A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity by Declan Andrew Traill

Dear Declan

I enjoy reading your essay, it is clear and well written. It is surprising to me that you have considered similar ideas as some other participants. You argue that there is an energy field. According to my work, I would conceive your field as some sort of aether and therefore as some sort of preferred system of reference. In my work I argue that no experiment can rule out the possibility of a preferred frame of reference and therefore the aether idea could be maintained. I discuss the variability of the speed of light both in my entry and in my essay. Einstein knew in 1911 that the speed of light was not really constant. The formula that you found for the frequency as function of the gravitational potential is the same formula he found. Some other participants like James Putnam also developed a similar line of thought as yours. I hope you could take a look at our works.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

i'm interested in you essay. Please read my paper which agreed exactly with your essay. http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

I have another paper in faxi. it is http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

I think what you have done is beautiful, and I hope it is true. I am a little confused by the step where you set phi-zero = c^2 to obtain equation (12) and QED. I realize that you then describe the value of c^2 as the field contribution from the whole universe, but I understand the value of phi-zero to represent the intensity of the field at the detector location. I'm so used to seeing c^2 as the constant speed of light, I first thought, oh!, he is using it as variable. But then you set it to GM/R which would seem to be constant. So I'm uncertain as to whether c^2 is assumed constant or variable, and whether it depends on the location of the detector (and the intensity of the field at this location.) Care to elaborate? That's one thing these comment threads are intended for.

Thanks for a fascinating essay and for any further explanation you care to provide.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Declan,

You adopted the same idea of my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

according to my essay I formulated the SRT according to the vacuum energy, and I found the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics.

I discussed the same problem in more comprehensive in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

I could interpret the Lorentz transformation equations by the conscept of the vacuum energy, which is agreed with quantum field theory. I solved all the contradictions regarded quantum and relativity by considering the vacuum energy.

This may be a work of genius, and forgive me for being nit-picky, but I have trouble when you change from using f for frequency and then switch without notice to Greek nu. Is that what you did? Also, it is too hard to read the difference between v and nu. Is that what you did? It is best to use a different script for v, or just stick to using f. Also it is confusing when you talk of classical light (good) and then refer to photons, which are not classical. You can just call light, light here. If you fix and post your essay somewhere in a new pdf for a simpleton like me, I would like very much to study it. I like what you are trying to do and have thought of relativity with similar reasoning as well. Thank you, ER

Declan

So as I understand it, the key proposition is that 'light and matter waves flow through an energy field, at a rate determined by the field's intensity' and therefore that a local speed of light applies. From this you derive several relationships such as the Lorentz.

Whether or not the speed of light is constant might seem a debate long settled, but it continues to be a major feature in many innovative new theoris of physics. Maybe there is something in it after all - time will tell.

Just a question: do you have a mechanism for how that fields' (variable) intensity is generated?

thank you

Dirk

Dear Declan

Congratulations! From your summary I fully understand and accept the premises and conclusions of your research. I still have to read your derivations, but would like to comment in general:

This idea is a re-formulation of the old concept of an 'index of refraction' (Eddington, 1920) in ether background whereby light decelerates and curves because it slows down in dense regions, not because spacetime warps. I have incorporated this in my research, for example my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory and some of its consequences are touched upon in my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . Your work has the merit of systematically developing this very important idea.

Wishing you the best of luck,

Vladimir

Dirk

(I apologies to Declan for answering this question addresed to him)

I have outlined exactly such a mechanism explaining how vacuum density changes occur in my (BU) Beautiful Universe Theory - please see my response to Declan below.

Best wishes.

Vladimir

Thank you for your kind comments.

The section titled "General Relativity Considered" is the only section where Greek nu is used to refer to the frequency rather than f (which I prefer). This is because the reference [6] states it in this form, and is the most common form of the Gravitational Time dilation equation, and I wanted the equation to be instantly recognizable to the reader who is familiar with the equation; sorry if there is some confusion here. However, I did stick to using the same symbol throughout the section & didn't change halfway through, which would really have been confusing.

Light can be both a classical wave AND a photon if one considers a photon to be a wave packet: that is, a localized group of classical wave-crests forming a particle-like packet (wave/particle duality).

I'm not sure I can make the paper much simpler without losing the detail of its content, but I am happy to help you understand any sections you are having difficulty understanding.

Dear Israel,

Thank you, I am glad you found my essay easy to read.

I think it is a good sign if people can independently arrive at the same basic conclusions about the nature of the Universe, in the same way that it is important for different experimenters to be able to generate the same results when repeating each others experiments. If there is one reality, then one would expect all theories of nature to eventually converge towards it.

The first version of my work dates back to 1998, and the updated version of it (reference [2] in my essay) shows that not only is an ether type theory possible, it is the *only* possible theory that can work given the known facts.

It is easy to illustrate that space is filled with an energy field, as it is known that every particle has a probability function (that extends into space) that defines the probability of finding that particle at a particular location. As particles are comprised of energy, then there is a certain proportion of every particle in the Universe located in the space that surrounds each of those particles.

The suggestion I am making is that each particle is a waveform that extends to infinity (with ever diminishing amplitude), and that the Gravitational Potential of a particle at a point in space is a measure of the amount of the particle's energy that resides at that location in space. Then the interaction of this ubiquitous energy on the central concentration of energy that defines each particle is what causes the strange effect of Relativity.

I have read your essay abstract & it looks to be entirely relevant and consistent with my work at first reading. I have not had time to read your full essay yet, but will en-devour to when I can find the more time.

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Azzam,

Thanks for showing interest in my essay.

I had a quick look at your paper - I will try to find time to look at it again sometime soon.

One thing I would say though, is that although nothing can travel faster than the *local* speed of light (as determined by the energy field density in space), the local speed of light can be different when comparing two regions of space, due to the differing energy field density in space at each location.

So when making an observation of one region of space from a different region of space, it can appear that something is traveling faster (or slower) than the speed of light. It is just that the speed of light (accompanied by the rate of time) is either faster or slower in that region of space.

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Edwin,

Thank you, I'm glad you can see the beauty in the way all the equations form a consistent and coherent whole.

The speed of light is c, rather than c^2. The c^2 is most often seen in the equation E=mc^2. My latest research into particle structure suggests that particles are 'pumped up' states of the background energy field: Thus a particle with mass 'm' has 'm' times more energy than the background field that contributes the c^2 to the calculation.

In deriving equation (12), the initial proposal was that light's speed is determined by the Gravitational Potential level. As the Gravitational Time Dilation equation is also known, the proposal can work if the value of phi-zero is allowed to be c^2. Further research revealed that this value of c^2 makes sense due to the Gravitational Potential level of the whole Universe (distant stars/galaxies) is GM/R which is roughly c^2.

Further to this, it may be that any observer will always observe the background energy field to have a phi-zero value of c^2 (in the same way that an observer always *measures* the speed of light to be 'c') due to the fundamental changes to the rate of time & size of objects that accompanies a change in the field intensity.

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Dirk,

The reason why light's speed is still not settled is that an observer always *measures* light's speed to be constant in his/her frame of reference; but in order for the theory to make sense in the bigger picture, both light's speed and the rate of time must alter at the same time (and for the same underlying reason). This explains the apparent constancy of the speed of light.

As for the source of the field's intensity, it is simply the sum of the waveforms of all of the particles in the Universe. Each particle is a three dimensional standing energy wave that extends to infinity whose amplitude diminishes with distance from the particle's centre. When one adds together billions of these waveforms we get the Universe's Gravitational Potential field. The gradient of this field is what determines the gravitational acceleration at any point in the Universe.

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks you for your assessment of my essay. I'm glad you understand it's meaning & purpose!

I was not aware of Eddington in 1920, I will investigate this lead later.

I had a quick scan through your paper: nice diagrams. I think you might be interested in my 3D model of an electron on the WSM Newsgroup Files section (you need to join the group to access the Files section), but I can send you images from my model if you like. I derive all of the Electron's fields (i.e. Electric, Magnetic, Electric Potential, Vector Potential etc) from a single Hertzian Vector field whose amplitude diminishes with ln (natural log) and whose equation satisfies both Shrodinger's equation and the standard wave equation.

Regards,

Declan Traill

ear Declan,

You adopted the same idea of my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

according to my essay I formulated the SRT according to the vacuum energy, and I found the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics.

I discussed the same problem in more comprehensive in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

I could interpret the Lorentz transformation equations by the conscept of the vacuum energy, which is agreed with quantum field theory. I solved all the contradictions regarded quantum and relativity by considering the vacuum energy.

Dear Declan

Eddington briefly touches on the refractive index idea in his book Space Time and Gravitation but I do not know if he explored it more fully. A century earlier Thomas Young essentially presented a very similar idea in regard to diffraction at an edge.

I am very interested in your Hertzian Vector field derivations - sounds like the mathematical rules my model is in search for! I would be happy if you send me the electron model image you mentioned. My email is in my fqxi paper, thanks. You may be interested in Norman Cook's fqxi paper, which has nice 3D simulations of his nuclear structure theory.

Best wishes for your job, family and physics.

Vladimir

Dear Azzam,

Thanks for re-posting your comment. I was intending to reply, but ran out of time the other day and have been busy & just found some more time to post this reply.

I have read some sections of your paper and agree with the approach regarding lights speed being determined by vacuum energy density. This has been in my online papers since 1998. However, the analogy of refractive index increasing inside a moving train is not quite correct, as the travel times of light in the upstream and downstream direction are different (due to the vacuum energy flowing through the train's reference frame). If the refractive index increased in the train, then these two travel times (upstream & downstream) would both be slower, but would be equal. If this were the case there would be no length contraction or mass increase accompanying the Time Dilation.

The flow of the vacuum energy through the train's reference frame has the effect of vacuum energy *appearing* to be of higher density and thus cause Time dilation. A higher Gravitational Potential level (on the surface of a large planet, for example) would be an *actual* increase in vacuum energy density & hence refractive index & thus also causes Time Dilation even if there is no flow of the vacuum energy through the reference frame.

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Vladimir,

Ok, thanks again. I will send you my Electron model images & even the Delphi code if you like... Check you email soon...

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Declan,

My research regarded to the unified relativity theory with quantum theory was done in 1996 as my graduation research in Applied Science university, in Amman Jordan.

In my theory, there is no length contraction as mentioned by Einstein, (the of the moving frame is contracted in the direction of the velocity). I adopted the Robertson's postulate in his paper "H. P. Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 378 (1949)" the speed of light is independent on the direction of transmitting the light compared to the direction of the velocity of the moving frame. Robertson postulated that in order to interpret the negative result of the Michelson-Moreley experiment. If you review carefully my theory, you will see how faster than light interpretation according to my theory without violation with Lorentz transformation or causality, and my solution is agreed with the latest experimental result in quantum theory and quantum gravity. In my theory there is length contraction and mass increase accompanying the Time Dilation, but my interpretation is different the Einstein and agreed with what resulted by the latest quantum experiments.