Physics Discussion Thread

[mukkan]

@Amber G,
From the below results and papers, does LK-99 look promising or something new?

First independent measurement of zero resistance in LK-99

A team of scientists from the Physics Department of Southeast University, a top university in Nanjing, China, have reported measuring 0 resistance in a sample of LK-99 they synthesized from scratch.

Here is the video:
- They measure 0 resistance at 110K (-163C) using the four-point probe method. 0 resistance at this high of a temperature at ambient pressure is a new discovery in materials science
- They also claim a transition in and out of zero resistance state depending on a strongly applied magnetic field - a classic characteristic of superconductivity.
- The sample they synthesized is reported to have much higher purity than the original Korean team of LKK
- They note an interesting and abrupt drop in resistance, by several orders of magnitude, between ~300 and 220K (approx values from the graph). This is currently unexplained, but is in rough agreement with LKK - i.e., LKK may have been measuring this higher-temperature 'drop' which was two orders of magnitude.
- They retain the claim that this is not absolute conclusive proof of superconductivity, but it is suggestive of very interesting electronic properties in this material.

The preprint is now available online at https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01192


https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686805961124855810

In 2 days there are have been 4 studies that help explain LK-99's potential superconducting abilities.

These simulations converge on key properties that suggest a new class of SC materials, and help explain quirks of TK-99 we've seen so far.

Here is the easy-to-digest summary so far:
(Reminder: still no experimental replication yet!!)
All studies converged on the fact that LK-99 has interesting electronic properties, formed by these 'flat energy bands' that can enable superconductivity through several different mechanisms.

- This effect relies on copper replacing lead atoms in the crystal, but it has to replace very specific lead atoms for the bands to appear, meaning it may be hard to synthesize with high purity (paper 1)

- The conduction pathways in the material may be one-dimensional, meaning they aren't equal in all directions, and this could be why it doesn't act as a perfect magnetic levitator but rather a semi-levitator. Also, other metals like gold could make LK-99 perform even better (paper 2)

- TK-99 appears to be much more robust to disorder, or randomness in the crystal, while retaining its superconducting properties. And, it appears the overlap of copper and oxygen electron orbitals might explain why this occurs at ambient pressures (paper 3)

- The most dramatic result of all is by the most distinguished author: the appearance of diamagnetism without superconductivity seems unlikely (paper 4).

Here is the technical deep-dive to back it up:
Note: I include highest h-indexes of authors, which is like a 'science high score'
h=20: 'successful scientist', e.g. full professor
h=40: 'outstanding scientist', e.g. fellowship in APS
h=60: 'truly exceptional scientist', e.g. national academy

1st Paper - Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Sinead Griffith (h-index 20)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892

2nd Paper - Shenyang National Laboratory
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16040
Lai, Li, et al, and Xing-Qiu Chen (h-index: 47)

3rd Paper - University of Colorado, Boulder
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00698
Kurleto et al, Daniel S Dessau (h-index: 49)

4th Paper - Northwest U and TU Wien
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00676
Liang Si and Karsten Held (h-index: 67)


https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686688495577018368?

Replication attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Rep ... n_attempts

For latest updates https://twitter.com/Andercot

[mukkan]

New supporting theory of superconductivity of the LK-99 superconductor has been proposed by Indian physicist Ganapathy Baskaran
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01307
Broad Band Mott Localization is all you need for Hot Superconductivity: Atom Mott Insulator Theory for Cu-Pb Apatite
G. Baskaran
A hypothetical non-dimerized Cu chain in equilibrium is a spin-\half atom Mott insulator (AMI), eventhough its band width is high ~ 10 eV. This RVB reservoir has a large exchange coupling J ~ 2 eV. This idea of, \textit{broad band Mott localization} was used by us in our earlier works, including prediction of high Tc superconductivity in doped graphene, silicene and a theory for hot superconductivity reported in Ag-Au nanostructures (TP 2008). In the present work we identify possible random AMI subsystems in Cu-Pb Apatite and develop a model for reported hot superconductivity (LKK 2023). In apatite structure, network of interstitial columnar spaces run parallel to c-axis and ab-plane. They accomodate excess copper, as neutral Cu atom clusters, chains and planar segments. They are our emergent AMI's. Electron transfer from AMI's to insulating host, generates strong local superconducting correlation, via phyics of doped Mott insulator. Josephson coupling between doped AMI's, establishes hot superconductivity. A major Challenge to superconducting order in real material is competing insulating phases - valence bond solid (spin-Peirels)-lattice distortions etc. AMI theory points to ways of making the \textit{elusive superconductivity} palpable. We recommend exploration of hot superconductivity in the rich world of minerals and insulators, via metal atom inclusion.

[mukkan]

Hyun-Tak Kim has given a new interview to a korean outlet here:

https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20230803057400017
English translation

(Seoul = Yonhap News) Correspondent Seunghan Cho = Research professor Kim Hyun-tak at William and Mary University in the U.S., who participated in the development research of the new material 'LK-99', which became a hot topic for claiming to show superconductivity even at room temperature, said on the 3rd, "LK-99 is a superconducting phenomenon. There is no other explanation,” he said.

Professor Kim argued in an email interview with Yonhap News that day, "When I look at the data, I think the verification has already been completed."

In 2005, Professor Kim, who worked at Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) until last year, first experimentally demonstrated the 'Metal-Insulator Transition' (MIT) phenomenon, in which insulators become conductors and conductors become insulators without structural change, which had only existed in theory. He is a scientist noted for his observations.

In 2021, in order to explain the superconductivity phenomenon at room temperature, he proposed a theory to explain the phenomenon in which the critical temperature at which material superconductivity occurs varies depending on specific temperature and pressure conditions, and was published in the international journal 'Scientific Report'.

Professor Kim argued that the superconductivity phenomenon was correct after looking at the paper data published by the Quantum Energy Research Institute in the Korean Journal of Crystal Growth in April, claiming that the research overlapped with his own research area.

Professor Kim said, "If you express the metal-insulator transition differently, it is called 'insulator or superconducting (Gap)'-metal (Nogap) transition." An insulator-to-metal transition occurs, followed by a metal-to-superconducting transition."

He was not listed as an author in the previous paper, but was listed as an author in a paper published by the Quantum Energy Research Institute on the 22nd of last month on the 'Archive', a pre-disclosure site for thesis.The archive is a platform where anyone can post papers that have not yet undergone academic verification, such as peer review.

He argued that the diamagnetic data of LK-99 in this paper is much larger than that of graphite (graphite) and that "it cannot be explained unless it is explained by superconductivity."

Professor Kim said that he believes that verification has been completed, but that the situation in which domestic and foreign groups are studying materials is meaningful.

Professor Kim said, “I think it will go as it is if left alone, and I am working very hard to study foreign groups,” and said that he is conducting research on new materials instead of verification studies on this material.

At the same time, he emphasized that he plans to present related contents at the American Physical Society to be held next year.

Previously, researchers at the Quantum Energy Research Institute, including Professor Kim, published a paper claiming that LK-99 exhibits superconductivity under conditions of room temperature and atmospheric pressure.

In response, researchers from around the world began to verify the material, and the Korean Society of Superconducting Low Temperatures, the representative academic organization in the field of superconductivity in Korea, is also conducting reproduction research.

The Superconducting and Low Temperature Society stated that this material cannot be called a room temperature superconductor based on the data published in the paper so far, and that the verification committee will cross-verify it if the Quantum Energy Research Institute provides a sample.The Society for Superconductivity and Low-temperature Society is an organization that was integrated in 2019 by the Korean Society for Superconductivity and the Korean Society for Superconductivity and Low-temperature Engineering, with about 300 active members.

shjo@yna.co.kr
Report via KakaoTalk okjebo

[Amber G.]

Again - for LK99 - from physicist's point of view - check out any serious source .. this U of Maryland's CMTC's thread for example: (For most of physicists like me will agree, IMO)
https://twitter.com/condensed_the/statu ... 05248?s=20

relevant questions are: does it superconduct and does it do so at 300K? These questions have not been addressed ...

For such flat band systems, packaged LDA type calculations are of limited utility, but knowing the LDA band structure is again a small, but necessary, step in understanding the physics. Flat bands DO NOT imply SC, flat bands often lead to magnetic instabilities
..
None of the posted theoretical papers does any SC calculations (e.g. estimating el-ph coupling and the BCS T_c), so these papers say nothing about SC properties of LK-99, let alone SC at room temperature
....
We have seen nothing to change our original prognosis. One of the original papers (with 6 authors) got reposted in a revised form, but the changes seem minimal, and the paper still remains obscure and unconvincing (but not necessarily incorrect). We must wait for outside SC data..

[mukkan]

Again - for LK99 - from physicist's point of view - check out any serious source .. this U of Maryland's CMTC's thread for example: (For most of physicists like me will agree, IMO)
https://twitter.com/condensed_the/statu ... 05248?s=20

Hyun-Tak Kim has provided the New York Times with a new video showing the levitating LK-99 sample. It is different sample than one shown in the original video in the paper.

New York Times article showing the new video: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/scie ... bient.html
Rumors of official announcement by Koren team tomorrow.

CMTC expects clarity by this Monday!!!!
https://twitter.com/condensed_the/statu ... 1462071297

Another lab trying to replicate https://twitter.com/CondMatfyz/status/1 ... 4690168840

[sanman]

Hyun-Tak Kim has provided the New York Times with a new video showing the levitating LK-99 sample. It is different sample than one shown in the original video in the paper.

New York Times article showing the new video: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/scie ... bient.html
Rumors of official announcement by Koren team tomorrow.

This other video still doesn't show levitation, as occurs with superconductive Meissner effect.
All we again see here, is something standing/wobbling on its edge. Even ordinary iron filings will stand on edge in a magnetic field.
This looks like ordinary diamagnetism.
Also, the chart they showed depicting "zero resistance" has an abnormally large scale for resistance values, which would make even ordinary metal conductors look close to zero. That itself should raise alarm bells.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof -- and this isn't it.

[mukkan]

Highlighting some from the first post

Hyun-Tak Kim has given a new interview to a korean outlet here:

https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20230803057400017
English translation

(S

He argued that the diamagnetic data of LK-99 in this paper is much larger than that of graphite (graphite) and that "it cannot be explained unless it is explained by superconductivity."


shjo@yna.co.kr
Report via KakaoTalk okjebo

New interview

Q. Why doesn't LK-99 completely levitate in the video?

(Prof. Kim) : Well it should, but it didn't fully levitate. You see its one dimensional, that is to say if I draw it on a plane it's a line. If that one dimension becomes a metal, then what's the stuff surrounding it? Its non-metal. So when you measure it the two show up together, so we can't make a very homogenous sample. That's why it's at an angle, that is my view. So I'm sure if we develop this tech more we can get it to levitate more, but I don't think it will get as good as 2 dimension or 3 dimensional superconductors. That said, surely, we can mechanically shave away at the 1 dimensional line and cut only that part out, right? If so then we can use that. That's what I think needs more technological research. So that's the direction that I think a lot of development should be done. We're just at the beginning, surely?

SEIZE interviews Hyun-Tak Kim
SEIZE is a Korean science YouTuber. English translation first and then Korean transcript. Transcription by Seo Sanghyeon and translation by Kang Seonghoon.
https://hackmd.io/@sanxiyn/seize-interview
Q: Why didn’t you publish a proper paper on this important research?

HTK: I would originally publish a paper to the academic journal, go through the review process and would post the [preprint] right before that, but in this case we had some reason to hurry up. So we posted the paper to both the journal and to [arXiv] simultaneously. We had no other choice.

Q: There are two same papers posted to arXiv, why?

HTK: One of them has not been approved by authors, one had. The paper with more authors [Ed: arXiv 2307.12037] did receive approvals from all authors and went through the normal process, while one with less authors [Ed: arXiv 2307.12008] didn’t go through such process and would be considered unjust [Ed: possibly interpreted as academic dishonesty but also just mere disapproval].

Q: The Korean Society of Superconductivity and Cyrogenics (KSSC) requested a sample for the verification.

HTK: They indeed requested a sample, our research team agreed to help the research with Korean physicists. But verification thereafter? That’s another matter.

Q: There had been a criticism that the zero resistance was never demonstrated.

HTK: In the metal, discontinuity towards a lower resistance is said to be a [significance] of superconductivity. We think it is clear without an additional measurement, because whether the resistance is zero or not—the zero resistance would look like a noise. The research team has published a Korean paper [Ed: DOI 10.6111/JKCGCT.2023.33.2.061], which was the first ever publication and shown a graph with that kind of noise. You are supposed to look at that paper. There was a controversy on whether the superconductivity indeed exhibits the zero resistance a century ago, which has been a continuing point of tension since then. But [we’ve already shown] the jump and zero resistance via actual measurements in the first paper [Ed: in Korean], so we didn’t feel to include them in the second paper [Ed: the first one in arXiv]. There has been enormous requests for samples all around the world, and we have no time to spare, let alone showing what we already know again.

Q: Why did LK-99 in the released video partially float?

HTK: [The Meissner effect is supposed to be] completely floating, not partially. Let’s talk about one dimension; you can draw a single line to a plane, likewise if we have one-dimensional metal, then neighboring [materials] would be non-metal. The measurement would measure both and we were yet to produce a very homogeneous sample, which is a reason for the slanted look I believe. The further technological development would allow an increased angle of slant, but it would never float perfectly like today’s two-dimensional and three-dimensional superconductors. We are still able to cut and take the one dimensional section and make [things] out of it, which needs a further technological development. This is only the starting point, isn’t it?

Q-center interview

https://twitter.com/R9TqYzz3Gta1Tcd/sta ... 3155457024
A researcher at Q-centre stated in an interview that if LK-99 is a good sample, its diamagnetic effect is as much as 5,450 times that of graphite.

For a bad sample, it reaches 23 times, and they stated that there is no way to explain it unless it is a superconductor.

Q-centre stated in an interview that they plan to disclose the media release schedule and other details for LK-99 by the end of this month.

Furthermore, they also announced that they are preparing for a presentation at the American Physics Society scheduled for next March.
Today, Q-centre announced that they are in the process of upgrading LK-99.

Furthermore, since they have disclosed the manufacturing method, they stated that research teams worldwide will be able to catch up within a month.
Q-centre disclosed in the interview that their paper on superconductor LK-99 is currently undergoing peer review.

The paper is estimated to be published in the international academic journal, API Materials, approximately 2 to 4 weeks from now.
https://twitter.com/R9TqYzz3Gta1Tcd

Varda Lab update

First American team to successfully make and demonstrate. They have sent the samples to USC for more detailed analysis.
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/statu ... 5604734978

Another one

Another lab close to completion https://twitter.com/CondMatfyz/status/1 ... 0969325568

[mukkan]

The attached tweet shows a video of what would be the world’s first fully levitating LK-99 superconductor sample.
https://twitter.com/floates0x/status/16 ... 2133779456

Either this is a very well-done fake, or we really did just enter the era of room temperature superconductors. What is seen here (stable levitation above a dipole magnet) can *only* be a result of flux pinning. If the sample was a previously known low temp SC that had been chilled—at this tiny size—it would quickly warm and quench. Also, no sign of condensation in the air.

https://twitter.com/A_J_Higgins/status/ ... 7441916929

Claim video of LK99 released in China. Unknown. However, I tried to find out who (presumed) posted the video. Xiang Zhang Obtained master's degree from Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Department of Metal Engineering. Currently working as an assistant engineer in the Department of Materials, participated in many projects of the National Natural Science Foundation and Wuhan City. He is carrying out a corporate cooperative project and has a history of publishing numerous papers in domestic and international journals and academic conferences. following his doctoral course. Currently, there is unconfirmed information that he plans to publish a related paper after posting this video.
https://twitter.com/tenichi08/status/16 ... 3140252672

Currently, claims are emerging in South Korea that China seems to have succeeded in finding hidden know-how and processes in the published recipes.

Day after day, the Chinese media is praising LK99. In fact, the reaction is hotter in China than in South Korea. The fact that the government-run media of the Chinese government, which has criticized South Korea in the past, is also referring to the friendship between South Korea and China, and the fact that it is itself a friend, is attracting interest in the reason and background in South Korea.

Previously, LK99 was a case in which a person who left the company due to an internal conflict among Korean researchers published a draft paper without permission and was made known to the world. The problem is that the paper also contains recipes. The original plan was to release it to the public after verification at the Korea Institute of Technology. It was expected to be announced at least six months later. Now, LK99 was unintentionally released to the world.

And the person who left the company (Kwon Young-wan) is said to be a person who knows only a part of the manufacturing method. Professor Kim Hyung-tak, one of the researchers, recently said in an interview with the media that “the core know-how has not been exposed.”

However, yesterday, an unidentified LK99 video was released in China. There are voices of concern from the Korean net community.
https://twitter.com/tenichi08/status/16 ... 6933347328

[sanman]

[nandakumar]

https://youtu.be/mbfqYhvQg6k
A newspaper podcast that does serious stuff. I am no expert. I am posting it for what it is worth.

[sanman]

[mukkan]

Seoul Economic Daily did a phone interview on the 7th with an official from the Quantum Energy Research Institute

https://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/29TBDDJJPG
English google translation

An official from the Quantum Energy Research Institute said in a phone call with the Seoul Economic Daily on the 7th, “We do not share joy with (external) opinions saying that it was reproduced through experiments or that it was not.” The development team is in a position that it is difficult to trust because the samples produced by external institutions and laboratories for the reproduction of LK-99 have not been verified. The official continued, "Since there are many opinions coming out from the academic world, we will collect them and make an official announcement at the end of this month or early next month." Some observe that the Quantum Energy Research Institute will officially announce the results of the thesis review of the international academic journal 'APL Materials', which is currently undergoing the registration process, at the end of this month at the comprehensive announcement.

While opinions are divided over the claim to develop normal-temperature and normal-pressure superconductors, a skeptical view prevails in the academic world. This is because a number of domestic and foreign researchers have tried to verify LK-99 and are expressing opinions that the material may not be a superconductor. This is because samples were made according to the manufacturing method suggested by the Quantum Energy Research Institute and properties related to superconductors, such as electrical resistance and the Meissner effect (the property of a superconductor to float on a magnet), were measured, but significant results could not be confirmed.




출처 : https://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/29TBDDJJPG

[Amber G.]

Mukkanji, Request to cut down on too many posts on LK99 - especially large fonts and bolding part while nothing new (scientifically speaking) is to report (May be give the links and quote only important part - not people's speculations)

Bottom line is: as of this posting:

No one in the scientific community has validated the superconductivity of LK-99 at any temperature through peer-reviewed processes or independent replication by other research groups.
(See the NYTimes article you posted - BTW thanks for that article - it is quite balanced)

Seriously if someone thinks or says that "there is no way to explain it unless it is a superconductor" does not mean much especially from someone who, by their sloppy writing proves that they do not even understand the basic physics. (No reason to repeat and bold it in large fonts). Even the most basic things like observing phase transition, Tc, zero resistance (The measured resistance may be low but is is still 100x time good conductors) and *much more* than any classical superconductors. Even if they rewrite the paper multiple times, same sloppiness is same sloppiness.
(Levitation etc is NOT Superconductivity - one can demonstrate those video with ordinary non-superconductors .. or even without such things as many magicians do in their show levitating even people.

Let us wait for dust to settle, if anything worthwhile we will know. As I said, my personal opinion is - best case, they are just ignorant of basic physics - worse, it is a fraud. But we will see.

Of course, I could be wrong but we will see, won't we.
Thanks,

[mukkan]

Thanks Amber Ji for your feedback. I am also not optimistic but cautiously curious. I was trying to get the insider academic chat from folks like you which may be different from the outside stated academic opinions. I was sharing these articles to see what BRF members think of a different POV than from the academic opinion of completely dismissing it as some kind of fraud. Maybe they are dismissing it because of many past frauds including the most recent one by an Indian researcher in the US. But it's hard to believe that Hyun-Tak Kim with decades of experience will commit fraud or make silly mistakes. Even if it is not a superconductor, I am curious if it is some new discovery with many applications.
Anyway we will know all the details when they publish in APL journal next month.

Another interesting takeaway for me is how much Chinese researchers and even general public are hungry for finding the next big science discovery. Many labs were working over weekend and nights to replicate this.

one last twitter thread from an academic posted an hour back...detailed analysis of LK-99
https://twitter.com/TDebant/status/1688675638146727936

Clearly that's a big "if". But the academic world seems to have moved on from questioning LK-99's compliance with superconductor standards to taking action to make it work.

(I was bolding some sentences as many don't have time to read long articles and so they can just read the bold parts. Sorry about that, not meant anything else)

[Amber G.]

Endorse this 100%..

..we now believe that the game is over. LK99 is NOT a superconductor, not even at room temperatures (or at very low temperatures). It is a very highly resistive poor quality material. Period. No point in fighting with the truth. Data have spoken.

This is from CMTC, U of Maryland a prestigious center for condensed matter physics. But as I said No one I know (with *any* reputation in physics) will disagree with that now.. The LK99 'papers' (Pre-prints) are/were very sloppy - almost a joke..( yes, they had multiple pre-prints on contradicting other and each one equally worse.)

NPL (One of the prestigious lab in India) has this to say: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03544 (Unlike LK99, this is a well written pre-print!) ... same story with other labs/scientists from Japan, US (who published the data) who try to duplicate the results.. NPL data shows, far from becoming superconductor, the resistivity is thousands of time worse than ordinary copper!! (Read it I gave a link above)... Same/Similar point being made by say ICQM and NTU (a very reputable institute).

BTW is Diamagnetism (or levitation) presented in videos etc are important? NO...Cu, P used in LK99 are diamagnetic (everyone in physics knows that.. )

Added: Also, as any physicist will tell you flatbands should lead to magnetic instability, not SuperConductivity .. (this has now been confirmed explicitly for LK99 by this Princeton work ( Princeton authors are reputable - known in physics), no SC .. FM in LK90 (Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ekD2KV ... GUFb5/view



Unfortunately such hoaxes are not uncommon...And mny ddm's make a big story out of it..the general thinking in people who do have a little back ground was this tweet from U of Maryland scientist:

There are three logical possibilities: (1) Discovery of room-temp SC; (2) alternate physical explanation; (3) complete fake. We roots for 1. Bayesian analysis suggests 2. We are not cynical enough to insist on 3 because it would be so colossally dumb to make a lying video

My last on this (unless someone has a question )

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile: There is a paper in Nature ..... another earlier claim of near-ambient SC in LuHN (totally different classes of materials) is irreproducible and false.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06162-w

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile:
Fermilab's Muon g-2 experiment has achieved the world's most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon!
Muon g-2 doubles down with latest measurement, explores uncharted territory in search of new physics

The new value for gminus2 from the Muon g-2 experiment strengthens their 2021 result and sets up a showdown between theory and experiment 20 years in the making!

[sanman]

[Amber G.]

After years spent languishing in obscurity, proposals for a muon collider are regaining momentum

Proposals for a muon collider are regaining momentum among particle physicists

[bala]

This based on another thread's content and has India's contribution to basic physics.

Brit Newton usurped Sage Kanaada Vaisesika Sutra laws and Kerala school of calculus. Newtonian physics never defined a proper clock; therefore it was impossible for the experiment to have measured the speed of light!

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Nyaya-Vaiseshika Sutra of Kanada (कणाद) Muni (Maharishi Kashyapa is also known as Kanada Muni) has concepts of matter, action, attribute, time and space which are described in 373 Sutras and is composed of 12 chapters.

Kashyapa was the patron Maharishi of Kashmir and the Caspian sea area “Kashyapa Mir” was “lake of the sage Kashyapa”.

The entire Universe is composed of the 5 Mahabhuttas and the 4 non physicals: that is Fluid, Atomic elements, fields/force, energy, ether and space, time, mind and atma. Except ether, all of the physical elements are made of discreet and distinct paramanus or atoms. Space-time is a frame in which the physical universe exists. There are seven categories of experience, which are substance, quality, activity, generality, particularity, inherence, and nonexistence. Energy and mass are equivalent.

The Vaiśeṣika categories are for space-time-matter and for attributes related to perception by sentient agents. Kaṇāda starts with six categories (padārthas) that are nameable and knowable, proposing they are sufficient to describe everything in the universe from concrete matter to the abstract atom. The six categories are: dravya (substance), guṇa (quality), karma (motion), sāmānya (universal), viśeṣa (particularity), and samavāya (inherence).

There are nine classes of substances, some of which are non-atomic, some atomic, and others all-pervasive. The non-atomic ground is provided by the three substances of ether (ākāśa), space (dik), and time (kāla), which are unitary and indestructible; a further four, earth (pṛthvī), water (āpas), fire (tejas), and air (vāyu) are atomic composed of indivisible, and indestructible atoms (aṇu); self or consciousness (ātman), which is the eighth, is omnipresent and eternal; and, lastly, the ninth, is the mind (manas), which has atomic dimensions. It is significant that consciousness is listed before mind, suggesting that it is the medium through which mind’s apprehensions are received.

The atom Anu, Kanada wrote that there are 108 such elements. Sage Kashyapa (Acharya Kanada) said, that it is NOT the atom which holds the power, but the space in between the parts of the atom, called Akasha.

Kanada provides certain propositions:
कर्मं कर्मसाध्यं न विद्यते॥१।१।११॥ From motion, [new] motion is not known.
कारणाभावात्कार्याभावः ॥१।२।१॥ In the absence of cause there is an absence of effect [motion].
सामान्यं विशेष इति बुद्ध्यपेक्षम् ॥१।२।३॥ Existence is uncaused and eternal (nitya).

Kaṇāda’s Laws of Motion:
वेगः निमित्तविशेषात कर्मणो जायते | Every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
वेगः निमित्तापेक्षात कर्मणो जायते नियतदिक क्रियाप्रबन्धहेतु | In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma
वेगः संयोगविशेषविरोधी | That if two objects A and B collide in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision
वेगः संयोगविशेषविरोधी |Whether leaf falls on thorn or thorn falls on leaf effect is same

संयोगाभावे गुरुत्वात् पतनम् ॥५।१।७॥ In the absence of conjunction, gravity [causes objects to] fall.
नोदनविशेषाभावान्नोर्ध्वं न तिर्य्यग्गमनम् ॥५।१।८॥ In the absence of a force, there is no upward motion, sideward motion or motion in general.
नोदनादाद्यमिषोः कर्म तत्कर्मकारिताच्च संस्कारादुत्तरं तथोत्तरमुत्तरञच् ॥५।१।१७॥
The initial pressure [on the bow] leads to the arrow’s motion; from that motion is momentum, from which is the motion that follows and the next and so on similarly.
कार्य्यविरोधि कर्म ॥१।१।१४॥ Action (kārya) is opposed by reaction (karman).

[bala]

I also want to point out that Einstein did not contribute anything new towards our understanding of Physics.

In early 1900s Einstein (a clerk in patent office) used Poincare's work on relativity and David Hilbert on general relativity. It was Poincaré 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. Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the Annalen der Physik, for E=MC^2 in which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in Sept 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences. The math equation and relationship of mass /energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship is expressed by the equation E=MC^2. Maxwell died in 1879 AD.

ECG Sudarshan contributed to two Nobel prize winning ideas but both of them were usurped by others.

[sanman]

[Amber G.]

For fun - Guess which famous physicist is in this picture

This is Max Born (and hid wife)

[sanman]

Here's a good explanation/overview on Quantum Computing, which could help AI:

[Amber G.]

Eight Years ago, I posted in BRF a breaking news about GW150914 - The Gravitational Wave -- (ahead of most news papers in India)

I said then, it was a BIG News... Many Nobel Prizes, and others honors were awarded. India is spending Billions of dollars in LIGO-India Project.

(Unfortunately by shameless trolling by the ususal characters the thread was trashed, dozens of messages were deleted but maby messages still exist .. Here is one old one ..

^^^ Okay more on above:
- European Southern Observatory is billing as an "unprecedented discovery".
- The two organizations will be joined 70 other observatories ( with simultaneous briefings in multiple places).
IMO The scale of the announcement certainly suggests it is something big. (Bigger than their winning the Nobel this year)
NSF Statement:

The gathering will begin with an overview of new findings from LIGO, Virgo and partners that span the globe, followed by details from telescopes that work with the LIGO and Virgo collaborations to study extreme events in the cosmos,

”

For US people - the conference is due to take place at The National Press Club in Washington, on Monday 16 October at 8AM EST. One can watch it live on the National Science Foundation(https://www.nsf.gov/) or European Southern Observatory website.

Meanwhile today in Nature.com: Interesting article http://www.nature.com/news/global-netwo ... es-1.22828

Happy 8th birthday to the one that started it all GW150914! After Einstein predicted the existence of GravitationalWaves, it took 100 years to detect the first. Now we detect a gravitational-wave event about once every 3 days!

[Amber G.]

Some comments on scientists mentioned here and their work.. from a mainstream physicist:

I also want to point out that Einstein did not contribute anything new towards our understanding of Physics.
<snip>
Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the Annalen der Physik, .... of Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship is expressed by the equation E=MC^2. Maxwell died in 1879 AD.

ECG Sudarshan contributed to two Nobel prize winning ideas but both of them were usurped by others.

Australian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl's work on blackbody radiation contributed to the development of quantum mechanics and was an early precursor to Albert Einstein's groundbreaking work on the photoelectric effect and special relativity, but by any account .. Einstein's contributions ultimately had a more profound and transformative impact on the field of physics.


Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell made pioneering contributions to the theory of electromagnetism, (We still teach his equations on every course in EM - *classical* Electrodynamics* but Albert Einstein's work, particularly the theory of relativity, introduced entirely new paradigms in physics, making it significantly more transformative

E.C. George Sudarshan, an Indian-American physicist, made significant contributions to the field of quantum mechanics and particle physics. His work on the theory of quantum optics and Sudarshan P-representation played a pivotal role in understanding the quantum nature of light.

Prof Sudarshan was a guru of mine, also a close family friend (of 40-50 years)-- Have attended his lecturers, quite familiar with his work.
I have posted *many* posts about him: here are some samples


One of his most notable achievements was the formulation of the Sudarshan representation, which revolutionized the description of quantum states of light. ( Roy J. Glauber Nobel Prize in Physics in 2005 mistakenly awarded on this work, as I have said in dozens of posts in brf is embarrassment to Nobel committee.

Sudarshan also made important contributions to the theory of neutrinos and was involved in the development of the V-A theory of weak interactions, a cornerstone of the electroweak theory. His pioneering research has had a lasting impact on the fields of quantum optics, particle physics, and quantum information theory, though he himself did not receive a Nobel Prize for his work. (Feynman and others worked on this independently and got credit winning the Nobel for this work do give him a full credit.) Unfortunately, EGC Sudarshan was an young physicist in U or R when he presented the work in a scientific meeting -- due to negligence of his then adviser - the paper did not get published right away -- others got to publish the result earlier than him)

----
Einstein's work - in *many* fields - Brownian Motion, Photoelectric effect (for which he got a Nobel) in addition to special and General Theory of Relativity. I studied Special Theory of Relativity like many in my graduate course at IIT. For the general theory of Relativity -which requires much better math background - I learned from Prof CN Yang (a Noble Laureate who was also Einstein's student.
Interestingly Prof CN Yang's is turning 101 ( See my post <here>

[bala]

Some comments on scientists mentioned here and their work.. from a mainstream physicist:

Amber G thanks for taking time to respond, I value your feedback and I know you have better physics knowledge than I have. Don't want to brag: but i was undergrad at IIT and stumped my own physics lecturer with an equation he wrote on the board. He acknowledged the error and i passed with a straight A.

Australian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl's work on blackbody radiation contributed to the development of quantum mechanics and was an early precursor to Albert Einstein's groundbreaking work on the photoelectric effect and special relativity, but by any account .. Einstein's contributions ultimately had a more profound and transformative impact on the field of physics.


Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell made pioneering contributions to the theory of electromagnetism, (We still teach his equations on every course in EM - *classical* Electrodynamics* but Albert Einstein's work, particularly the theory of relativity, introduced entirely new paradigms in physics, making it significantly more transformative

I know you have acquaintance with the great Prof CK Raju (see http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein.html). He clearly spells out that Henri Poincaré had developed the theory of relativity by 1904. This was before Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity.

Einstein was not good at Math and he made many errors which were corrected by others. He even contracted out Univ of Calcutta to do his math. http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein_mistake ... ersons.pdf

E.C. George Sudarshan, an Indian-American physicist, made significant contributions to the field of quantum mechanics and particle physics. His work on the theory of quantum optics and Sudarshan P-representation played a pivotal role in understanding the quantum nature of light.

One of his most notable achievements was the formulation of the Sudarshan representation, which revolutionized the description of quantum states of light. ( Roy J. Glauber Nobel Prize in Physics in 2005 mistakenly awarded on this work, as I have said in dozens of posts in brf is embarrassment to Nobel committee.

This is pure stealing of intellectual property. Glauber should have refused the Nobel prize if he had any iota of correctness within him. ECG Sudarshan, born in christian background switched to Vedanta (all great physicists do) and I admire his boldness. He later mentioned the p-representation is found in the Vedas.

Sudarshan began working on quantum optics at the University of Rochester in 1960. Two years later, Glauber criticized the use of classical electromagnetic theory in explaining optical fields, which surprised Sudarshan because he believed the theory provided accurate explanations. Sudarshan subsequently wrote a paper expressing his ideas and sent a preprint to Glauber. Glauber informed Sudarshan of similar results and asked to be acknowledged in the latter’s paper, while criticizing Sudarshan in his own paper. “Glauber criticized Sudarshan’s representation, but his own was unable to generate any of the typical quantum optics phenomena, hence he introduces what he calls a P-representation, which was Sudarshan’s representation by another name,” wrote a physicist.

The correct formulation of the quantum mechanical treatment of optics was carried out by Sudarshan in his paper in 1963 in which he showed that every state can be represented in the diagonal form. This diagonal representation is valid for all fields. This basic theory underlies all optical fields. All the quantum features are brought out in his diagonal representation.

Sudarshan himself said, “Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow and Abdus Salam (Ahmadiya Pakistani) built on work I had done as a 26-year-old student. If you give a prize for a building, shouldn’t the fellow who built the first floor be given the prize before those who built the second floor?”

In 1957, Robert Marshak and Sudarshan proposed a V−A (vector minus axial vector or left-handed) Lagrangian for weak interactions. In this theory, the weak interaction acts only on left-handed particles (and right-handed antiparticles). Since the mirror reflection of a left-handed particle is right-handed, this explains the maximal violation of parity. Interestingly, the V−A theory was developed before the discovery of the Z boson, so it did not include the right-handed fields that enter in the neutral current interaction. The quantum Zeno effect is a name coined by George Sudarshan of the University of Texas in 1977 in their analysis of the situation in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. Marshak and Sudarshan, were able to complete and submit their ground-breaking paper, “The Naure of The Four-Fermion Interaction,” of which Sudarshan (then a mere graduate student) was the first-named author.

Rodger M Walser says, “Sudarshan’s and Bob Marshak’s formulation of the V-A theory for the weak nuclear interactions was erroneously assigned to Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann”, even though the entire scientific community knew that ECG was the first contributor! The Sudarshan-Marshak (or V-A theory) was assessed, preferably and favorably, as "beautiful" by J. Robert Oppenheimer, result at the 1957 Rochester conference on weak interactions. Sudarshan outlined his results to Murray Gell-Mann who teamed up with Richard Feynman to write a paper in the Physical Review the following year which assumed that V-A theory was right, immorally leaving out Sudarshan’s name. A paper under the authorship of Sudarshan and Marshak appeared in a later issue of the journal the same year. Both Marshak and Sudarshan were guilty of complacency, the former for presuming that the report he presented at the Padua-Venice conference in 1957 and the Rochester preprint ensured priority.
// such deception followed by the Nobel Prize committee.

[Amber G.]

Some comments on scientists mentioned here and their work.. from a mainstream physicist:

Amber G thanks for taking time to respond, ..
<snip>

"You are welcome, and thanks for the interest. Few quick points and some background:

I have made many posts about Sudarshan's work on BRF. It may be worthwhile to read them. (Just do a search). Also, his work and life are not unknown—lots have been written by reputable people from reputable universities. I recommend reading those. Of course, a lot of trash, half-truths, etc., have also been written by many.

I am very familiar with the people involved, not only as a physicist but as an observer who has seen this crowd in other environments. (I had an opportunity to attend the University of Rochester in the early '60s as an undergraduate student—very rare in those days for an Indian student. My parents did not think it was a good idea then (I was quite young). I came to the US in the late '60s, though, and knew the physics faculty extremely well—Marshak, Wolf, Mehta were still there... (EGC Sudarshan was also in upstate New York).... Of course, I am familiar with their work too.

Glauber, as I have said before, even then, none of us liked him as a person, but other faculty members were very good. (Feynman by then had moved to the West Coast, but in the early '50s, he would quite often come to U of R and give seminars, etc.) Feynman and Sudarshan's relationship was great... (We all thought Feynman was great—nobody doubts that he worked on the idea independently around the same time—a little bit later, but his results were published earlier. He was not aware of Sudarshan's work then...

Anyway, much has been written about this. (Old articles in Indian newspapers from Prof. Mehta, etc., Sudarshan's own writing, etc.).

I know you have acquaintance with the great Prof. CK Raju (see http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein.html). He clearly spells out that Henri Poincaré had developed the theory of relativity by 1904. This was before Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity.

Einstein was not good at Math, and he made many errors which were corrected by others. He even contracted out the University of Calcutta to do his math. [URL]http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein_mistake ... ersons.pdf

Never personally met "Prof. CK Raju," but have seen his writing. Sorry, but honestly, if you ask me, the man is a complete fraud, boasts about things which he has no idea, and some of his writing is absolute trash. He has his followers, I know, but then there are many 'experts' who have become popular.

About Einstein, there is some popular misunderstanding that 'he was not good at math' or 'his grades were poor'... even from some other writers. NOT correct at all... Here is:
Einstein’s 1896 graduation certificate from his school in Aarau, Switzerland. Contrary to mistaken popular belief (based on the opposite grades in the German and Swiss systems), he always received the highest or next to highest marks in mathematics and physics.



(Sorry for the long post... hope some find it useful)"

[bala]

Amber G I have gone through your writings on the topics I have brought forth. You are in synch with many things I stated about ECG Sudarshan. This man deserved two Nobel Prizes in his career and both of them were denied. There is inherent racism in the decisions made and the Nobel Org needs to correct it to become credible in the eyes of the world. Until then I dismiss the awards given to undeserving folks who simply leeched on to others. Glauber is the academic snake/chutiya who needs to be made an example of. Richard Feynman I like. I read his 3 lecture books given at Caltech (procured by my dad, who is a gold medal winner in university physics) as my way to prepare for JEE. However great Feynman was I have huge doubts that he worked on the idea independently around the same time, when ECG Sudarshan came up with it first. See Vedanta has a way to ignite minds with new ideas, which non of the Western oriented books can.

On Albert Einstein: he is another golden boy thrust on the world scene for things he never created. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... ty_dispute . Poincare, David Hilbert, Lorentz and others have contributed much much more. Even the Bose-Einstein condensate is mainly S. N. Bose. I have visited Princeton Univ and seen the places where Einstein's offices were. Very pretty campus.

Tis my last on this topic.

[Amber G.]

Amber G I have gone through your writings on the topics I have brought forth. You are in synch with many things I stated about ECG Sudarshan. This man deserved two Nobel Prizes in his career and both of them were denied. There is inherent racism in the decisions made and the Nobel Org needs to correct it to become credible in the eyes of the world. Until then I dismiss the awards given to undeserving folks who simply leeched on to others. Glauber is the academic snake/chutiya who needs to be made an example of. Richard Feynman I like. I read his 3 lecture books given at Caltech (procured by my dad, who is a gold medal winner in university physics) as my way to prepare for JEE. However great Feynman was I have huge doubts that he worked on the idea independently around the same time, when ECG Sudarshan came up with it first. See Vedanta has a way to ignite minds with new ideas, which non of the Western oriented books can.

On Albert Einstein: he is another golden boy thrust on the world scene for things he never created. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... ty_dispute . Poincare, David Hilbert, Lorentz and others have contributed much much more. Even the Bose-Einstein condensate is mainly S. N. Bose. I have visited Princeton Univ and seen the places where Einstein's offices were. Very pretty campus.

Tis my last on this topic.

Balaji - Thanks. Few points/comments:
Nobel Org has made many mistakes/errors etc. They have not recognizing many greats etc but what sets out Glauber's case particularly bad, as many pointed out that they *mistakenly* awarded Glauber for Sudarshan's work. (As Sudarshan, who was extremely modest, himself said , "they (Nobel Org) have right to "honor whoever they want, but they do not have right to award somebody else for my work" . Many of us physicists (including some well known and world renowned ones) wrote - to at-least correct the record (about the work) which is provably wrong -- all papers were published and they had no excuse for being ignorant).

- I too bought Feynman's lectures more than 50 years ago.. Although I had a prestigious scholorship, I did not chose to go to Caltech for grad work. I have visited it many times, and continue to visit it. - (Some of my classmates from IITK did go there - as it was one of the institute in KIAP which supported IITK in late 60's), I have also listened to his lectures in person...have talked to him even about my work in physics ... knew him quite well. His lectures - all on film then - were routinely played in my physics classes, when I was teaching physics. BTW, all his lectures, including *all* the actual class-room lectures videos - are now available on line on Caltech's site. It is really a treasure trove for all physics world.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

About Einstein - honestly in all these years, I *never* heard anything less that utmost admiration from *all* who knew anything about physics or mathematics. (CK Raju types are exceptions) I have visited Princeton - never met him, but Feynman, Dyson, and some of my profs were his student -- and of course I like everyone interested in serious physics learned about his work. About SN Bose's work, It was Einstein who brought out his work to the eyes of the world and gave him the credit. ( Bose sent his paper -which due to bigotry in those days were rejected from western journals - to Einstein, who forwarded the same and was published.. Einstein took no credit for that work and insisted that Bose gets full credit.). His math and physics were simply best I have seen .. his theories still being confirmed with experiments even after 100 years.

[Amber G.]

Balaji and others - if interested in V-A theory - or history of Sudarshan / Marshak / Feynman / Gellmann story .. Much has been written, all have talked about it ... but here is a good piece - from Feynman's himself:
(Highly recommend SYJ best seller book from Feynman - this is from that famous book)

Enjoy: (My comments are in "{}")

.... proton coupling: it was kind of messy.

The next day, when I went back to the meeting, a very kind man named Ken Case, who
was going to give a paper on something, gave me five minutes of his allotted time to present my
idea. I said I was convinced that everything was coupled to the left, and that the signs for the
electron and muon are reversed, but I was struggling with the neutron. Later the experimenters
asked me some questions about my predictions, and then I went to Brazil for the summer.

When I came back to the United States, I wanted to know what the situation was with beta
decay. I went to Professor Wu's laboratory at Columbia, and she wasn't there, spinning to the left
in the beta decay, came out on the right in some cases. Nothing fit anything. When I got back to
Caltech, I asked some of the experimenters what the situation was with beta decay. I remember
three guys, Hans Jensen, Aaldert Wapstra, and Felix Boehm, sitting me down on a little stool,
and starting to tell me all these facts: experimental results from other parts of the country, and
their own experimental results. Since I knew those guys, and how careful they were, I paid more
attention to their results than to the others. Their results, alone, were not so inconsistent; it was
all the others plus theirs.

Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, "The situation is so mixed up that even
some of the things they've established for years are being questioned - such as the beta decay of
the neutron is S and T. It's so messed up. Murray { Gellman who also won Nobel} says it might even be V and A."

I jump up from the stool and say, "Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!"

They thought I was joking. But the thing that I had trouble with at the Rochester meeting {Where Sudarsahn was then } -
the neutron and proton disintegration: everything fit but that, and if it was V and A instead of S
and T, that would fit too. Therefore I had the whole theory!

That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was
the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if
this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That's pretty close,
9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough.

I went on and checked some other things, which fit, and new things fit, new things fit, and
I was very excited. It was the first time, and the only time, in my career that I knew a law of
nature that nobody else knew. (Of course it wasn't true, but finding out later that at least Murray
Gell-Mann - and also Sudarshan and Marshak - had worked out the same theory didn't spoil my
fun.)

The other things I had done before were to take somebody else's theory and improve the
method of calculating, or take an equation, such as the Schrödinger Equation, to explain a
phenomenon, such as heliumWe know the equation, and we know the phenomenon, but how
does it work?

I thought about Dirac, who had his equation for a while - a new equation which told how
an electron behaved - and I had this new equation for beta decay, which wasn't as vital as the
Dirac Equation, but it was good. It's the only time I ever discovered a new law.

I called up my sister in New York to thank her for getting me to sit down and work through
that paper by Lee and Yang { Yang was my professor - He won Nobel in 1957 } at the Rochester Conference. After feeling uncomfortable and
behind, now I was in; I had made a discovery, just from what she suggested. I was able to enter
physics again, so to speak, and I wanted to thank her for that. I told her that everything fit,
except for the 9 percent.

... The results fit, (instead of 9% -- less than 1% etc)...

[bala]

AmberG there is no need for ji. Your extensive knowledge on the physics fraternity, I do not have and I yield to you. However, I will stick to my conclusion and simultaneously I accept your take based on that extensive knowledge. Thanks for your follow up, which is very educative.

[Amber G.]

Happened to look at the links (eg http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein.html) given above about CK Raju.. Sorry but have to say, one of the worst nonsense/trash I ever saw in the name of pseudo science.

(Suggest : If anyone is interested in science / relativity - check out good books written by good scientists - plenty for non-experts by authors like Feynman, Gamow, Landau just to name a few. Feynman has "Five easy pieces", Gamow's "One Two Three Infinity", or Landau's "What is theory of Relativity) - Not to mention all good schools like Caltech, MIT, IITs have open courseware where anyone can attend these type of lectures on their own pace)

Meanwhile: A well deserving award and recognization:
xpost .
Hearty congrats for this well-deserved honor. He has spanned the entire spectrum from theoretical and numerical work in Computational Fluid Dynamics, to commercializing his ideas - A rare combination.

Congrats! Prof. @SAnsumali @jncasr on receiving INAE@serbonline Abdul Kalam Technology Innovation National #fellowship. This is in recognition of his outstanding contributions in Comp. Phys, HP computing, kinetic theory & in the growth of the engineering profession in the country

[bala]

I want to dwell on some famous things attributable to Einstein, which it turns out is not true.

The idea that speed of light is a constant and is independent of the motion of its source was proposed first by James Maxwell in 1878 AD. James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Einstein had read Poincare's work on relativity up to 1902. It is on record that Einstein said that it kept him and his friend Maurice Solovine "breathless with excitement for weeks".

Samuel Tolver Preston in his book "Physics of the Ether (1875)" claimed that if matter is subdivided into ether particles, they would travel at the speed of light and represent an enormous amount of energy.

Olinto DePretto used the expression mv^2 for the "vis viva" and the energy stored within matter, where he identified v with the speed of light. According to Italian mathematician Umberto Bartocci, his formula precedes by two years, and is in agreement with Albert Einstein's later formula E=mc^2 for mass–energy equivalence. According to Bartocci, Einstein may have learned of DePretto's work through his Swiss-Italian friend Michele Besso.

George Francis FitzGerald is known for his work in electromagnetic theory and for the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction, which became an integral part of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity. A crater on the far side of the Moon is named after him. The Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction (or FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction) hypothesis became an essential part of the Special Theory of Relativity, as Albert Einstein published it in 1905.

Dutchman Hendrik Antoon Lorentz paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"(1905) contains a lot of Einstein claimed work. Einstein feigned complete ignorance of Lorentz's work which derived the transformation equations subsequently used by Albert Einstein to describe space and time. All throughout the 1890’s, both Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein’s Special Theory detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-Fitz Gerald Contraction.

Time Dilation from Srimad-Bhagavatam 9.3.28-32:
There is a story of a king named Kakudmi, who was able to travel to the world of Brahma and experience Brahma’s scale of time. Taking his own daughter, Revati, Kakudmi went to Lord Brahma in Brahmaloka, which is transcendental to the three modes of material nature, and inquired about a husband for her. When Kakudmi arrived there, Lord Brahma was engaged in hearing musical performances by the Gandharvas and had not a moment to talk with him. Therefore Kakudmi waited, and at the end of the musical performances he offered his obeisances to Lord Brahma and thus submitted his long-standing desire. After hearing his words, Lord Brahma, who is most powerful, laughed loudly and said to Kakudmi, "O King, all those whom you may have decided within the core of your heart to accept as your son-in-law have passed away in the course of time. Twenty-seven catur-yugas have already passed. Those upon whom you may have decided are now gone, and so are their sons, grandsons, and other descendants. You cannot even hear about their names."

[Amber G.]

^^^Few points:
As someone who taught Maxwell''s Equations to literally hundreds of college physics students over decades - all classical physics courses over the last century or so teaches this - (and also it's relationship with relativity etc), I must say in words of Pauli -- all these points are, "not even wrong'" (makes no sense)

My guru once said:

लभेत सिकतासु तैलमपि यत्नत: पीडयन्, पिबेच्च मृगतृष्णिकासु सलिलं पिपासार्दित:|
कदाचिदपि पर्यटन् शशविषाणमासादयेत्न, तु प्रतिनिविष्टमूर्खजनचित्तमाराधयेत्॥

Let me end this by one of the learning I learned to be scientist/mathematician' Aryabhatta said:

अधिकार्यन्यायं निष्प्रमाणम्। यथा यूपस्तु न गृहः, तथा लेखनीनामपि नायम् अर्थः

For those whose sanskrit is lttle rusty, rough translation is:
-

Mere quoting - even from an authority does not prove anything . Just as a pile of wood is not a house, so also mere collection of mumbojumbo writing (collection of impressive sounding words) is NOT science.

"

[bala]

Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the Annalen der Physik, E=MC^2 in which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in Sept 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.

That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both Joseph John Thomson and by Walter Kaufmann. The experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann and Hasenorhl confirmed Maxwell’s work. There are many other scientists whose works were usurped by Einstein and failed to mention - Woldemar Voigt, August Föppl, Joseph Larmor, Emil Cohn, Max von Laue, Gilbert Newton Lewis, Richard Chase Tolman, Gauss, Riemann, William Kingdon Clifford, Ricci, Levi-Civita, Paul Gerbe.

Poincaré and Alfred Bucherer had the relativity principle. Lorentz and Larmor had most of the Lorentz transformations, Poincaré had them all. Larmor and Cohn alluded to the dilation of time. Poincaré's 1902 book Science and hypothesis included the following topics:

- detailed philosophical assessments on the relativity of space, time, and simultaneity
- discussion of the reliance on conventions regarding the use of light signals for the synchronization of clocks
- the definition of the principle of relativity and the conjecture that a violation of that principle can never be detected empirically
- the possible redundancy of the ether hypothesis
- detailed remarks on the physical status of non-Euclidean geometry

Math teacher Hermann Minkowski, Einstein's teacher, had reformulated special theory of relativity (STR) in terms of a four-dimensional space-time manifold. The equations of general relativity were by David Hilbert.

[hgupta]

Yes but it was Einstein who was able to put it all together and make sense of it. No one else before him has done that.

[sudarshan]

Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the Annalen der Physik, E=MC^2 in which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in Sept 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.

This is not making any sense. You're saying the Annalen der Physik allowed Einstein to publish work plagiarized from the Annalen der Physik?

Einstein did not create the math needed to develop the theory of relativity, it was all developed before him. I don't think he ever claimed credit for coming up with length contraction or time dilation or mass dilation equations (special relativity). Or tensor math (general relativity) for that matter.

Just like any other scientist, he built on the works of others. And it is not possible to cite every single work from which one's work is derived. One just cites the latest work, which then cites earlier work, and so on. Otherwise manuscript bibliographies, by themselves, would stretch to dozens or hundreds of pages.

By the time Einstein got on the scene, there were already two conflicting views of what was "absolute" and what was "relative" in physics. One was the Newtonian view of space-time as absolute, the other was the Maxwellian view - that the laws of physics would have to be perceived the same way by any observer in any inertial frame (my wording may not be exact here). Einstein simply sided with Maxwell, discarding the Newtonian view of space-time as being absolute. That was special relativity.

As for general relativity, Einstein's big insight, was the notion that accelerated motion is indistinguishable from gravity. He expressed this in the form of a tensor equation. AFAIK, neither did he develop tensor math, nor did he claim to have done so.

The stories from the Bhagavatam, etc. that you cite - those may in some sense be regarded as *qualitative* expressions of relativity. There is no *quantitative* development there. That quantitative development came from Einstein. And that is not to say that he developed the mathematical tools for that quantitative development - just that he was able to use tools developed by others to put his theory together.

P.S.: Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for his theory of relativity. He got it for his work on the photoelectric effect.

[bala]

This is not making any sense. You're saying the Annalen der Physik allowed Einstein to publish work plagiarized from the Annalen der Physik?

Please see these articles, I am not making this shit up.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ent-e-mc2/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103931.htm
https://physicsworld.com/a/did-einstein-discover-e-mc2/
Rothman told physicsworld.com that he had run across Hasenöhrl’s name a number of times but with no real explanation as to what he did. “One of my old professors, E C G Sudarshan, once remarked that he gave Hasenöhrl credit for mass–energy equivalence.
Similar conclusions here
https://allthatsinteresting.com/famous-inventors/4

As for Friedrich Hasenöhrl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hasen%C3%B6hrl

During 1900s the media went full blast in propping up Einstein worldwide.

P.S.: Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for his theory of relativity. He got it for his work on the photoelectric effect.

Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. Another UNJUST award in 1922 Nobel Prize. WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK DESERVE THE CREDIT. The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon. Radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta - the principles and equations governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was original.

[sudarshan]

This is not making any sense. You're saying the Annalen der Physik allowed Einstein to publish work plagiarized from the Annalen der Physik?

Please see these articles, I am not making this shit up.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ent-e-mc2/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103931.htm
https://physicsworld.com/a/did-einstein-discover-e-mc2/
Rothman told physicsworld.com that he had run across Hasenöhrl’s name a number of times but with no real explanation as to what he did. “One of my old professors, E C G Sudarshan, once remarked that he gave Hasenöhrl credit for mass–energy equivalence.
Similar conclusions here
https://allthatsinteresting.com/famous-inventors/4

As for Friedrich Hasenöhrl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hasen%C3%B6hrl

During 1900s the media went full blast in propping up Einstein worldwide.

I read the first three articles. All of them say that Hasenoehrl came up with an equivalence between mass and energy, but that the proportionality constant was incorrect. They all say that Hasenoehrl made some errors in his analysis.

The articles say that Einstein did not prove his (correct) equivalence relation, and that he wasn't even trying to prove it. Einstein later wrote more papers to try and make up for this shortcoming.

It was acceptable in those times not to cite every previous work. Einstein came up with his equivalence relation in a somewhat different way from his predecessors, and also had the right proportionality relation. His work was original in that sense. Replicating somebody else's work is acceptable as an innovation, if the replication happens in a novel way and provides new insight into the problem. On top of that, fixing an error in the previous work - that certainly has value, and is certainly worthy of publication.

None of the articles show any evidence of plagiarism on Einstein's part. It is valid for E C G Sudarshan to give credit to Hasenoehrl for the mass-energy equivalence. That does not take away from the fact that Einstein developed that equivalence from a different perspective, and fixed an obvious error in that original equivalence. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I haven't read the other stuff on the photoelectric effect, I'll do so when I get the time (although I suspect it would be on similar lines to the above).