevertheless demands (contra claims on Einstein's behalf of his genius in

disposing of the "ether") that a light-conducting medium/framework - hidden though it may be by the "conspiracy" - be an elementof the conceptualization of SR phenomena, lest fundamental self-contradiction arise from the attempt to perform said

conceptualization and lest endless controversy over precisely this issue arise in analysis of the Theory."

Hon Sir, I have already proved Einstein is wrong before 23 years that paper "What is world made up of?" is already on my web site

www.maheshkhati.com, please read it. That also solves misty of dark matter & what is true relativity?


8/8



Name

Mail-Id

Comments

SubmitSubmit

Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be

removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at [email protected]

Post a Comment

Home | About Us | Disclaimer | Advertise With Us | Archives

2008-2012copyright, All Rights Reserved. Vijayvaani Publishers.
http://www.vijayvaani.com/Archieves.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/AdvertiseWithUs.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Disclaimer.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Aboutus.aspxhttp://www.vijayvaani.com/Default.aspxmailto:[email protected]

Einstein Got It Wrong, And How!

Documents

Transcript of Einstein Got It Wrong, And How!