Hi Peter,
I referenced Judy N's article because I can follow it, while I have a hard time following your own presentation. I'm afraid that, like Tejinder Singh, I learned things in a particular way that automatically filters concepts for the most general facts. Your net is apparently made of finer mesh.
Anyway, as I said, I managed to isolate four statements that I feel competent to comment on. The first was:
"It is predicted that the Fine-structure constant effectively increases with acceleration in this way to conserve input energy in accordance with the Law of Conservation of energy. The model proposes that 'c' is constant within these quantum clouds and considers the far reaching consequences."
I replied: In this at least, I am sure that we are talking about the same thing. You can find it discussed in much the same terms in both my "time barrier" and "time counts" papers linked earlier. The idea that the universe conserves energy by accelerating, I reduced to the statement: "Volume preserving is energy conserving." What I mean, is that the limit of universal acceleration (predicted numerically at 0.86c) requires the back-action of negative mass-energy to account for the equivalence of gravity and acceleration; this limit is the approximate speed at which a massive object is contracted by about 1/2 in the direction of travel, by the Lorentz formula and special relativity.
Consider that because bow shock in one direction is negative pressure in the opposing direction -- positive acceleration in the direction of the bow shock is negative acceleration in the other direction.
I've isolated three other statements from the article that apparently agree with my own conclusions. Let's see how this one does first. Tom"
You replied in part: "I see the links with your work, but not with the 0.86c and time (redshift z = 0.8) since deceleration became acceleration. However, I do agree acelleration 'in the other direction', and indeed identify a fully fledged physical (small scale) model of it in AGN (ion) jets. The 'balancing' jet may correlate with the other half of each re-ionized body having a predominance of anti matter."
The acceleration parameter I propose assumes a normalized c = 1 (remember, I hypothesize a cosmic binding energy). Therefore, the percentage of c (~ 86%) that limits acceleration at the horizon is equivalent to maximum redshift, normalized to unity. Negative acceleration in the other direction is just a way of saying that inertial symmetry applies (equivalence principle) while an absolute acceleration limit of 1c would imply infinite acceleration.
In relativity theory, massless photons are emitted (born) at the speed of light and if not absorbed by electrons are slowed at varying rates in their travel through massive media, as you note. The absolute speed of light independent of mass is still c. Most often not taught, however, is that for relativity theory to work, it must be symmetric with faster-than-light particles, called tachyons -- which are also massless and born at the speed of light but can never slow down. Even though tachyons are not observable, even in principle, they define a horizon sharply demarcating action in one direction from the other (equal and opposite), thus preserving the laws of motion.
So when you talk about relativity paradoxes (and I realize many do, even when no paradox exists) I think you reach the right conclusions though relativity theory is itself adequate to explain them. E.g., "If there really is such a concept as 'Proper Time' (an emitted time period measured from the same state of motion as the emitter or propagating medium), then there must also be an 'improper time'."
Right. Relativity accounts for this, however -- in the symmetry between photons and tachyons. Relative motion does not violate Newton's laws; rather, it extends them. Proper time can only ever be measured relative to the limit of c; Newton's absolute time is replaced by an absolute speed limit to physical communication.
You write: "Using this (improper) time we then get APPARENT speed, which is different to PROPAGATION velocity. When actually ARRIVING AT a detector, the interaction itself modulates the speed to the local propagation speed c. That itself gives CSL FOR ALL OBSERVERS EVERYWHERE. i.e. the 'apparent speed' of an approaching rocket may be ANY speed subject to the speed of the observer, but it's real speed cannot be found without interaction, which changes the speed (to max c) which = CSL."
True. The physical laws are the same for all observers anywhere, and all observer frames of reference are valid. Because there is no privileged frame, "all physics is local." Physical influences cannot communicate nonlocally.
Here, though, is the meat that you bury in too much fat: "Relativity derived from the quanta (atomic scattering), with no paradoxes. Ether as such is NOT required but space is NOT empty of quanta, just diffuse. So a local 3rd frame CAN and DOES always exist, but a LOCAL background, not the single absolute background AE had to ban."
Einstein in fact -- like Descartes -- never accepted the idea of "empty space." This is expressed in the statement: "No space is empty of the field." The quantized field is not compatible with a continuous field theory, and that's why we have quantum field theory and its string theory extension. Einstein did not do away with the ether; the quantum vacuum plays the same essential role of a propagating medium.
Now, if you can bring yourself to settle down (!) instead of scattering your own energies (and I mean this in the kindest way) -- the deep issue of "deriving relativity from the quanta" is *the* issue of unifying physics. I noticed George Ellis commented on it in your forum, as well.
My own approach to that question is to derive quanta from relativity. (However, these approaches are dual to each other in the same way as the integral and differential calculus are dual.)
The idea you advance -- that one might show light speed in "quantum clouds" as relativistic without assuming unitarity -- is an excellent idea, I think. It's plausible that classical-analog light effects in the quantum domain may be tractable to experiment that eliminates the boundary between quantum and classical domains. This would complement other efforts (Joy Christian, et al) to derive classical results from quantum phenomena in a locally real framework.
Go for it!
Tom
