A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity by Declan Andrew 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.

Dear Declan,

Please review my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001

How can I interpret the length contraction and the increase of mass accompanying time dilation. and how interpreting the faster than light without violation of Lorentz transformation or causality and how it is related with refractive index less than 1, or existing the particle or the electromagnetic wave in a less vacuum energy comparing to the observer located in a higher vacuum energy or potential.

Thank you Declan

I got it and will study it - it is a very nice simulation!

Vladimir

Declan Traill,

Your work is astounding and raises a very interesting theory. I look forward to viewing your future works including a possible solution to proving the theory through experimentation.

Lee Manuele

Hello Declan

I have read your article with interest. You have a very easy to read style of writing which makes difficult concepts accessible

Hope you get more interested readers

Ivy Traill

Hi Declan,

A valuable piece of work. I offer the following summary, if only for my own benefit, though it may be of general interest:

This paper now offers new understandable explanations, notably:

(i) Why the Doppler effect only SEEMS to be different for light, as compared with other waves; (ii) How a WAVE-based interpretation of the particle allows us to DEDUCE General Relativity effects; (iii) Likewise for Special Relativity, with both longitudinal and transverse motion.

Going further: (iv) The asymmetry of the two parts of a standing-wave "particle" (along the radius to a mass) accounts for gravitational attraction toward that mass. -- Etc.

It is interesting to search this paper for cases of "STEPPING OUTSIDE TRADITION" as a means to achieving such creditable accounts. Four which I have noticed are: (a) It breaks the wave-particle-dualism deadlock -- in favour of the waves, but it accepts "particles" as a by-product of wave activity; (b) It dodges that tiresome demand of the 1900s that EXPERIMENTATION was the only legitimate form of testing -- and it depends instead on corroboration between different theoretical accounts. (Experimentation is not as pure as we may think -- whereas internal corroborative "coherence" is vital anyhow*).

(c) It is not afraid to amalgamate apparently-different effects into special cases of the one effect (obvious from the above summary); or conversely

(d) to identify two-or-more different "hidden" SUBCOMPONENTS with different parameters-or-whatever (as with the two components of a standing wave).

Bob

* PS. I like to think I have successfully applied this "(b)" approach in the rather DIFFERENT FIELD of explaining how HUMAN INTELLIGENCE is possible. See http://www.ondwelle.com/MolecularScheme.ppt (2012) plus http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/329/1/012018 (2011) --- with emphases on Psychology & Neurophysiology respectively.

In fact I am now tempted to take that methodology issue ( further consequences for physics) into the fqxi competition myself if I can find the time! Failing that, I might put such physics-orientated material onto my own website as www.ondwelle.com/fqxiComment.pdf -- preferably before October.

Dear Lee,

Thank you for the positive feedback on my essay.

The good thing about theory is one doesn't need the huge resources required to carry out cutting edge physics experiments in order to achieve good results. It would great, however, if mainstream Physics could take up the challenge of investigating some of the areas where my theory differs from the currently held beliefs.

Some of these differences would only become apparent when comparing Time Dilation's between two objects with similar masses that are traveling at a significant percentage of the speed of light, however, so performing the experiments might prove difficult.

Regards,

Declan

Dear Ivy,

Thank you for your comment. I have done my best to make the ideas easily understood by the reader. A certain amount of technical understanding is still required to understand the concepts, however, and this level of complexity cannot really be reduced without losing the content of the ideas that comprise the theory.

Thanks for the support...

Regards,

Declan

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your detailed assessment of my work.

You have identified a number of the key features in the thesis of my theory.

It would be good to see an essay from yourself submitted to this contest (just remember though that the submission closing date is at the end of this month!).

Thanks for your support.

Good luck & best wishes for your work...

Regards,

Declan

Hello,

I was wondering if I could also take a peek at your electron model. It sounds rather fascinating. I come from a primarily computer science background, however reading over your essay I find it understandable and even natural to consider the field densities in light's propagation this way.

Especially glad to see correlations stemming from the base concept which take into account many known principals. Kudos on the good work!

Hi,

Thanks for the interest.

Sure I will attempt to attache the zipped up file of my project (including source code, executable, output images & a copy of one of my papers that shows the mathematical connection between the different fields).

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

That attachment of the whole project didn't work, so I will attempt to upload the main parts - here goes...Attachment #1: electron_model.zip

Dear Declan:

Enjoyed reading your essay and agree with the conclusions of the paper that the photon of light can have a variable speed. This is shown in my paper via Gravity Nullification model. Right before emission, a photon is at rest mass with zero velocity. After emission its speed can vary depending upon the actual velocity V. Only when it attains a speed equal to the speed of light, its mass becomes zero.

I would welcome your comments on my paper - - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".

Best regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Avtar,

Thank you for your post.

The energy that comprises a photon just before emission is one one sense at rest because it is bound up in the particle that is about to emit the photon, but in actual fact the energy that comprises the particle is in constant motion too. The energy whizzes around in a tight loop therefore forming a particle that appears to be at rest.

See my earlier post (including files) for a model of the electron to see this. The image of the power flow shows the electron's energy flowing around the electron's spin axis in closed loops.

Regards,

Declan

The last hundred years has seen surfacing many new theories to explain new observations. In some cases the realm of the validity of old and well established constants had to be reevaluated, like the constant of gravity, G, or in other cases they had to be constantly changed like in the case of the cosmological constant. Since the values of the universal constants are interdependent there is a high probability they will keep changing. Those constants, whose values depend on the environment, may have constant values only under certain physical conditions.

Thank You Declan for your must needed fresh approach to basic problems of phisics

Dear Declan, your thinking helps me a lot

Thanks

Karoly

Dear Karoly,

Thank you for your comments. Indeed it is important that we are able to identify which 'constants' are actually constant and which can change in order to construct our model of the Universe properly.

Regards,

Declan

Dear Karoly,

I'm glad to hear that. It sounds like my attempt to bring clarity to a difficult subject is successful (so say a number of posts here). I just need some good Community ratings of my Essay to get my work into the final so that it will actually be looked at by the judges! Maybe you can help?

Regards,

Declan

Thanks for the comment,

First thing I would say is to point out that the weight of an object on Earth or the Moon is different, yes, but the object's Mass is the essentially the same. The weight is the force imparted on the Mass by the Gravitational field.

As for the Higgs Boson etc: I think the current Standard model is overly concerned about particles, and should be focused more on waves, which are more fundamental (particles are made from waves), and on finding the common features that unify everything into a small set of common principles (as I have done in my Essay). The Higgs field sounds reasonable, and is a very similar concept to an Ether. I think it even has the same units (J/Kg) as the field I talk about in my paper. As for the Higgs Boson - I am not yet convinced that there is an actual particle of this sort, and even less convinced that it can be the cause of every other particle having mass.

From my calculations, the mass of any particle is simply the sum of the energies of the waves that comprise it. This really works! Even Relativistic Mass increase is explained this way (see my Essay). The field in which the particle exists determines (in part) the energies of the waves, and so the field filling space (be it the Higgs Field or the Ether) plays an important part is attributing the mass to objects, but why does it require a particle to do so? A field works much better & is easier to understand.

Regards,

Declan Traill

P.S If you support my work, I need some good Community ratings for my Essay (using Author's code) to give me a chance of being considered in the Finals of this contest. So please give me a good rating & point me to your work so that I can return the favour.