alladi ramakrishnan_the rediff interview

8/12/2019 Alladi Ramakrishnan_The Rediff Interview

1/9

The Rediff Interview/Professor Alladi Ramakrishnan

'Though we have enjoyed fifty years of freedom, our mind is not

yet free. We still have slavery in our heads'

Take a pair of identical twins. Then make one travel faster than the other.After some time a sibling would have grown older. And presto! You haveidentical twins of different ages.

That's what Hendrik Anton Lorentz would have us believe. r at least that's

what the calculations based on the famous phsicist's 'Lorentz

transformation' point at.

"f ou are the lait# take heart# for the 'twin parado$' has baffled even themost reverend of the scientific priesthood. And to top it all it is not the onl

poser. The Lorentz transformation has led to more amazing conclusions like

actions taking place before their causes and particles travelling faster thanlight. Here# the light part becomes stranger when ou consider another

outcome of the Lorentz transformation# Albert %instein's special theor of

relativit. &elativit specificall rules out the possibilit of anthingovertaking light!

onfusion ruled the world of phsics et no one could find a flaw in Lorentz'scalculations. His mathematical view of the universe was absolutel perfect#

whichever wa ou looked at it. That# despite the results continuing to defthe common(sense perspective and sometimes the more thought(out one...

Then last ear Professor Alladi Ramakrishnanfigured out the whole

sheebang.

A )*(ear(old mind had finall answered a +,(ear(old teaser.

&amakrishnan has simpl made the world look at the Lorentz transformationin a different wa. The idea and its three concepts of 'time dilatation'#

'Lorentz contraction' and 'non(simultaneit' still remain as true as the wereand et the mster the had generated over almost a centur has suddenldisappeared.

&amakrishnan is the founder of -AT"%/% in -adras. He has also been

its director. &ecentl# he presented his new work at the 0niversit of Te$as at

1allas# 0nited tates# at the invitation of 2rofessor %rvin 3enves. "t is toappear in theJournal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications,Academic


2/9

2ress "nc# alifornia# in eptember.

&amakrishnan is the son of ir Alladi 4rishnaswam# who was involved in

the creation of the onstitution of "ndia. After following his father's career

for some time# he found that his interest la in the pursuit of scientificresearch.

He was ver elated when Shobha Warriermet him at his ancient# palatial

mansion# surrounded b huge trees and greener# a rarit in -adras. He

patientl e$plained his discover and then entered his stud to drawdiagrams on the blackboard and illustrate everthing he was talking about.

%$cerpts from the conversation5

t's being re!orted that you were introdu"ed to the s!e"ial theory of

relativity by Sir # $ Raman. %ow did you meet him&

When I was a physics student at the Presidency College it was my ambition

to work under ir C ! "aman# My father used to spend his summer $acation

in %angalore and ir C ! "aman used to $isit him there regarding certainlegal matters#

Then my father told ir C ! "aman that I was an&ious to work under him

after the completion of my course# With characteristic frankness he

immediately said 'Ask this boy to read the book of Joos on theoreticalphysics, one of the best books on the sub(ect# )et him tell me which chapter

e&cites him# If nothing e&cites him, he can forget about a scientific career# If

anything e&cites him, I will be able to say what type of research he shoulddo#'

So you read the book&

*es, I read the book#

rom where did you get the book& Was it easily available&

I bought it# It was not easily a$ailable as it was the most important book on

the sub(ect, used mainly in the +nited tates# It was absolutely unfamiliar to

the students in Madras at that time# I was the only one who read it and I wase&cited about the chapter on relati$ity, the )orent transformation# That is,

the chapter on space-time unity#

When was it&

In ./0.# I was .1# After reading the book my dream was to one day


3/9

understand the space-time unity from a fundamental point of $iew#

(id you meet Sir # $ Raman and tell him about the way you got e)"ited

about the *orent+ transformation&

2o# I didn3t go and tell him because once relati$ity interested me, my mindwas drawn towards 4r 6Homi7%habha, the theoretical physicist, and not

"aman, the e&perimentalist# That3s why I (oined 4r %habha#

ou said you wanted to know more about the *orent+ transformation.

(id you "onsult any other s"ientist to "lear your "onfusion&

2o# This is a strange type of confusion# It is like you are operating atypewriter or a computer# *ou can ne$er make a mistake if you follow the

rules# In theoretical physics, if you follow the )orent transformation, you

will ha$e no problems# %ut understanding the process is different#

There are two aspects of understanding# 5ne is, you calculate and come to thecorrect answer# econd is, really understanding# )et me ask you, how many

people really understand what light is6

What e)a"tly is the *orent+ transformation&

If two e$ents are happening at two different points in space at different timeswhat would be the space difference and time difference to an obser$er who is

mo$ing with respect to the first obser$er6

This is the famous )orent transformation# According to 2ewton, the time

difference must be the same because time doesn3t alter when a person mo$es#5nly the space difference alters which is called the 2ewtonian law of the

concept of $elocity and change in positions#

%ut the )orent transformation mi&es both space and time# )orent himself

did not fully understand the significance of his own work# It was 7insteinwho interpreted it later, brought it into limelight and made it the special

theory of relati$ity in ./89#

The three conse:uences of )orent transformation are; 5ne< 3time dilatation3or dilation of time# It means that if a particle, say some entity, is lea$ing itsplace for a certain time, its lifetime is greater# It is the most spectacular

conse:uence of relati$ity# Why does time change because an obser$er is

mo$ing6 Why should the lifetime of a mo$ing particle be much more whenyou consider it stationary6 It is mind-boggling#

Two< contraction of length or 3)orent contraction3# This means that when a


4/9

rod of certain length is mo$ing, it looks contracted# Why should it look

smaller (ust because it is mo$ing6 This is also a conse:uence of relati$ity#

Three< there is this concept that if two 3e$ents3 are happening at the same time

but at different places, and there is a person who is mo$ing and anotherstationary, they look as though they are at different times# =ow can

simultaneous e$ents look as if they are occurring at different times to another

obser$er6 If it is simultaneous, it should be simultaneous to e$eryone# %ut itcomes out as different#

I was e&cited about this space-time unity# The most surprising aspect here is

that people ne$er cared or dared to connect these three concepts# They were

kept as distinct conse:uences of 7instein3s special theory of relati$ity# Theresult was tremendous confusion# %ut it did not affect the growth of physics

at all because physics grows on formulae which are correct#

The confusion was more about understanding the 3e$ents3# This led to

parado&es and confused e&perts as well as laymen# I pursued this problem forso many years because I belie$ed that the )orent transformation is perfect

and should not cause confusion#

What is the "onfusion that arises out of not seeing relations among the

three "onse-uen"es of the *orent+ transformation&

%y treating 3time dilation3 separately, they got into what is called 3twin

parado&3# That is, twins can ha$e different ages if one is mo$ing and the other

is not# It confused people though it did not affect physics#

The second concept also is confusing# And scientist wrote hundreds of paperson whether the contraction is real or illusory#

The third confusion arose when two e$ents which are simultaneous are

separated in time >the time separation can be either positi$e or negati$e?# That

is, there is no distinction between the past and future, and cause and effect#This is what is called non-causality# o, people started thinking of faster-than

light particles, which is absolutely senseless#

(id you feel the same when you first read the book itself&

*es# I knew that the three should be connected, but I did not know how toconnect them#

Why is it that even after / years, no s"ientist "ould "lear the "onfusion&

I will tell you why the confusion arose# That is because the word 3e$ent3 has


5/9

not been defined at all# The great 7instein himself did not define 3e$ent3# =e

(ust said something happens at a particular point in space at a particular time

and that is an 3e$ent3# The 3e$ent3 is defined by the space and time co-ordinateonly# %ut nobody cared to e&plain what the 3e$ent3 was, because

mathematically it is defined by 3@3 and 3time3 co-ordinates#

The )orent transformation e&plains how 3@3 and 3T3 change, so people all

o$er the world thought why you should know what the 3e$ent3 is# It may bethe birth of a particle or the death of a particle, it may be anything# That is the

reason why they did not sol$e the problem#

%ow "ould you solve the !roblem, that too after 01 years&

*es, I will tell you how I sol$ed it# I ha$e been thinking of this problem for

9 years# It was only last year that the solution came to my mind, that too in a

flash# *ou may ask, why did it take 9 years6 The answer is $ery clear#%ecause once you know the solution, you will understand why this has

eluded me till now# ee, it is like ha$ing a bunch of .8,888 keys and all ofthem are almost alike but one of them alone is the correct key# =ow would

you trace it6

ou have to try out all the keys one by one.

ee, it is almost impossible, is it not6 That is why it took 9 years for me# Italso took a lot of time before I had the courage to say that by 3e$ent3 you

always mean the crossing of two points# When one point is mo$ing against

another, the crossing of the points is what is called an 3e$ent3# Any 3e$ent3which you see in the world can ultimately be interpreted as the crossing oftwo points# After /B years, for the first time the word 3e$ent3 has been defined

as the crossing of the points#

2ow, why do points cross6 I added one more idea# That is, e$ery point is theend of a rod# Therefore, the fundamental concept is the crossing of rods rather

than crossing of points# 5nce you start in terms of rods which are crossing,

we understand the changes and all problems are simultaneously sol$ed#

%ow did you "ome to the "on"lusion that !oints are not just !oints alone

but they lie at the ends of rods&

That is because a point is always included in a rod as it is the end point# %ut a

rod concept is not included in a point# A rod is a much better concept because

according to 7instein, a rod shrinks when it mo$es, the shrinking will not bethere if you are only thinking of a point# o, you must think of the rod as a

fundamental :uantity and not a point#


6/9

What I did was, I took two rods, one stationary and the other mo$ing# What I

now say is, the mo$ing rod has the same length as the stationary rod# This is

the newest idea put forward in /B years# 2obody in the history of physics hase$er thought that a mo$ing rod can ha$e the same length as the stationary

rod#

People know that when two rods of e:ual length mo$e, they contract# %ut

what they did not think of was a mo$ing rod has the same length as astationary rod# When such a crossing occurs, the end points are coincident

simultaneously because the lengths are e:ual# %ut if you sit on the mo$ing

rod, that rod will look stationary while the other rod which was originallystationary now looks mo$ing#

When you are sitting inside a stationary train, a train that is stationed

ne)t to you starts moving, but you feel that you are moving. s it

anything like that&

*es, e&actly the same# )ikewise, if you are sitting on a mo$ing rod, thestationary rod looks like a mo$ing one# Then a remarkable thing happens#

This rod which had a particular length when it was stationary now will ha$e a

longer length# o, the mo$ing rod is now longer# The rod which had aparticular length when it was mo$ing now becomes shorter as you are sitting

on the other one# o, there are two changes#

5ut of the two rods which were of e:ual length, one becomes longer and the

other becomes smaller and there is a gap# Therefore, the coincidence is

disturbed# The end points are not coincident simultaneously# The small rodhas to mo$e before it can coincide#

When you calculate the difference in time, it is e&actly what is predicted by

the )orent transformation# The difference in time arises because two rodswhich are originally of e:ual length change their lengths# And the shorter rod

has to mo$e across the longer to coincide# The positi$e and negati$e nature

depends on the direction of motion# o, it also e&plains the positi$e andnegati$e nature of the time difference#

2ow, the sheer absurdity of faster than light does not arise at all because what

is mo$ing is only the end point of the rod# The mistake they made was thatthey took the entire distance and di$ided it by the time taken for (ust crossing#Instead of taking the difference in distance and di$iding it by time, they took

the entire distance and di$ided it by time# It is like a long armed fellow

touching one wall with the left arm and then touching the other side of thewall with his right arm and saying he has mo$ed across from one wall to the

other# It is as simple as the proof of a geometrical theorem#


7/9

Shall ask you about the stationary train& Why do we feel that we are

moving when we are a"tually stationary&

2obody mo$es with respect to himself# o, when you are sitting in the train

which is mo$ing, you measure e$erything with respect to yourself# o, bydefinition, an obser$er does not mo$e# =e is the centre of the uni$erse# When

you go from Madras to %angalore, 7instein would say, you are not going

from Madras to %angalore, but you are where you are and a rod calledMadras to %angalore is slipping under you# This is what happens when you

are in an airplane# After the takeoff, you don3t mo$e# uddenly you are told

that you ha$e landed in 4elhi#

t is -uite "onfusing. %ow do we know what is reality and what is not&

2o, it is not confusing# It is a mathematical reality# It is not an illusion that

you did not mo$e# *ou measure all the distances from yourself# When youstart from Madras, Madras is ero distance from you and when you arri$e in

4elhi, 4elhi is ero distance from you# Mathematically, the obser$er is thepoint of origin and all the distance are measured with respect to the obser$er#

ee the 7arth is mo$ing at a terrible rate but we do not feel the motion

because e$erything is with respect to oursel$es#

2a"k to your new "on"e!t. %ow did the idea to use rods in !la"e of !oints

o""ur to you&

It occurred to me because I was always feeling that the rod was more a

fundamental concept than a point# The point concept doesn3t include a rod,but the rod concept always includes a point# Actually before the birth ofrelati$ity, scientists brought in the concept of 3ether3, a fictitious fluid, and

talked of an ether drag# Instead of calling it space-time unity, they wanted to

gi$e a physical e&planation through ether drag# I can call my theory are$elation#

I must confess this idea should not normally occur to a person at the age of

1# It should occur to a person at the age of B.# %ut I had to put in 9 years of

thought#

Was it very frustrating for you sin"e you "ould not find an answer forsu"h a long time&

*es, in spite of all the work I did, I was disturbed# I thought I must sol$e this

problem in my lifetime# %ut I couldn3t get the solution# 2ow I consider thissolution the most important e$ent in my scientific life, more important than

the directorship of MATCI72C7 for B9 years, more important than the B88

papers I ha$e written# This is the way relati$ity will be taught to all children


8/9


9/9

There the atmosphere stimulates# =ere, if you ha$e originality, you ha$e to

fight against all those who are deeply pre(udiced against original work# A

man who has a new idea goes abroad not for money but for e&citement# Tilltoday, only a Western magaine is willing to publish my work#

Chandrasekhar succeeded in America# %habha succeeded in Cambridge#"amanu(an was disco$ered in 7ngland# The only e&emption is ir C !

"aman, who worked in India alone#

%ow do you think the world will rea"t to your work&

It will react $ery well# I am a practical man# I know it will take time# The

reason it will take time is because people ha$e lost interest in the problems of

)orent transformation# %ecause the whole idea has become stale# It is like acure for an incurable disease# It is also hard to belie$e that the solution is so

simple#

alladi ramakrishnan_the rediff interview

Documents