Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Terry Bollinger: on 2/20/18 at 20:17pm UTC, wrote Declan, Ah... really? The FQXi software let me follow the old reference...

Terry Bollinger: on 2/20/18 at 19:20pm UTC, wrote [NOTE: I inadvertently placed my assessment of your essay under your...

Concerned Public: on 10/6/12 at 8:40am UTC, wrote Sergey G Fedosin is bombing entrants' boards with the same "why your...

Viraj Fernando: on 10/5/12 at 14:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Decan Traill: You wrote: “It is interesting that two different...

Geoffrey Haselhurst: on 10/4/12 at 22:08pm UTC, wrote Sorry, it is refraction (not diffraction, above) that causes light to curve...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 7:34am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Pentcho Valev: on 10/3/12 at 14:22pm UTC, wrote Declan, Your "Doppler-shift equation for normal waves (6)" and...

Geoffrey Haselhurst: on 10/3/12 at 9:10am UTC, wrote Two clarifications. i) By constant frequency I am referring to the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity by Declan Andrew Traill [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

By inverting a key assumption of Relativity Theory, one can understand its predicted odd effects of time dilation, length contraction and mass increase in terms of Classical Physics. The belief that must be suspended is that “Light always travels at constant speed”. The alternative premise is that “Light and matter waves travel through a field generated by mass, at a variable speed determined by the field’s intensity”. This new premise also leads to a Classical explanation for the attraction of Gravity.

Author Bio

My name is Declan Traill. I am a Senior Software Engineer from Melbourne Australia, working at a security company called Inner Range. I am a Science graduate from Melbourne University where I was a resident of Ormond College, as were the three previous generations of my family. Science was my first love & continues to be my enduring passion and hobby. I am married, with two young daughters, and love family life. I do my Physics & programming when I can find time, which is quite infrequently at the moment as the kids require a lot of time and attention.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 18:32 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 01:11 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 12:27 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 02:12 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 07:58 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 09:57 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dirk Pons wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 08:33 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 04:38 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 09:26 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 03:54 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 09:38 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 12:34 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 22:05 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 12:42 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 17:57 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lee Manuele wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 11:49 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 22:21 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ivy Traill wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 11:54 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 22:25 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Bob Traill wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 15:44 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 22:30 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Garet wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 09:03 GMT
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!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Garet Claborn replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 09:06 GMT
Ah, forgot to register. excuse me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 09:08 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Traill wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
That attachment of the whole project didn't work, so I will attempt to upload the main parts - here goes...

attachments: electron_model.zip

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 21:37 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 23:59 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 20:23 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Declan, your thinking helps me a lot

Thanks

Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 23:24 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 23:27 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Declan Traill

I looked but did not see my "code author", or maybe I do not know how to find it, or it may be due I am "rookie" should not be granted code.I very willing to donate "10" for you, please guide me how to find it.

Hurry up.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 03:20 GMT
I forgot my login should be Anonymous

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Dear Declan,

If you look at two opposite standing waves in a moving body then after calculation of the form of the composite wave you find de Broglie wavelength too, if the energy of the waves is equal to the rest energy of the body. It was shown for example in the book: Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 12:48 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Indeed! I am well aware of that. Members of the WSM newsgroup (myself included) attribute that piece of information to Milo Wolff's work on Electron structure, dating back to ~1983 I think.

The body of evidence that supports model of particles as standing waves and my Classical explanation for Relativity is large, and getting larger - I would say overwhelming in the match it makes with the real world.

Regards,

Declan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT
Thankyou Sergey...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Geoffrey Haselhurst wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 08:42 GMT
A very concise well written essay Declan - congratulations. It does seem that there is growing awareness that matter is made of waves, and that these waves propagate through space / aether (an absolute reference frame).

You have shown how this foundation deduces relativity correctly without the strangeness - and this is very important for the sensible evolution of human knowledge.

A few thoughts (from a philosopher!);

i) You talk about matter waves and light waves as if they are different things. I think you will find that light waves are really just patterns of hills and hollows on the surface of the plane waves that form matter (I will discuss this at our WSM group and try show a diagram some time soon.)

ii) You have time dilation, yet if what exists is waves in space, then time must be due to this wave motion, thus time dilation must really be caused by a change in wave velocity. I am curious, if you keep time constant (same as keeping frequency constant), and just have the wave velocity and wavelength changing do you get the correct results?

iii) I agree that gravity must be due to a slowing of wave velocity in higher energy density space, thus the curvature of light past the sun is really a classical diffraction (what Einstein called the curvature of the 4D space-time continuum).

iv) Do you have thoughts on charge? My view is that this is also caused by variable wave velocity, where higher wave amplitude waves have higher velocity.

Good luck with the contest.

Geoff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Geoffrey Haselhurst replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:10 GMT
Two clarifications.

i) By constant frequency I am referring to the frequency of the plane waves / matter waves, where for any change in wave velocity there is a corresponding change in wavelength so frequency (time) remains constant. This seems necessary to explain how the phase of matter and antimatter (opposite phase spherical standing waves) is locked across the universe.

The frequency of light changes as this is the frequency of the repeating pattern of hills and hollows on the surface of these plane waves (see point ii below)

ii) The cause of light, of these hills and hollows on the surface of the plane waves, is due to this variable velocity of light with wave amplitude (charge). e.g. For an electron its plane waves are in phase with other electrons, and thus when these plane waves flow through other electron's spherical standing waves they have a higher wave amplitude and thus velocity and this advances the wave front a little, causing an advanced 'hill' on the surface of the plane wave. Thus if these other electrons are bound in atoms and have a repeating wave pattern then this pattern is imparted on the surface of the plane waves, this being the frequency of light.

I know, a picture is worth a thousand words - perhaps others can help animate this!!

Cheers,

Geoff

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1548


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Geoffrey Haselhurst replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 22:08 GMT
Sorry, it is refraction (not diffraction, above) that causes light to curve past the sun. (I hate stupid mistakes!)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT
Declan,

Your "Doppler-shift equation for normal waves (6)" and "Doppler-shift equation for light (7)" coincide if v, the recession speed of the source, is low enough (the relativistic corrections in (7) are negligible). Also, for low v, equation (6), f'=f(c/(c+v)), can be replaced by:

f' = f(1 - v/c) = (c - v)/L

where L is the wavelength. Clearly, as the light source starts moving away from the observer with speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c-v.

I think you have unnecessarily complicated the issue but still you get maximum rating from me for being on the right track:

"The belief that must be suspended is that "Light always travels at constant speed"."

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:34 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Decan Traill:

You wrote: “It is interesting that two different situations, very high speed, and strong gravitational fields, yield the same effect of time dilation. In both situations, time “slows down” for the objects concerned. Given the same fundamental change to the physics of an object, what if the same underlying principle were causing the effect in both...

view entire post


attachments: NPA18_Viraj_Final.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Concerned Public wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:40 GMT
Sergey G Fedosin is bombing entrants' boards with the same "why your rating has dropped" message. They are all dated Oct. 4... same message.

WTH? I've seen one fine essay drop 89 (eighty-nine) positions, in "Community Rating" in the past 24 hours, and “Sergey’s note” came BEFORE it plummeted. Hmm.

The vote/scaling of this contest is quite nebulous.

"Hackers Rule!", I suppose!

Well??? What else is one to think? The General Public is... Watching…

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 19:20 GMT
[NOTE: I inadvertently placed my assessment of your essay under your comment on my essay, so I suspect you have not even seen this yet (and I apologize in advance if you’ve already seen this and just did not choose to comment). Please also pardon the genuinely spontaneous “argh”s, as I actually quite impressed your essay. Finally, I inserted a rather long justification for how “primary...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 20:17 GMT
Declan,

Ah... really? The FQXi software let me follow the old reference link you sent me, and without any warning allowed me add a comment for an essay that is SIX YEARS OLD??

Sorry about that, Declan, if you ever even see this! At least the comments above really are for this essay, but I should have kept them under my 2016 blog. I was trying to, um, "fix" what I thought was an omission from a day or so ago.

Cheers,

Terry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.