According to Professor V P N Nampoori, the moment has come for the physics community in India to explore Professor CS Unnikrishnan’s theory of cosmic relativity without holding any preconceived notions about the topic.
The history of science presents some interesting examples of significant scientific and technological discoveries that will lie dormant for a period of time and then abruptly resuscitate in the future with new nomenclature. These discoveries will be geographically and temporally apart from one another.
Two such examples spring to mind, the first being the Geometrical Phase, which was found by Pancharatnam in 1931, and the second being its rediscovery by Berry, which led to it becoming recognised as the Berry Phase in 1982. Both of these instances are examples of this type. The Joshy Effect, which was discovered in 1941, is the third illustration of this phenomenon. It describes some fascinating studies of optical interaction with low-density discharge plasma.
The Joshy effect uncovered important information regarding the characteristics of excited states possessed by atomic and molecular species that were existing in the plasma discharge. When Prof. Joshy, a chemistry professor at Banaras Hindu University, came across an intriguing phenomena in a gas discharge tube that was being illuminated by light, he made a significant contribution to the field.
His other students in the Physics department did not agree with the discovery and jokingly referred to it as the “Joshy effect.” Later on, the Joshy effect was rediscovered as the Optogalavanic effect, which provided a novel spectroscopic technique to study optical absorption spectroscopy with non-optical detection. This technique was developed by Green et al. in the year 1982. People from BHU and other physicists working in Indian facilities were the ones who initially discovered that OGS is, in reality, the rediscovery of the Joshy effect.
Eddington made fun of the Nobel Prize–winning astrophysicist Prof. S. Chandrashekar for his hypothesis that it is feasible that there is such a thing as a black hole in the universe. Chandra didn’t start a battle with Eddington, but he did write a book on his discoveries and publish it in Chicago. The book is about his discoveries. The United States of America honoured Chandra by inviting him to become a professor of physics at Chicago University. He boasted that even if he did not win the Nobel Prize in Physics, every single person on his call did win the Nobel Prize in Physics because he was such a great teacher.
It is very evident that the non-academic motives, as opposed to the academic and logical reasoning, are at the root of the fact that a scientist’s colleagues have chosen not to recognise his finding.
The work of Professor C. S. Unnikrishnan is the most recent example of the Indian mentality’s tendency to disregard ground-breaking findings made by one of their fellow researchers. He found significant flaws in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and devised an alternative theory that he named Cosmic Relativity as a result of his findings. Due to the fact that STR and CR are antipodal, the entire STR must be substituted by CR. All of the validated results from STR are included in CR as well, although their forecasts for the most important elements are quite different from one another. In STR, the relative velocity of light is an unchanging constant; in CR, however, it follows the Galilean model, just like the speed of sound; hence, the speed of light is determined by the velocity v of the observer.
At TIFR, experimental experiments have shown that Galileo was correct in his theory about the nature of light. This is further helped in a plentiful manner by technologies such as the Global Positioning System (GPS). When it comes to more recent experimental findings, even those from LIGO can only be explained by a revised version of the General Theory of Relativity (GR) that uses CR as its foundation. This is due to the fact that the relative velocity of gravitational waves is also Galilean, as demonstrated by the simultaneous detection of light (gamma) rays and gravitational waves. All of CR’s relativistic effects can be traced back to the gravitational pull exerted by the universe’s many forms of matter and energy, according to the theory.
Because cosmic stuff and its average density can be observed and measured, its immense gravity is a natural result of this observation and measurement. After developing CR, Professor Unnikrishnan also discovered severe inconsistencies in STR, which were caused by an essential mistake made by Einstein in the discussion of simultaneity and the synchronisation of clocks. These inconsistencies were uncovered as a result of Einstein’s mistake. This idea is going to be completely scrapped because the experimentation has shown that the fundamental premise it rests on is false. Predictions made by STR, like as the mass-energy equivalence and Lorentz-FitzGerald transformations, are supported by empirical evidence that is logically compatible thanks to CR. Prof. Unnikrishnan described an alternative theory of relativity that uses the universe as an absolute frame of reference for all dynamics. According to this theory, the speed of light might vary depending on the context in which it is being measured, in contrast to what Einstein did in his STR, which assumed that the speed of light was constant.
Even though there have been multiple experimental demonstrations that support CR from studies such as GPS and LIGO, as well as specific optical interferometry employing lasers in Prof. Unnikrishnan’s laboratory itself, the scientific community in India does not recognise Unnikrishnan’s results. This is especially surprising given the number of experimental proofs that support CR. Instead, he was not given an extension of service as a Professor of Physics in TIFR so that he can complete his experimental works and was unceremoniously removed from the investigation group of LIGO India (now Unnikrishnan is a professor at the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, of the DRDO, in Pune). In addition, he was not given an extension of service as a Professor of Physics in TIFR so that he can complete his experimental works.
When it comes to deciding who should win the Nobel Prize in physics, Professor E. C. G. Sudarshan’s two seminal discoveries in weak interaction and quantum optics were disregarded. One can also recall the example of Professor E. C. G. Sudarshan. In the first scenario, it is possible to acknowledge that the individual in question was a research scholar at the time, and that his guide did not give him permission to talk on the topic during an international Physics colloquium.
“What I did for my PhD thesis in 1957 was probably one of the most important things in physics and they (the Nobel Foundation) should have nominated me at that time. If not then ten years later. No, they didn’t. Instead, they gave the prize to somebody who did something on top of it. I usually say if you want to award somebody, you take the person who built the ground floor, not someone on the second and third floors.” Sudarshan made these comments in reference to the 1967 Nobel Prize
On the other hand, things are handled differently when it comes to quantum optics. At the time, Sudarsan was a senior physicist who held the distinction of having a number of discoveries and prizes to his name, one of which was the Dirac Medal. In most cases, a person is guaranteed to win NP after receiving the Dirac Medal. Because Glauber re-described the work that he developed in depth, including the underlying physics of optics that was involved in the findings, his publication will seem to be more thorough than that of Sudarshan, who produced a short paper summarising the essential aspects of his discovery. In spite of the fact that Sudarshan ought to have contributed a substantial portion to the NP, the committee chose Glauber to receive the award rather than Sudarshan. Sudarshan did not make any attempt to conceal the fact that he did not agree with the recommendation of the NP committee for the nonrecognition of his work.
In spite of the fact that members of the scientific community from all around the world expressed their disagreement with the decision of the NP committee, nothing further transpired about this matter. “I can assure you that it is not impartial. For example, the prize that was given to Glauber, it is my prize. They gave it to him for things which I did. The prize is coveted because it is identified with excellence, and the majority of people who have gotten it, have gotten it for very good reasons. The very first prize was given to Rontgen, who discovered X-rays. At that time, it was because people recognised that X-rays were very important for medicine. But after
The rebirth of an aether and how this explains the transmission of light as waves is one of the more recent works that have been produced by Sudarshan. According to a recent interaction that Professor Unnikrishnan had with Asianet News Online, it is interesting to note that the algorithm for factual GPS corrections that Professor Unnikrishnan devised for his CR is also based on an absolute frame (matter-filled Universe) as the background. This is something that should be taken into consideration. Simply clicking the link will allow you to view the entire interview.
One should not forget the Late Professor Thanu Padmanabhan (IUCAA, Pune, yet another scientist from Kerala), who explained GTR in the light of classical thermodynamics and fused Quantum Mechanics with GTR, which was a task that had been carried on by many scientists without success (the fusion of GTR with QM). His untimely death was a tragedy for the scientific community because he had more hypotheses that could have contributed significantly to the advancement of physics. The specifics of Unnikrishnan’s idea are going to be covered in the subsequent sections of this article.
Prof. Unnikrishnan was able to show that CR implies all relativistic effects and that the velocity of light is Galilean in all other frames by making the assumption that the speed of light is an absolute fundamental constant only in the cosmic rest frame and that it is determined physically by the gravitational interaction of light with the Universe. This assumption was made in order for Prof. Unnikrishnan to be able to demonstrate his findings. It is of the utmost importance to understand that the effects are caused by gravitational forces and that, unlike in SR, there will be no relativistic effects in the event that the universe is empty. It is feasible to get persuaded of this by thinking about the impact that faraway galaxies have on the mechanics of the nearby universe.
For instance, a clock that is travelling through space encounters a different level of the universe’s gravitational potential than what is encountered by a clock that is fixed within the universe. If this is the case, then the motional time dilation that has been observed in experiments must have been caused by gravitational time dilation. The widely discussed twin paradox can be resolved in a consistent and straightforward manner using this approach. The more fundamental theory, known as Cosmic Relativity, is founded on the gravitational influences of the universe as a whole, and it is not restricted to reference frames that are travelling at a constant rate.
The outcomes of the trials comparing clocks
Consider a frame travelling at velocity V with respect to the cosmic frame. Time dilation effects are particularly crucial for the experimental validation of cosmic relativity. We take into consideration studies in which there are clocks moving within this frame, which will be compared both amongst themselves as well as with other clocks that are sitting still within this frame. Imagine that this frame contains a clock that is moving at the velocity u relative to the coordinates that are contained within the frame. According to SR, an equation for special relativistic time dilation must not include the velocity of the frame in which the experiment is carried out (with respect to some hypothetical frame in which the moving frame is embedded).
The fact that there is a preferred cosmic frame with reference to which the time dilation is calculated leaves a distinctive stamp on the cosmic gravitational time dilation. This imprint is a characteristic of the cosmic gravitational time dilation. The time on the clock that is stationary within the frame itself has been stretched out when compared to the time on the other clocks in the cosmic rest frame. (The temperature of the CMBR can be thought of as functioning as a clock in this context). The time dilation of both the stationary clock and the moving clock with respect to the cosmic frame needs to be calculated so that we can then compare the results of those calculations.
The unexpected new finding is that the time dilation factor is dependent on the velocity of the frame. This is the same as taking into account all velocities in relation to the cosmic mean background radiation (CMBR) frame in order to calculate the effect of time dilation. In total opposition to the prediction made by special relativity, it is entirely feasible for a clock that is moving within a local frame to age at a quicker rate than a clock that is stationary within the same frame. In SR, there should not be any local experiments that depend on the velocity of the frame in any way.
When a clock is taken around the world along the equator at a constant ground speed u, and then brought back after a round trip, the clock’s time dilation with respect to a clock that is stationary on the surface is not determined by the specific relativistic factor that was anticipated by Einstein in 1905. The theory of cosmic relativity provides the answer to this question.
Einstein’s special relativity (SR) is doomed to fail due to the finding that a clock that is moving can age more quickly than a clock that is kept at rest within the same frame. According to Einstein, this cannot ever occur in SR. For a clock travelling at ground speed u along the instantaneous surface velocity (440 metres per second) of the spinning globe with regard to the cosmic frame, as well as another clock moving in the opposite direction (eastwards and westwards). If the clocks are moved about in aircraft travelling at a velocity of 220 metres per second (an average land speed of approximately 800 kilometres per hour), then the projected asymmetry would be T 310 nanoseconds. This is significantly bigger than the time dilation predicted by special relativity, which is t 50 nanoseconds.
The only factor that determines the overall time dilation imbalance is the entire path length that was traversed during the experiment. It makes no difference how quickly we move the clocks as long as we move them the same amount. The asymmetry is determined solely by the product of the velocity and the duration of the transport, as slower transport requires more time. Therefore, if the clocks are rotated by strolling around the world eastwards and westwards at the equator, the clocks will display an asymmetry that is exactly equivalent to the asymmetry that is predicted for the clocks that are rotated quickly in flights. All of these findings have already been confirmed by the findings of studies on clock transport that were conducted as far back as 1970 (the Hafele-Keating experiment).
Evidence from Experiments Supporting the Theory of Cosmic Relativity
Optical interferometry was the field that led to the discovery of the Sagnac effect. This expression for the time asymmetry in round-trip clock comparisons is the same as the expression for the phase shift in a rotating planar interferometer with area A, in which light travels in two opposite directions and returns to their starting point. The phase shift in a rotating planar interferometer with area A is given by the symbol. There is a strong inference that the gravitational pull of the universe is the physical interaction that is responsible for the Sagnac effect.
The only thing that needs to be mentioned here is that the total equivalence of the expression for the Sagnac effect for light and matter waves arises from the fact that gravitational interaction is universal. As a result, the Sagnac effect does not depend on the group velocity of waves that are used in Sagnac interferometry (this result is not intuitively obvious, for example in a Sagnac interferometer that uses optical fibres, since the light pulse takes more time to circle around and yet the time difference between
The theory of cosmic relativity and its application to quantum systems’ physical consequences
According to the idea of cosmic relativity, the puzzling relationship that exists between spin and statistics in quantum theory can be understood to be a direct result of the gravitational interaction that spin has with the universe. The interaction is gravitomagnetic in nature, and it provides us the fact that identical integer and half-integer spin particles obey Bose-Einstein statistics, whereas identical half-integer spin particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. This is a profound conclusion, and it may, for the first time, provide an answer to the age-old question: what are the physical reasons behind the connection between spin and statistics? It also explains why the relationship holds true in circumstances involving only two particles even though it is commonly believed that it is a direct result of relativistic field theory. This contradicts the common perception that it is a consequence of relativistic field theory.
The minute structure of atoms, the spin in CR, and the link between spin and statistics
When Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit first presented the concept of electron spin, they had not yet found a solution to the problem that the basic spin-orbit coupling, also known as the L-S coupling, produces a value that is twice as high as the value that has been empirically measured for the fine structure splitting. CR demonstrates that a gravitational interaction on a cosmic scale is necessary in order to produce the correct fine structure. The concept of spin in gravitational theory is analogous to the concept of magnetic moment in electrodynamics.
Any purely physical action that is shown to be dependent solely on rotation may only have gravitational roots. The following describes the connection between spin and statistics: a) Particles with integer spin are bosons, and as such, they adhere to the Bose-Einstein statistics. b) Fermions are particles that have a spin that is half of an integer, and these particles follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics. The majority of the material variety in the physical universe can be attributed to this one fundamental division. Berry and Robbins published their geometric understanding of these claims, and other authors have cited the relation between rotation operators and the exchange of particles in quantum mechanics to prove the spin-statistic theorem.
Sudarshan has been making the case that there must exist a straightforward demonstration that is devoid of any reasons that are particular to relativistic quantum field theory. Despite the fact that these approaches have shed light on a number of questions concerning the relationship, none of them has provided a physical comprehension of the connection. In the context of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, it is important to stress that the connection is valid physically for any two particles that are identical to one another. As a result, we ought to be able to anticipate that the physical evidence will not necessarily depend on relativistic quantum field theory.
The theory of cosmic relativity demonstrates that the spin-statistics relationship is due to the gravitational interaction of quantum particles with the entirety of the universe. This interaction is what is responsible for the connection. In other words, the Pauli exclusion is a result of the constantly existing relativistic gravitational interaction with the crucial universe. This interaction is present at all times.
The first and most important principle about the speed of light
The idea that the speed of light is a fundamental constant only in the cosmic rest frame is the central tenet of the theory of cosmic relativity. This fundamental constant is shown to be governed by the local average gravitational potential due to the entirety of the universe in the cosmic rest frame. The relative velocity of light changes precisely like the relative velocity of sound and other well-known waves when it is observed from the perspective of an observer who is moving. The assumption that underpins SR is that the speed of light remains unchanging across all time periods. Therefore, the measurement of the relative velocity in only one direction can definitively determine which theory is accurate. (It is important to note that the Michelson-Morley experiment utilises a two-way propagation of light, and contrary to popular opinion, this experiment is not appropriate for deciding this fundamental problem of the nature of light’s ability to travel). In order to determine the real article, Unnikrishnan’s lab ran an experiment that involved increasingly refined procedures.
a relative velocity of light in one direction, and contrast that with the behaviour of sound. The conclusion provides conclusive evidence that the defining premise of Einstein’s theory is incorrect, and as a result, the theory itself is also incorrect.
Why does E equal mc2?
We are now going to talk about the physical relationship that exists between the speed of light and the average gravitational potential of the Universe at any given moment. If there was nothing before the beginning of the universe, then it stands to reason that every component of this universe should have zero energy. The energy that results from the gravitational contact constitutes a portion of it. According to the predictions made by SR, it is obvious that any mass that is not in motion with regard to the cosmic frame should have energy and that this energy may be represented by the formula E = mc2.
Considering both the conceptual and the philosophical consequences
After Einstein’s theory of relativity was deciphered, there was a substantial shift in the philosophical perspective about space and time. In point of fact, this shift was the most significant and far-reaching of its kind. The development of cosmic relativity and the accumulation of experimental evidence in its support will imply a significant shift in how we understand the world. Despite the fact that cosmic relativity brings into foreground a preferred frame that we call the cosmic rest frame or the absolute frame, the new world-view will of course be different from the one that existed in the days before special relativity. A worldview that is based on Cosmic Relativity will be distinct from one that is inspired by Special Relativity because there is no aether, and because new conditions arise in admitting the gravitational presence of the Universe. It is essential to remember that the only properties of the universe that have been utilised in the derivation of a new theory of relativity are the universe’s approximate homogeneity and isotropy, as well as the fact that it is very close to reaching critical density. This is one of the most crucial things to keep in mind. These findings imply a significant adjustment to General Relativity as well, one in which the theory is endowed with the absolute matter frame of the universe. This ensures that GTR is completely Machiavellian, which was one of Einstein’s most fervent wishes for his theory of General Relativity. There is also the question of whether or not our perspective on quantizing gravity ought to be altered in any way.
When there is no matter present, space and time are not able to be observed and hence have no meaningful meaning. It is a factor that, in addition to defining, facilitating, and modifying measurements of spatial and temporal intervals, it also alters those measures. At this point, it is sufficient to point out that all we know about General Relativity is consistent with Cosmic Relativity, and the harmony between the two is even better than it was in the case of General Relativity and Special Relativity.
We are now in a position to provide responses to some of the questions that Julian Barbour posed in his book “Absolute or Relative Motion?: Discovery of Dynamics”.Cosmic Relativity strengthens these connections further, that relativistic modifications of spatial and temporal intervals, as well as several important effects that are specific to quantum systems, are the results of the gravitational interaction of the Universe with the local physical system. Several of these effects are specific to quantum systems. As a result, the development of cosmic relativity provides responses to the significant concerns that the pioneers in the field, such as Newton, Mach, and Einstein, could not fully address. The significant book that was written by Unnikrishnan and published by Springer Nature in November 2022 states that the theory of cosmic relativity addresses and answers all long-standing difficulties and puzzles in relativity and dynamics. The monograph was published lately (Nov. 2022).
Conclusion
We talked about some of the ground-breaking discoveries that Professor C. S. Unnikrishnan made via the development of his theory of cosmic relativity. Einstein’s assumption that the speed of light is unchanging across all frames of reference, which is used in the description of special relativity, has no place in modern physics. It is past time for the physics community in India to explore Professor Unnikrishnan’s CR without any preconceived notions or biases, and that time is now. When a new theory is developed by shattering the foundations of an existing theory, it is important to notice that there is always an inertia among the specialists to accept it. This inertia is analogous to the inertial forces that Newton describes in his laws of motion. I have hope that we will hear encouraging conversations among the experts, which will lead to the creation of a new paradigm shift in the process of deciphering the mysteries of nature.
Professor V P N Nampoori is now serving as a visiting scientist at the Universities of Kerala, Cochin University of Science and Technology, and M G University. The views presented are the author’s alone.