3. and proved this explained key features of quantum mechanics.
Please note these three points.
Please note these three points.
1. Using FDE leads to
2. a new paradigm for physics, and
3. could explain quantum mechanics.
FDE approach useful for
FDE approach useful for
molecular dynamics and
many-body problem
Applies to
biotechnology
Nanotechnology, and (nanobiotechnology)
And quantum computing
We can’t solve all-particle Schrodinger equation for a protein molecule, but can try FDEs.
The book was published by Kluwer Academic, the most prestigious international publisher in the area.
The book was published by Kluwer Academic, the most prestigious international publisher in the area.
It evoked complimentary reactions and reviews in International journals.
It evoked complimentary reactions and reviews in International journals.
Raju writes with ease and deft wit….The… concept…[of FDE]…is exploited with subtlety and elegance by Raju. ... an important book..."
Raju writes with ease and deft wit….The… concept…[of FDE]…is exploited with subtlety and elegance by Raju. ... an important book..."
J. F. Woodward (Foundations of Physics )
The book by Raju is an important contribution to our understanding of this difficult concept [time].... The book is authoritative and written with impeccable clarity…this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it to readers of this journal."
The book by Raju is an important contribution to our understanding of this difficult concept [time].... The book is authoritative and written with impeccable clarity…this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it to readers of this journal."
“…truly brilliant. ...The conclusions may warrant close scrutiny, since the custom since Socrates has been for brilliant philosophical critics to tack weak positive conclusions to their analyses."
“…truly brilliant. ...The conclusions may warrant close scrutiny, since the custom since Socrates has been for brilliant philosophical critics to tack weak positive conclusions to their analyses."
“Altogether a delightful book” –A. N. Mitra
“Altogether a delightful book” –A. N. Mitra
“fantastic...You are now rising to the level of Bohr and Pauli and others." –A. W. Joshi, Editor, Physics Education
(The book incidentally criticised Popper.)
(The book incidentally criticised Popper.)
“I found your critical remarks…very good”—Karl Popper.
The book also aroused fierce criticism.
The book also aroused fierce criticism.
In 1999, an entire seminar at Groningen was hijacked into a
debate over my claim of a “paradigm shift” in physics through FDEs.
H. D. Zeh (Professor of physics, Heidelberg) maintained that I was wrong, and that
no paradigm shift was necessary.
Most people at seminar sided with Zeh.
Eventually Zeh’s confusion was resolved
Eventually Zeh’s confusion was resolved
My 2004 article in Foundations of Physics (which Zeh edits) clarified why.
FDEs are needed
and lead to a paradigm shift.
As further underlined by the first solution I obtained of FDEs in a serious physical context (hydrogen atom).
So it seemed that common scientists took 10 years to understand, but light had finally dawned.
So it seemed that common scientists took 10 years to understand, but light had finally dawned.
I also published an account for the layperson in The Eleven Pictures of Time (Sage 2003)
Both books were in the news for reasons that I will go into later.
After all this, a year later…
After all this, a year later…
Sir Michael Atiyah gave the Einstein lecture.
Sir Michael Atiyah gave the Einstein lecture.
On 21 Oct 2005, on the centenary of Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper.
(Atiyah has
two “Nobel” prizes: the Fields medal and the Abel prize, and
is a former President of the Royal Society.)
During this talk Atiyah repeated my 3 claims that:
During this talk Atiyah repeated my 3 claims that:
1. Using FDE leads to
2. a new paradigm for physics, and
3. could explain quantum mechanics.
He added an original fourth claim:
He added an original fourth claim:
“Don’t forget that I suggested it”.
(That was his sole original contribution!)
Atiyah repeated this claim 3 days later at the Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics.
Atiyah repeated this claim 3 days later at the Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics.
The KITP lecture was videocast, like the Einstein lecture.
My son doing PhD in string theory at Harvard watched this lecture, and informed me.
I did not scream “plagiarism”.
I did not scream “plagiarism”.
As I was travelling (in Australia and Singapore)
I asked my son to send details of my work to Atiyah.
He did that on 26 Oct 2005.
Atiyah responded on 28 October.
I had reason for deep suspicion. (Will elaborate later.)
I had reason for deep suspicion. (Will elaborate later.)
But I wrote a polite letter to Atiyah.
Instead of stating my suspicion I relied (implicitly) on professional ethics.
The American Mathematical Society’s (AMS) ethics states:
The American Mathematical Society’s (AMS) ethics states:
“A claim of independence may not be based on ignorance [of past work]”
Why are claims of “independent rediscovery” regarded as unethical?
Why are claims of “independent rediscovery” regarded as unethical?
Because it is so easy to feign ignorance.
And so hard to prove that a person consulted a book in the library.
Given these professional ethics.
Given these professional ethics.
Atiyah should have understood that his claim was unethical.
So he should have apologised.
And Atiyah apologised!
And Atiyah apologised!
BUT
Only for the delay in responding!
The matter could have stopped there.
The matter could have stopped there.
But it did not …
Atiyah’s claim to my ideas was repeated by (G. W. Johnson and M. Walker).
Atiyah’s claim to my ideas was repeated by (G. W. Johnson and M. Walker).
In a prominent article in the Notices of the AMS in June-July 2006.
They called it “Atiyah’s hypothesis”.
Atiyah saw the article before publication (as Walker admitted).
Atiyah saw the article before publication (as Walker admitted).
Atiyah proposed a hypothesis, where no hypothesis was necessary.
(My point: existing physics compels FDE.)
Even a non-expert can understand this mistake:
Atiyah’s audience at KITP included David Gross (Nobel Prize in physics 2004).
The video footage shows Gross vigorously pointing out Atiyah’s mistake,
which Atiyah did not then understand.
(Atiyah now disowns the phrase “Atiyah’s hypothesis” though
(Atiyah now disowns the phrase “Atiyah’s hypothesis” though
he did not object to the catchy phrase when it helped him get huge publicity through the Johnson-Walker article.
And the point is what he did
not who coined the phrase. )
The Notices of the AMS refused to publish my letter.
The Notices of the AMS refused to publish my letter.
AMS has thereby proved that it has two systems of ethics:
One to be stated
And the other to be acted upon.
If I was wrong, AMS should have published my letter and refuted my claim publicly.
A number of academics protested.
A number of academics protested.
As an affected party, the AMS should have given me at least one chance to state my side publicly.
Signatories to the petiton included top Indian academics
M. G. K. Menon, A. N. Mitra, Puspha Bhargava, Ashish Nandy, S. P. Shukla, Sumit Sarkar, Harish Trivedi, G. N. Devy etc.
The petition was just ignored by the AMS.
The petition was just ignored by the AMS.
(Another implicit admission of guilt!)
To keep matters simple, my letter to AMS did not mention the grounds for my initial deep suspicion.
To keep matters simple, my letter to AMS did not mention the grounds for my initial deep suspicion.
My theory of FDEs corrected Einstein’s mistake.
(Einstein and other after him had incorrectly converted FDEs to ODEs)
Einstein claimed to have discovered relativity “independently” claiming ignorance of Poincare’s work published earlier.
Einstein claimed to have discovered relativity “independently” claiming ignorance of Poincare’s work published earlier.
But he made a mistake in understanding the point about FDE notice by Poincare.
My books/papers mentioned this.
That is just to explain the real magnitude of the dispute
That is just to explain the real magnitude of the dispute
And why someone like Atiyah covets credit for the idea.
But also something strange here…
Atiyah’s claim to my ideas came during his Einstein lecture, on the centenary of Einstein’s relativity paper of 1905.
Atiyah’s claim to my ideas came during his Einstein lecture, on the centenary of Einstein’s relativity paper of 1905.
But Atiyah did not mention either Einstein’s mistake or Poincare (or me) in this connection.
Fantastic “coincidence”: The hundred year-old mistake was “accidentally” and “coincidentally” corrected during Atiyah’s Einstein lecture?
There is a simpler and more natural explanation.
My stand on Einstein well known to experts and even laypersons (reported by the press).
My stand on Einstein well known to experts and even laypersons (reported by the press).
natural that Atiyah would have consulted my book while preparing for his Einstein lecture.
(Atiyah certainly knows about the Einstein-Poincare dispute and mentioned it in an interview he gave to the local press that day.)
First “oversight” involves a fantastic coincidence.
First “oversight” involves a fantastic coincidence.
Second “oversight” is totally unacceptable.
Atiyah’s mistake proves copying.
AMS is suppressing the matter, contrary to its stated ethics.
What does this case mean for us?
What does this case mean for us?
My ideas go well beyond Poincare’s.
My ideas go well beyond Poincare’s.
The ideas have been around for a long time.
They have been published and acclaimed in international forums.
But our “experts” did not allocate a single paisa for further research on this idea.
But our “experts” did not allocate a single paisa for further research on this idea.
(Someone working for the Nobel prize committee understood the value of the ideas long ago, and wrote to the UGC to create a special position for me, but even then nothing happened.)
