Wave-particle duality is perhaps the worst term used in modern physics, as it is akin to saying a cat is both alive and dead but is not as easily interpreted by non-physicists as so inherently contradictory. In reality, everything is wave-like and every system can be described in terms of wave mechanics or the similarly non-local field theories of modern physics. The reason classical physics "say nothing about wave-particle duality" is why we use the adjective "classical" in classical physics. It's outdated because it posits that there exist waves and particles. This is basic modern physics.

Wave Particle Duality is a concept which let the physicist to describe each of them as the special case of the other i.e. A particle can behave as wave as proved in Young's Double Slit Experiment. We are not able to experience its wave nature in general because when we try to observe it at an instant, it gives a static snap. 

1) Young's actual experiment is often misunderstood. I described it in a blog post (see attached link).

2) Wave-particle duality is a problematic use of language as are many such terms. In classical physics, everything physical ("real") was composed of particles. Waves merely affected matter. In modern physics, nothing is either a wave or a particle.

https://legiononomamoi.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/study-design-part-i/

The wave particle duality is an offspring of our mind due to everyday experience, we are used to have experiences of particles and waves. Macro phenomena are modeled that way under good approximation. Such models have to disapper and be replaced by entities which behave differently: thery don't behave as particles nor as waves in general, for sure they respect the Heisemberg uncertainty principle. If we go on associating such concepts I think we get stuck...

Wave-particle duality is a way of talking about a principle difference between classical and quantum physics: the fact that in QM operators of position and momentum don't commute. "Duality" in this case describes another aspect of position and momentum, that they are Fourier transforms of each other. Duality also works as a description of the relation of an angular momentum operator with rotational position. Any QM textbook shows how to derive uncertainty from the commutator for such pairs of operators. But as your reference mentions, these workings of math are just a description of the early experimental info that prompted this formulation. For example electron "particles" aimed at a double slit produce a "wave" pattern even when they go through the slits one at a time. An example of the reverse: ultraviolet photons on a metallic surface cause the emission of single electrons.

Dear All, 

If classical physics can't describe the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and if SRT built basis on classical physics. Why we do not  we consider there is something wrong in the interpretation of SRT??? Can we discuss this point?

Dear Mohammed,

Can you imagine with me the Lorentz transformation by removing objectivity?

If we consider the velocity of the moving train in the direction of x, if we consider R is the Lorentz factor then we get 

x=Rx'-Rvt' ,   t=Rt'-Rvx'/c^2   , y=Ry' , and z=Rz'

In this case we refuse the reciprocity principle. Thus it is resulted there is no space-time continuum, it is only time. space is invariant. Length contraction is exist in the passed distance for rider of the moving train comparing to measured passed distance of moving train for the observer on ground as the effect of time dilation. In the case each observer creates his own picture about the location of the moving train which is related to his time. In this case according to this transformation, there is no difference if we consider the length of the train L or we consider the train as a point like.

If a train is moving according to this transformation, how can you describe the motion according to the transformation above. According to this transformation we keep on Lorentz invariance without Lorentz symmetry.

According to Einstein delta y=delta y' and delta z=delta z' That is depending on objectivity, which is required Lorentz symmetry to keep on Lorentz invariance.

How can you describe the motion of the moving train in x direction according to our new transformation?

I'm not sure how fundamental one needs to get here. Of course classical mechanics is "wrong." But it's only wrong in regions where quantum mechanics or relativity has superseded it.  The fact that it was discovered to be wrong in cases of interacting small particles is the whole reason we have QM. It's the same with special relativity. Newton's gravitation and mechanics were "right" for 200 years until it was discovered that it didn't work for speeds approaching light speed. Of course there were a few scientists who knew that Newton's gravitation was not causal since it assumed instantaneous transmission of the gravitational force but all those who calculated planetary orbits using Newton's mechanics and gravity found agreement in astronomical observations. As it turned out this was only because their work never called for a relativistic speed.

I found according to this transformation all the problems in physics are solved, specially in the equivalence principle and quantization of gravity.

Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.

In the equivalence principle of my theory http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 , the time dilation of the clock on the earth surface is produced as the clock on the ground is moving with speed equals to the escape velocity given according to eq. (6.1.8), which is agreed completely with the core of the The Pound-Rebka experiment. Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of the results of the The Pound-Rebka experiment that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle.

Also this transformation leads to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, where it proves they are one thing.

Also

Aether field rejected by Michelson Morley experiment in 20th century, but now in 21st century Higgs field is accepted. Why is that?

Are the aether and Higgs fields equivalent? If yes, how can we accept it in the light of Michelson-Morely experiment? If not, in which manner are these two fields different? which is agreed with this transformation.

Also the Pioneer anomaly and the energy-momentum problem in gravity are solved.... there are more and more. I found all the problems are solved according to transformation. Review the recent papers;

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst

Dear James,

According to this transformation in classical motion in macro world quantum effect is not appeared why? Most of physicists think because h (Planck's constant) approaches to zero. But that is not the real cause.

The real cause is because in case of low velocity in classical motion the length contraction and time dilation are negligible and are not appeared. Length contraction and time dilation are appeared in case of high speed near the speed of light , and thus in this case quantum effect will appear. where according to this transformation quantum effect produced by the new interpretation and understanding to the length contraction and time dilation according to refusing objectivity and then the Lorentz symmetry in the Lorentz transformation where in this case Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent instead of relative velocity. To understand how that works according to SRT we do not know

Is Loretnz symmetry conserved for all velocity ranges?

I want to know whether Lorentz symmetry is conserved for all the velocity ranges or not?

Is the Lorentz invariance completely related to Lorentz symmetry; i.e. if Lorentz symmetry conserved then Lorentz invariance is also conserved or there are certain conditions where the Lorentz invariance conserved while Lorentz symmetry is not? what are they if there are such conditions.

But now according to my transformation it is well known, specially when quantizing gravity and the equivalence principle.

I'm having a lot of trouble with your English but it seems you are mixing special relativity with quantum effects. For most purposes they are independent. (If gravity were a necessary consideration, they might not be independent.) The reason QM doesn't affect (most) macro is that if you calculate a QM effect for some large body, it's completely negligible: below any precision we are capable of in macroscopic measurements. Incidentally I don't believe QM is perfect either  but it does have the best part of a century of experimental support.

Dear James,

I found the problem between quantum and relativity arises from objectivity in Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformation. By refusing objectivity as in my transformation we can solve all the problems in physics. According to my transformation you get

1- It is vacuum energy dependent instead of relative velocity, and it leads to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

2- According to my transformation when we talking about acceleration we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor, which means photon mediates gravitation, where the concept of acceleration in my transformation is vacuum fluctuations.

3- In my transformation I refuse the reciprocity principle which was adopted by Einstein in the SRT. Refusing the reciprocity principle in my theory leads to disappearing all the paradoxes in the SRT; the Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox.

4- In my transformation there is no space-time continuum, it is only time, which means time dilation leads to measure a decrease in the speed of light, and time contraction which leads to the possibility of measuring faster than light. According to my transformation space is invariant. Thus according to my transformation I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect.

"Higgs field is not a matter field, it is a particular energy homogeneous entity which allows for oscillation of other "small entities" . As a consequence of their reciprocal resonance fermions come out and the energy of the transitories (waves) photons is limited to have a finite speed c". My transformation is agreed completely with what predicted in Higgs field, since there is no space-time continuum, it is only time, and space is invariant. In this case we can define the concept of force in terms of frequency, (energy), In this case we get the concept of force as quantized and relativistic, and by my new equivalence principle we get the quantized relativistic inertial force and then the quantized relativistic gravitational force. The meaning of quantized relativistic gravitational force means, the escape velocity of the free fall object is relativistic not classical, and in the case of weak gravitational field it is approximated to classical.

My quantization of gravity agreed completely with the Franson's calculations, that the decrease in the speed of light depends on the gravitational potential itself. Also it agrees completely with the Pond-Rebka experiment.

According to Einstein interpretation of Lorentz transformation we can't understand

Is Lorentz symmetry conserved for all velocity ranges? I want to know whether Lorentz symmetry is conserved for all the velocity ranges or not? Is the Lorentz invariance completely related to Lorentz symmetry; i.e. if Lorentz symmetry conserved then Lorentz invariance is also conserved or there are certain conditions where the Lorentz invariance conserved while Lorentz symmetry is not? what are they if there are such conditions. But now every thing become clear and very simple according to my transformation. And there are more and more. But first let's discuss these points. Please review my paper below

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Dear Aleksei Bykov,

Thank you very much for your comment. At first have you studied my paper in order to say like that? I proposed when I wrote my paper for example if I wrote my transformation leads to the wave-particle duality, then the reader must understand how is that according to physics. In order to explain everything in my paper, I must write a book not a paper. According to my transformation it is resulted the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and then the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics, that means according to quantum theory when the light incident inside the moving train with constant speed v, From that we get the Helmholtz equation for phenomena periodic in time, with a frequency of f=w/2pi inside the moving train for the observer on the ground. Now for the moving train  in constant speed v on the ground the wave that describe its motion is given by solving Schroedinger equation with potential equals to zero relative to the observer on the ground. According to my transformation you can understand the relationship between the potential, vacuum and medium. Now when you talking about the fields, you are talking about the changing of the potential, and that equivalent according to my transformation to vacuum fluctuations, and thus in order to understand how field described according to my transformation you must study my equivalence principle in my theory and how that related to changing the potential according to my transformation.

But now by refusing the Lorentz symmetry in my transformation which is leading to disappearing all the paradoxes, then for the observer of the moving train, it is considered the difference of vacuum of the earth surface comparing to the vacuum of the moving train for the observer of the moving train is negative,(refractive index) to be purely imaginary. Then the solution of Helmholtz's equation is called an evanescent mode in this case it is leading to measure a faster than light. But that required to understand how the vacuum fluctuation which is leading to faster than light according to my transformation, and then how the twin in the moving train when he stops his train on the earth, he will find the twin on the earth older than him. In this case it is possible measuring faster than light without violation Lorentz invariance according to my transformation.

Continued....

Every particle is an excitation of a field, the field evaluates at each position to the probability of finding the particle there and its distribution behaves wave like. When a particle is detected it is found at a precise location.

Dear Juan Lacruz,

I agree with you every particle is an excitation of a field, and that is not in contradiction with my theory. My theory agrees exactly with that. But the problem is how to define the field, according to objectivity as in SRT interpretation of the Lorentz transformation, or according to refusing objectivity in Lorentz transformation according to my transformation the Lorentz transformation equation. In my theory I discovered photon mediates gravitation, and according to my theory it describes successfully the micro world from Higgs bosons to macro world (the galaxies) in one theory, and all the experimental measurements agreed completely with my theory. If you review the interpretation of faster than light which agrees completely with the experimental results of quantum field theory and existence of virtual particles, and then how is that agrees with disappearing of twin paradox in my theory, without any violation of Lorentz invariance. Virtual particles are related to the problem of how the twin paradox is disappeared according to my transformation by refusing objectivity *Lorentz symmetry) in the Lorentz transformation, and then that leads to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the possibility of faster than light without violation Lorentz invariance. According to my transformation it gives you a complete picture about the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Dear Thomas Cantu,

I really interested in you comment. The problem is how to understand the excitation of field according to refusing objectivity in Lorentz transformation, that means according to my theory how to define the noninertial frames (accelerated frames). That required to answer the question; 

What is the concept of acceleration or deceleration according to quantum?

If we consider the concept of acceleration or deceleration in classical motion or relativistic motion is changing velocity which means gaining or loosing energy of hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency which that is quantized. So, what is the concept of acceleration or deceleration according to quantum theory? And then if energy is quantized, how the accelerated particle in a uniform acceleration will moved in a continuous path 1/2at^2? According to my transformation the concept of acceleration or deceleration leads to vacuum fluctuations and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That is very clear in my transformation, and that leads to quantization of gravity and photon mediates gravitation.

This question is impossible to be answered according to objectivity adopted in Einstein interpretation of Lorentz transformation. Objectivity in Lorentz transformation required symmetry, and from objectivity and symmetry it is resulted the continuity. This is the main problem between quantum field theory and relativity. Because of that and basis on objectivity it is impossible to reach to a unified theory, and impossible to unify gravity with QFT. Now I solved this problem in my paper  below. All the problem in physics are solved from Higgs to Galaxies. Also the energy momentum problem in gravity are solved, Review my paper relative to "The Exact Solution of The Pioneer Anomaly According to The General Theory of Relativity and The Hubble's Law"

According to objectivity in Lorentz transformation some theories proposes Lorentz invariance violation in order to interpret the Cherenkov radiation, But according to my transformation that is not now. Vacuum, medium and potential now are one thing related to each according to my theory, and in order to understand what is field you must understand what is the change of the potential according to refusing objectivity (wave-particle duality) in the Lorentz transformation and that leads to Heisenberg uncertainty principle and vacuum fluctuations.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_zero_point_energy_explain_the_rotation_curve_of_a_typical_spiral_galaxy_the_flat_appearance_of_the_velocity_curve_out_to_a_large_radius2

http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

Dear Aleksei Bykov,

All proponents of relativity say as you say without any response to my questions. They just say words no physics no math. Why you ignore  my questions and interpretations to my previous comments. Will I repeat them again? Read my previous comments and try to answer one of them. Just response to one of my comments. I'm not sure you read my paper really. You just said that to inform the public my theory is wrong, while you do not response to any of my comments. My transforms are clear and it lead to wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty, I explained how? You just response to my comments. Not to say words. I can explain my paper here! Have you read this paper??? Why you ignore quantization of general relativity in my paper and how it agrees with the experimental measurements? Is not GR depending on SRT? Proponents of relativity are really not honest! They want only to continue cheating the world.

Why the leader of opera experiments resigned? was he wrong?

Why Günter Nimtz resigned also? Nimtz and others argue that an analysis of signal shape and frequency spectrum has evidenced that a superluminal signal velocity has been measured and that tunneling is the one and only observed violation of special relativity. He was right! and I proved his theory according to my transforms, and this is related to virtual particles and also to the twin paradox. Why did not you reply to my previous comments relative to that? 

Why Pioneer anomaly solved by other way?

Not all the people are not honest same as the proponents of relativity. There are many honest people and they will study my theory and do their best to clarify the reality for people. You invite people not to read my paper in details, because you understand well, a student in high school if he read my paper, he will understand the reality that Einstein was completely wrong in his relativity.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Dear Aleksei Bykov,

Why you keep silent, and not response to my comments?? I understand proponents of relativity say just words no physics and no math! I have a simple question for you. You informed me that my transforms violate QFT. Ok! I told you  QFT is related to field, and field is the change of the potential relative to change in space -for simple example-. So how the change in the potential relative to change in  space according to objectivity in the Lorentz transformation which it is required symmetry and it leads to continuity , and then you keep the laws of physics are the same for all observers. This is the main problem in physics "objectivity"!!! You fight to not remove objectivity in physics...why? Try to answer one of these questions to understand my transforms are wrong, which they are answered completely according to my transforms now. I challenge you to discuss with me in front of the public

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_are_Lorentz_invariant_equations_invariant_for_all_observers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Loretnz_symmetry_conserved_for_all_velocity_ranges

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Aether_field_rejected_by_Michelson_Morley_experiment_in_20th_century_but_now_in_21st_century_Higgs_field_is_accepted_Why_is_that?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=5504323aef9713a0648b45e2_

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_relationship_between_the_equivalence_principle_and_general_covariance_in_GR

In my opinion there is no such duality. Matter are spinning particles and as postulated by De Broglie, all known elementary particles have an internal frequency of unknown origin. This frequency, in the formalism I have developed, corresponds to the relative motion between the center of mass and center of charge of the spinning particle. If we have a beam of particles moving at the same speed, they will have the same internal frequency, and when moving forward they will also show the same spatial periodicity. They are not waves, but the collective behavior of the beam will reflect this time and space periodicity, related to the spin structure.

Dear Aleksei Bykov,

Have read a "Straw man" a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. You exactly use this argument in order to proof the inconsistency of my theory for the public.

You said "Normally we consider transformations if they are symetries of something. Simmetries of what are your transforms? "

In my transforms I refuse symmetry and you understand that well! The main question is Symmetry for what in Lorentz transformation in SRT? I answered this question many times in my previous comments and you ignore to reply to any of my comments...why?

Why do not you teach students in the universities that symmetry in Lorentz transformation is only to keep on objectivity in the transformation, and then according to objectivity it is resulted the continuity. Classical laws in classical physics are built basis on objectivity and continuity, and thus according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in SRT, we keep also on objectivity and continuity in the relativistic speed (high speeds near the speed of light), and in classical speed (low velocities). Thus according to Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation, and in order to keep on objectivity, and under the concept of constancy of the speed of light he defined the Lorentz transformation according to the relative simultaneity, which is required to consider the difference between two events in space and time that occur in the reference frame. And according to that it is resulted the concept of space-time continuum. Because of that and according to objectivity the length contraction must exist in the length of the moving frame in the direction of the velocity. Lorentz symmetry according to Einstein's interpretation of Lorentz transformation leads to the Lorentz invariance...you are right, but it causes a paradoxes at the same time by the reciprocity principle or symmetry. Proponents of relativity say they are not paradoxes, but if you understand how according to my transforms all the paradoxes are disappeared and then how according to my transforms, it is leading to faster than light according to my transforms without violation of Lorentz invariance or causality, then you will understand all the solutions that proposed by the proponents of SRT in order to proof there are no paradoxes in SRT “are a man of Straw”. Symmetry is only for keep on the objectivity and it not important for Lorentz invariance. Review my transforms to understand that.

Proponents of SRT propose an acceleration in order to solve the paradoxes, while SRT is built for inertial frames, not accelerated frames. According to my transforms acceleration is vacuum fluctuations, and then it is related to Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Thus solving the twin paradox according to my transforms and the proposed virtual particles are one thing. But that is impossible to be understood according to SRT according to objectivity. According to SRT, faster than light is impossible, because it leads to violation of Lorentz invariance. That is well known in physics, and I do not to say more. You just use the man of straw to illustrate there is no violation in quantum theory in case of faster than light, because you use the argument that there is no faster than light locally! And that is true! According to my transforms" speed of light is locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum", and you use this argument as the man of straw to say there is no violation to SRT. But how Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the vacuum fluctuations are related to SRT, you say nothing about that, and none can say anything how is the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle are related to SRT. Because of that Einstein was hating quantum theory and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, SRT is a man of Straw!

You said " Can you rewrite at least one theory to agree with your MSRT? Elcetrodynamics, mechanics, everything? Can you suggest modified Maxwell equations or everything that we can compare with experiments? Just transforms can not be tested!"

This reply is “a man of straw”. There is no violation between my transforms and QED or QFT. The problem is very simple. How to understand motion, according to objectivity as in classical physics and then it is adopted by Einstein in SRT. Or according to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle as in Quantum. According to my transforms, the laws of quantum theory can applied in micro and macro world, and the relativistic motion will lead to quantum and quantum can lead to relativistic effect according to my equivalence principle by the vacuum. In case of macro world, the quantum effect is no appeared because the length contraction and time dilation is negligible because of the low velocities. If you review my quantization of gravity and my equivalence principle you will see how I could defined the escape velocity of free fall particle under the gravitational field as relativistic escape velocity no classical as in Einstein’s GR. In case of weak gravitational field it is reduced to classical escape velocity as in Einstein’s GR. GR is not completely relativistic, because of that it is failed to describe the strong gravitational field. It is only described the weak gravitational field.

I have many to say and I find my comment is very long now. So if you ask for experiments that agree with my transforms, so review the questions that unsolved regarded to quantum and relativity from Higgs to Galaxies! You will find the answer according to my transforms. And if you find any question not solved, tell me and I really give you the answer according to my transforms in 24 hours. I solved the Pioneer anomaly in 24 hours in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 I have tens of experiments agree with my transforms, and I send you 3 of them now to discuss them in details in front of the public. The problem you use only words to criticize my theory, and you say nothing by physics and math. Simply SRT and GR is only a math objectivity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm?utm_source=feedburner

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

I really thank you very much for your comment, and in fact  it is very interesting. I understand that quitting objectivity from the laws of physics is very troublesome for physicists. But that is the reality. If you read my paper, you will understand well, it is impossible to reach to the unified theory without quitting objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. Then you will understand the main problem between quantum and relativity is only objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. Because of that Einstein was hating quantum theory and Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not appeared in relativity because of objectivity and it is leading to continuity. Now when I removed objectivity in the Lorentz transformation by reinterpreting the time dilation and length contraction by removing objectivity, and that required to multiply the y and z coordinates by the Lorentz factor where you get if the velocity in the direction of x, by keeping x and t same in the Lorentz transformation then you get according to my transforms y= Ry' and z=Rz' where R is the Lorentz factor. According to this transforms, the equation of motion is described by the wave function, Schroedinger equation. Where in the case of the train moving with constant speed v (inertial frame), it described by solving the Schroedinger equation by proposing V (potential)=0, while in the case of accelerated or decelerated frame, it depends by solving Schroedinger equation by the potential applied.  Since according to my transforms it depends on t, x, y, z coordinates, thus it is vacuum energy dependent, and when applying a potential that leading to acceleration or deceleration, it leads to vacuum fluctuations. According to my  transforms, it is impossible for the observer of the moving train in constant speed (inertial frame) and the observer on the ground the agree at the location of moving train at any point in space at the same time during the motion in constant speed because of time dilation and length contraction, and that means objectivity is impossible! This is exactly what Heisenberg uncertainty says; objectivity is impossible! When the train stops by deceleration, then vacuum energy fluctuates, and both the observer on ground and the observer on the moving train agree at the location of train in space x. y and z, but they will be different in time because of time dilation (review the twin paradox) and because of that Heisenberg uncertainty principle depends on the vacuum fluctuations. Now according to my transforms, there is no space-time continuum. It is only time! Space is invariant. The problem in relativity, it is dealing by space-time continuum according to objectivity, while in quantum it is dealing with frequency which is the reciprocity of time. Now according to my transforms, they are one thing now they dealing with time only which is can be dilated measuring a decrease in the speed of light, or contracted measuring faster than light. But that is not locally. Locally speed of light is constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. Now according to my transforms you can understand also how entropy and increasing temperature is related to time dilation. 

Symmetry is only to keep on objectivity, If you review my transforms by refusing symmetry and objectivity, you will see I keep on the Lorentz invariance, without symmetry. All the experiment measurements are agreed completely with my theory from Higgs to Galaxies! All physicists tried to unify quantum theory according to objectivity in the Lorentz transformation in SRT, and all the attempts are failed...right? Now I have a model reinterpreting SRT according to quantum...All the problems in physics solved. Why physicists like objectivity? this is the question! and refusing physics without objectivity. They complicated physics by the mathematics of objectivity...not physics! Mathematics only!

Now physics becomes very simple and very interesting story, a father can tell his children this interesting story before sleeping, children can understand it now. Einstein himself predicted in that!!!

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

You may criticize my point of view in one side but at the same time you ignore the success of my theory in quantization of gravity with the agreement with all the experimental measurements. So why do not you discuss with me how my theory leading to quantization of gravity? and how all the experiment agreed with my theory at the same time? I understand quitting objectivity is very hurt for some people, but if that is the reality, what can we do?

You said "I'm sorry to say that I don't feel to be an expert on vacuum energy and/or vacuum fluctuations. You are frequently using these terms in contexts that are (in my view) not very obvious and I can hardly follow your thoughts" . This is exactly (a man of Straw)". According to my transforms and Heisenberg uncertainty you measure the mass of the moving frame as increased 

Read my paper "The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation" http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 

Also, you said "And further on, IF momentum space and coordinate space are related by a Fourier transform (as in QM), then there must be some kind of "uncertainty principle" simply for mathematical reasons. This fact alone does (in my view) not suggest a specific philosophical perspective and

I vaguely recall that a limited measurement precision alone could very well be explained without any rejection of objectivity".

According to objectivity there is space-time continuum, But according to my transforms it is only time and space is invariant! According to my transforms which leading to Heisenberg uncertainty you measure the mass of the moving frame as increased (relativistic mass), which is related to time dilation only! That is very clear when you deal with the four vector the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor according to my transforms. 

So, Can you answer one of these questions according to objectivity of Einstein in SRT; they answered completely according to my theory and there are more questions solved, not only these!!

1- Aether field rejected by Michelson Morley experiment in 20th century, but now in 21st century Higgs field is accepted. Why is that?

Are the aether and Higgs fields equivalent? If yes, how can we accept it in the light of Michelson-Morely experiment? If not, in which manner are these two fields different?

2- Is Loretnz symmetry conserved for all velocity ranges?

I want to know whether Lorentz symmetry is conserved for all the velocity ranges or not?

Is the Lorentz invariance completely related to Lorentz symmetry; i.e. if Lorentz symmetry conserved then Lorentz invariance is also conserved or there are certain conditions where the Lorentz invariance conserved while Lorentz symmetry is not? what are they if there are such conditions.

3- What is the concept of acceleration or deceleration according to quantum? Edit

If we consider the concept of acceleration or deceleration in classical motion or relativistic motion is changing velocity which means gaining or loosing energy of hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency which that is quantized. So, what is the concept of acceleration or deceleration according to quantum theory? And then if energy is quantized, how the accelerated particle in a uniform acceleration will moved in a continuous path 1/2at^2?

4- What about the Pond and Rebka experiment? Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of the results of the The Pound-Rebka experiment that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle.

5- Franson J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008 calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.

6- What about the Pioneer anomaly and the problem of energy-momentum in gravity, which is solved completely according to my transformation.

7- Can zero point energy explain the rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: the 'flat' appearance of the velocity curve out to a large radius? Edit

If Lorentz transformation equations is vacuum energy dependent which lead to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle according to my transforms, and then photon mediates gravitation according to this transformation and the new equivalence principle in which acceleration equivalent to vacuum fluctuations. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. Thus the zero point energy explains the rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: the 'flat' appearance of the velocity curve out to a large radius. 

This is only a little bit of the solved questions according to my transforms, and I have hundreds more... But If your comment is not a man of Straw, then answer me one of these questions. 

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

I'm sorry if I understand your comment in a wrong way. Relative to your answer to  question 2, it is not so easy as you answered it, because the answer is very difficult depending on the interpretation of Einstein to the Lorentz transformation basis on objectivity, because of that physicists try to guess the answer and there is no exact answer basis on objectivity. Review the question below. Relative to the Pioneer anomaly -For me- The proposed answer is only "a man of Straw" and I have a big story with the Pioneer anomaly! I know everything about it. The real problem of the Pioneer anomaly is related to the energy-momentum problem in GR which is still unsolved. Review my papers below relative to the Pioneer anomaly. The problem of the Pioneer anomaly also is related to  Higgs field and gravity according to my transforms! According to Einstein's GR built basis on objectivity in SRT it is impossible to be solved. The Pond-Rebka experiment, Franson's calculations, the Pioneer anomaly, and The energy momentum problem are related to each others.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Loretnz_symmetry_conserved_for_all_velocity_ranges

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

That's great! As I told you before the concept of space-time continuum is produced according to objectivity in Lorentz transformation. Because of that all physics are tried to be interpreted according to space-time. If you would  like the interpretation in terms of live time of high energy particles, you are right completely and it is my theory exactly. Because of that as I explained to in my previous comments all the problems in physics are solved according to my theory from Higgs to Galaxies. 

Review this question below which is agreed completely with my prediction of faster than light without violation of Lorentz invariance or causality according to my transforms, which is related to vacuum fluctuations as I explained to you before, Also review my paper below, it is not tachyon, but it is time contraction according to my transforms. Read page 140 in my paper and what is the definition of tachyon according to my transforms. 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_that_true_that_tachions_were_found?tpr_view=d850ca62-2530-42ee-aec0-eaaa0adcba72_1#55076a6fd767a6cd2e8b45a4

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.04.001

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

I'm sorry if I late to reply to your comment, but that is because I was a little bit busy.

Objectivity was adopted in the classical laws of physics before SRT in Galilean transformation. Lorentz transformation equations -before SRT- was built basis on objectivity Because of that you find in Lorentz transformation, if the direction of the velocity in x-direction, then y=y’ and z=z’. To understand what is objectivity, let’s study this example;

Suppose a plane flies from London to Paris in constant speed v. Now you must forget acceleration or deceleration…why? Because if we consider acceleration or deceleration now! Then this is the main problem between relativity and quantum theory we discuss it later.

Now if the plane flies from London in constant speed v, then according to objectivity, the observer on the moving plane, and the observer on the ground will agree that the plane flies from London now. And when the plane arrives Paris, thus according to objectivity, both the observer on the ground and the observer on the plane will agree that the plane arrives Paris now. According to objectivity both the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving plane will agree “now” at the location of the plane at any point in space in the distance between London and Paris during the motion of the Plane at constant speed v. Because of that, it is resulted the continuity in classical physics laws. So, in classical motion (low velocities) or high velocity (relativistic velocity near the speed of light), it is resulted the continuity according to objectivity! Now basis on objectivity and under the two postulates of SRT; the constancy of the speed of light, and the invariance of the laws of physics in all inertial frames of reference, Einstein had only one solution to interpret the Lorentz transforms. He proposed the relative simultaneity; where he must define the difference between two events occur in an inertial frame of reference in space and time, and then he must consider the reciprocity principle (symmetry) in order to keep the laws of physics the same in all inertial frames of reference. Because of that the length contraction is occurred in the length of the moving frame in the direction of the velocity in order to keep on the constancy of the speed of light basis on the concept of objectivity. And thus because of the symmetry it is resulted all the paradoxes. Now! Since all the massive particles are defined in the Einstein’s interpretation to the Lorentz transforms according objectivity, then any massive particle must be defined according to the concept of space-time continuum. According to SRT, there is no wave-particle duality…why? Because of objectivity! While  quantum theory separates between space and time. Because of SRT is for inertial frames of reference; where they are not accelerated or decelerated, the contradictions between quantum theory and relativity theory appear only in the case when proposing acceleration or deceleration. Because in the case of acceleration or deceleration, it is appeared that the massive particles are not controlled by the law of objectivity. Because of that the concepts resulted by quantum theory can't be interpreted by SRT.

Some theories propose the violation of Lorentz symmetry and others propose the violation of Lorentz invariance. All of that to try to describe the results of quantum theory according to objectivity in the Lorentz invariance.

Remember as I explained to you objectivity appeared in case of law velocities (classical motion) because the length contraction and time dilation are negligible. But in case high speeds near the speed of light where the length contraction and time dilation are appeared, there is not objectivity and the effect of quantum theory applied. Relativity leads to quantum theory and quantum theory leads to relativity. Relative to QFT that required another comment, because my comment now is very long.

A pulse of laser light is fired at a tiny metallic nanowire. The laser adds energy to the charged particles in the nanowire, causing them to vibrate. Light travels along this tiny wire in two possible directions, meet each other they form a new wave that looks like it is standing in place. Here, this standing wave becomes the source of light for the experiment, radiating around the nanowire.

 The scientists shot a stream of electrons close to the nanowire, using them to image the standing wave of light. As the electrons interacted with the confined light on the nanowire, they either sped up or slowed down. Using the ultrafast microscope to image the position where this change in speed occurred, Carbone's team could now visualize the standing wave, which acts as a fingerprint of the wave-nature of light.

While this phenomenon shows the wave-like nature of light, it simultaneously demonstrated its particle aspect as well. As the electrons pass close to the standing wave of light, they "hit" the light's particles, the photons. As mentioned above, this affects their speed, making them move faster or slower. This change in speed appears as an exchange of energy "packets" (quanta) between electrons and photons. The very occurrence of these energy packets shows that the light on the nanowire behaves as a particle.

"This experiment demonstrates that, for the first time ever, we can film quantum mechanics – and its paradoxical nature – directly," says Fabrizio Carbone.

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

Dear Azzam,

I think there is a serious problems on how  the Lorentz Transformations (LT) were and are considered. It is not a matter to change them, but it is important to understand that in many cases they cannot be used, it is a conceptual big mistake to use them.

It is like the problem of the "rest mass of the photon" which I just encountered. Such definition is in contradiction with itself: the photon is an entity travelling in vacuum at the speed of light. When it gets absorbed is not a photon anymore, so the rest mass does not have a meaning at all.

Exploit LT to derive some Physics is  totally unappropriate even if in the immediate it might be effective at first glance, I make a remarkable example:

 Einstein in 1905 in his  paper on electrodynamics, derived the Relativistic Doppler Effect (RDE) from the LT. Then in the same article he applied the RDE and the  radiation pressure in order to find the energy-momentum reflected by a moving mirror. The results mathematically hold and surely confirm how a genious he was, because he found relations which still hold to a good approximation.

There is a couple of big hidden mistakes  in what he made, though apparently everything seems quite good.

In principle admitting that there is a momentum imparted by radiation as he himself admitted finding the moving mirror reflection law, makes every system exchanging radiation not inertial. So I'm using a conversion law, the LT, defined between IRFs in a situation where in principle systems are not inertial.

One would argue and many I think argued: but this is an approximation that holds in most cases, because radiation in general does not disturb massive bodies.

YES IT IS AN APPROXIMATION, just an approximation, so the RDE derived from the LT is JUST AN APPROXIMATION also because it is in principle wrong to derive  a physical law by just making a coordinate transformation.

The Approximation (non Approximation) issue had drawbacks in all SRT and GRT... when Einstein use objective, deterministic, mechanicistic or whatever else poin of view..

So I don't think there is much point in replacing LT but in noticing that is a nonsense to use them in some cases.

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

I really appreciate your comment and I completely agree with you. The problem in LT is in the interpretation of LT according Einstein's interpretation in SRT depending on objectivity. LT are considered as an approximation because in case of law speeds the length contraction and time dilation is negligible... are not appeared, and because of that objectivity is appeared in case of classical physics, where in case of low velocities compared to the speed of light. Einstein! when he interpreted the Lorentz transformation, he proposed objectivity exists in case of low velocities and also in case high velocities. He thought objectivity is absolute, and basis on objectivity he interpreted the Lorentz transformation. He proposed the the relative simultaneity basis on objectivity. And REMEMBER from objectivity it is resulted the continuity in classical physics. When you draw the motion in constant speed in space and time, you get classically a continuous line, and also relativistically as in  Minkowski spacetime also continuous lines. That is according to objectivity in classical physics and in relativity theory of Einstein. When Einstein generalized his interpretation to the Lorentz transformation in SRT in case of accelerated frames, he used the concept of classical acceleration. That is because according to continuity which is resulted from objectivity, there is no choice for Einstein till he use the concept classical acceleration to describe the accelerated frames. From here it is resulted all the contradictions between quantum and relativity theory of Einstein. Now basis on continuity which is resulted from objectivity in Einstein interpretation LT, it must graviton of spin 2 mediates gravitation, not photon of spin 1...why? photon existed in quantum by refusing objectivity and thus it is resulted the discontinuity. If you look carefully in classical physics and relativity theory of Einstein in one side, and quantum physics in the other side, you will find the factor of 2 exists between them...from where? Factor of 2 in classical physics and relativity comes from the continuity, which comes from objectivity.

Dear Louis Brassard, 

This experiment http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html 

illustrates that I succeeded in quantization of gravity. This is what I exactly predicted in my theory in my transformation.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Dear Azzam,

to draw the Relativistic Doppler effect from the Lorentz transformations is a conceptual mistake as I said and as you seem to agree.

I cannot derive a phisical phenomenon from a coordinate transformation this has to be very clear, it is an unforgivable mistake. 

The present RDE form is an approximantion of something much more sophisicated and only as a first approximation it responds as an ideal conversion of the EM fields in different reference frames.

The inertial or non ineratial issue is only one of the "paradoxes" or rather mistakes which are born from thinking that RDE can be derived from the LT, even if in 1905 Einstein derived the RDE relation as a consequence of the LT.

In the present interpretation of the Doppler effect of radiation stands all the present problems which affect gravitation and quantum mechanics, because they both are based on the Lorentz Transformations which are true only in the ideal case of ISOLATED SYSTEMS. So in principle the only thing that so far works is the Newtonian dynamics with some modifications, in GRT there is no dynamic, transitories cannot be accounted.

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

Now the problem is solved according to my transformation. According to objectivity which is adopted by Lorentz first in his transformation, and then by Einstein in SRT y'=y and z'=z. That is because of objectivity. Because of that there was no choice for Einstein to interpret the Lorentz transformation according to SRT till proposing the relative simultaneity, and the principle of relative velocity if y'=y and z'=z. Because of that it is appeared all the paradoxes in SRT. In this case Lorentz invariance is given according to the Lorentz symmetry. Now by removing objectivity, in this case y'=Ry and z'=Rz. where R is the Lorentz factor. In this case we refuse the Lorentz symmetry, which leading to disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT. Here you must understand according to this transformation, where is the length contraction exists? it is not on the length of the moving frame in the direction of the velocity, it is in the passed distance of the moving frame for the observer stationary on the moving frame compared to observed passed distance of the moving frame for the stationary observer on the ground because of the time dilation. Because of that it is resulted the Sagnac effect and Doppler effect which depends on c-v and c+v Review figs. 1&2 in my paper how is the length contraction according to my transformation by removing objectivity. Also review Hafele-Keating experiment. According to my transformation space is invariant which leads to universe is Eclidean. So review this fascinating paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5174

Dear Azzam,

also the Paper of Prof. Wolfgang Engelhardt treats the same problems and arrives to similar conclusions.

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

Yes you are right! That means space is invariant, and time is only responsible for measuring a decrease in the speed of light (time dilation) and increase in the speed of light (time contraction) (faster than light), but that is not locally, it is only globally. The speed of light is locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. If we considering that, then each observer during the motion will measure proper time, proper length and proper velocity. That is required removing objectivity in the Lorentz transformation, and the reciprocity principle. In this case y'=Ry and z'=Rz where R is the Lorentz factor. This required to interpret the negative result of the Micleson-Morely experiment. Now everything is solved, Sagnac effect, Hafele-Keating experiment, Michelson-Morely experiment, quantum tunneling and entanglement, the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle,  and also disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT. Furthermore this transformation is four vector first rank tensor, which means photon mediates gravitation. and that leads to interpret the Pioneer anomaly and solving the energy momentum problem in gravity, SN1987a and more... Read carefully this paper http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst

According to this paper Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. 

This is what I predicted exactly in my quantization of gravity and agreed completely with my transformation which is four vector first rank tensor. 

Also relative to this experiment http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html , I have many to say about it, specially when proponents of relativity tried to explain in the case of virtual particles the light must own a tiny mass...why??? that is to keep on objectivity which is adopted in Einstein interpretation of Lorentz transformation in SRT. Light own a tiny mass in case virtual particle is a big cheat from proponents of relativity. From objectivity comes the contradiction between quantum and relativity, and it is impossible to unify between them basis on objectivity. The reality there is no objectivity in nature, in micro world or macro world. 

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

Now after the death of objectivity from the natural laws in physics, the conflict between materialism and Idealism philosophy is resolved and Idealism has won at the end. This conflict is since 500 B. C.

Now after proving photon mediates gravitation, we can understand what is Plato's cave? It is mass! Mass is Plato's cave, and when we leave the mass, we change to photons, and that means we leave the Plato's cave to the Sun light, which means photons.  Einstein asked a question, how I can see the universe if I'm riding a ray of light? The question is wrong. The right question is now " How I see the universe if all of my mass changed to photons, which means I leave Plato's cave!

If you review Zeno's paradox, it is solved physically by the unified theory. 

Dear Azzam,

according to my opinion  you leave something important in the "oblivion". I don't think photon mediates gravitation. The gravitation is mediated by the fabric of the space-time which continues to exist with its proper impedance and through the ACTION it regulates all the dynamics in compliance with the conservation laws.

The variable speed of light is something which allows the space-time to slow the pace of processes or speed them up according to the energy density content in the four dimensional space-time (ACTION).

I think photon was not accounted properly and understood sufficiently, that is the problem. GRT is without energy and works only for steady state solutions,  because Einstein didn't find the way to account for radiant energy but only for fields, the EM stress-tensor does not account for radiant energy which has to be dealt with Quantum Physics. Einstein did not cope with the irreversibility of the phenomena given by radiation and entropy. With the Lorentz transformations energy exchanges if are, are all reversible and elastic let's say  impossible to occur in classical physics.

Fields which could in principle be reversible, in any case increasing their frequencies they are more and more irreversible because they Exchange radiant energy and this is impossible to be accounted by the Lorentz transformations, is something "stupid" if one even think to treat them with the LT. The Lorentz Group is only a mere reference of the perfect field which gets transformed without emitting radiation, which is unreal....

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

In fact all the experiments in physics proved that space is invariant, and the universe is flat and Euclidean, and that means there is no space time continuum, and then curved space-time. Physicists do not understand how space-time continuum resulted in Einstein's interpretation of Lorentz transformation equations. If there is no space-time continuum, it is only time and space is invariant, thus Lorentz transformation will indicates about four vector rank 1 tensor, where in this case it must y'=Ry and z'=Rz, and the reciprocity principle removed. Now imagine an accelerated frame according to this transformation, it is quantized as the quantization of energy, which depends on the vacuum fluctuations (Review the Casimir effect). And by the reciprocity principle, photon must mediates gravitation, and there is no graviton, where in case of gravitation a part of the rest mass of the freely falling object changes to photons, these photons give the object to move with relativistic kinetic energy equivalent to the relativistic escape velocity at that point in space which depend on the gravitational potential at that point in space (Review Franson's calculations). The relativistic mass during the freely falling object in gravity always equal to the rest mass.

The difference between photons of gravitation and photons of Electromagnetic, that in the Electromagnetic photons are radiated, while in gravitation they are not radiated.

Now review any experiment in physics from Higgs to Galaxies, quantum or relativity, there is no any experiment contradicts with this transformation, and all agree and prove this transformation.

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

Remember:  when I say space is invariant, that means both the moving observer and the observer on the ground are agreed at the measured lengths of the moving train in x, y and x during the motion in constant speed, and also they agreed at the lengths on the ground in x, y and z. So where is the length contraction must exists in this case because of time dilation if space is invariant. Review Figs. 1 &2 in my paper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002  , and then you will understand why must y'=Ry and z'=Rz where R is the Lorentz factor, and that will interpret the negative result of the Michelson Morely experiment. Figs 1&2 illustrate to you also how Ehrenfest paradox disappeared and also how Sagnac effect and Hafele-Keating experiments solved also according to my transformation.

Dear Azzam,

I think that the light speed is variable and the law with the gamma factor modelling the Doppler Effect is an exponential one like in Quantum electrodynamics propagation function.

Dear Azzam,

"and time is only responsible for measuring a decrease in the speed of light (time dilation) and increase in the speed of light (time contraction) (faster than light), but that is not locally, it is only globally. "

sorry but here there is something I don't find myself in agreement with.

Yes the variation of time we measure with atomic clocks is a side effect of the variable speed of light. (ACCELERATORS are the best example or the slower particle decay).

I don't share the local and global.

Locally we will always measure c like in the MM experiment, but that does not mean that relatively speaking the local speed we measure is the same. We have the impression it is the same because everything is affected by it in the volume I measure, but with different mass-energy distributions it varies locally, then this causes a global variation. The only way we get this is by comparing with the frequency shift of light.

In the rotating ring from higher mass-energy at the border (higher speed) I notice a blue shift of radiation (according also to experiments), because the speed of light gets slower at the border, (or the border is time dilated).

At a lower graviatational potential, I will experience a blueshift as well, because I'm closer to the energy-momentum source (Earth).

The frequency shift of radiation if two bodies are at rest with eachother, tell us how the speed of light is different. 

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

"I think that the light speed is variable and the law with the gamma factor modelling the Doppler Effect is an exponential one like in Quantum electrodynamics propagation function."

I agree with you completely with this point of view. Because of that I asked this question https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_zero_point_energy_explain_the_rotation_curve_of_a_typical_spiral_galaxy_the_flat_appearance_of_the_velocity_curve_out_to_a_large_radius2

In fact Hubble''s law illustrating that and if you review my solution of the Pioneer anomaly you will understand that carefully http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058. and by my equivalence principle with my transformation illustrating also the gravitational field can be described by the Planck's solution of  black body radiation and that leads to the Hubble's law. The information are too much, and as I said before all the problems in physics are solved from Higgs to Galaxies!

Dear Azzam,

you referred to Turishev in the Pioneer anomaly, or better against his interpretation.

I think Turishev and others made a serious mistake in a paper of theirs, I don't trust them at all for this.

They cited in 2013 the paper of Schiff dated 1960, about the Schiff's conjecture...

Schiff wrote a bunch of unforgivable bullshits in his paper. He made so many mistakes in his disastrous paper that Rindler too asked for a total refutation of it.

How can scientists follow such a horrible paper and report it as an example nowadays??

THat was one of the reasons why I said, ok  I surely can do better than that...even if I'm not a scientist.

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

According to Turishev paper they consider the Pioneer anomaly are closed. That is a big cheat. If fact there is no solution for the Pioneer till modifying SRT and GRT. Pioneer anomaly illustrates that there is no reciprocity principle and then curved space time and the universe is flat, and thus according to that there is no energy momentum problem in gravity. The energy-momentum problem exists because of the wrong postulates of GR depending on SRT as I stated before in my paper. In order to proponents of relativity keep on relativity to be consistent for physicists they propose the thermal radiation origin of the Pioneer anomaly. There is no way to convince people only that, and then fixing data according to that. I discussed with the team of Turishev for 4 years relative to the Pioneer anomaly. One of them did his best to not post my papers in arxiv after they endorsed many times  to be posted in arxiv. They have the power and all the media are with them. So, they can convince people in what they want.

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

The problem is that; universe  is built on objectivity and materialism now, and all of that according to math and physics. They only theory that still keep on that is relativity theory of Einstein in SRT. Quantum theory refused that according to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because of that they hate quantum theory and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Because of that, they do not want to change SRT, and the Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations. Because if it is changed, then it is the death of objectivity and materialism. So, they always fixing data in order to not appear there is something wrong in relativity and thus something wrong in objectivity and materialism.

Epicycles again in order to maintain the Lorentz Transformations as the base of something they cannot hold.

question abourt partcle and wave is the same as question that earth move around sun or sun around earth ;) 

Dear Sebastian Zając, 

Simply I can say to you;

Your words like the defeated man throwing the last shots ;)

First try (just try) understand this words 

Wave particle paradox is solved by the the mutual energy principle in which the particle is consist of 4 waves: the retarded wave, the advanced wave and 2 time reversal waves corresponding to the retarded wave and the advanced wave. The 4 waves completely balanced out each other (cancelled at all). However the mutual energy flow which is produced by the retarded wave and the advanced wave can bring the photon energy from the emitter to the absorber. Photon is nothing else, it is just mutual energy flow. The mutual energy photon is thin in the two ends close to the emitter and the absorber. It is thick in the middle between the emitter and the absorber. The mutual energy flow do not decrease as 1/r. The mutual energy is possible to bring the energy, momentum and action/reaction from the emitter to the absorber. The theory about mutual energy flow includes, the mutual energy theorem, mutual energy principle, self-energy principle, mutual energy flow theorem.

In this theory 4 additional time-reversal Maxwell equation is added to Maxwell equations. The details please see: http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=726&paperId=4042

First of all, I would say that it seems that the wave-particle concept may not explain the glory around the shadow of a plane neither the stretching of shadows when they meet each other however there is a large distance between the shadow producers.

However, this concept was a mystery to people such as Feynman and Einstein.

My experimental works may not explain by wave-particle concept either.

In one experiment, I lined up 200 single slits and I showed that the light speeds down while diffracted and in some other experiments I saw that the main issue for diffraction is the refractive index of the medium. Fingers crossed that I did all those experiments correctly. However, I have published them and I also explained the arrangements of them.