Dear Gyan Chandra Chauthwani,

What if quantum theory is completely right and SRT is wrong. If you read my paper, I got the quantization of gravity, by changing SRT (the interpretation of Lorentz transformation) and all the problems in physics are solved and all the experimental measurements agree completely with my theory. Most of physicists adviced me to not publish my paper, they scare...why? Now they keep silent when they understood that I completely right and Einstein is wrong. They think changing relativity is sign! Einstein predicted changing his theory!

Dear Gyan Chandra Chauthwani,

In my theory according to modification of Lorentz transformation, C remains constant locally and equals to the speed of light in vacuum, but globally is variable depending on observation (time). Because of that quantum theory built basis on observation and experiment. According to my transformation, there is no space-time continuum, it is only time, and space is invariant. Because of time dilation it is resulted to measure a decrease in the speed of light or increase in the speed of light globally (faster than light). According to my transformation, Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. My transformation leads to photon mediates gravitation by my new equivalence principle. The measured decrease in the speed of light because of the effect of time dilation of gravity is depended on the potential energy itself not on the strength of the field as in Einstein's GR. My transformation leads to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Because of the wave-particle duality, a free fall object by gravity, it is observed globally-but not locally- a decrease in his escape velocity, which causing a redshift by the same factor of decreasing the speed of light globally which is leading to solve the energy momentum problem in GR (The Pioneer anomaly solved by my theory). And there are more and more!!! Proponents of relativity try to ignore my theory because they understood I could reach to the unified theory according to modifying SRT, the Lorentz transformation according to the Copenhagen school. Read my comments in my posts to understand the reality. The proponents of relativity do not have anything to reply about my posts. I challenge anyone of them to go with me in an open discussion in front of the public.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_must_graviton_have_a_spin_of_2_while_a_photon_has_a_spin_of_1?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=54f9ba2ed11b8bf9568b4574_

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_concept_of_acceleration_or_deceleration_according_to_quantum?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=54f9ba31cf57d7497c8b45a2_

A couple of notes, ideas, and reasons for a cautionary reaction:

1) You refer to the "wave-function of Heisenberg" and how he defined it. Only a) Heisenberg formulated matrix mechanics and b) the quote reads "This probability function represents a mixture of two things, partly a fact and partly our knowledge of a fact." It says nothing about the wave-function that Schrödinger, not Heisenberg, formulated (in fact, Heisenberg was so confused by his formulation that he went to Born, who informed Heisenberg- founder of matrix mechanics- what matrices were. Both were sufficiently confused by the appearance of what was then fairly new and mostly a mathematical oddity that they went to Hilbert, who gave them advice that, had they taken it, would likely have led them to Schrödinger's wave-equation formulation of QM).

2) You also refer to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle along with a number of other (claims) concerning the compatibility of SR and QM. However, relativistic quantum mechanics hasn't just been around for decades, it's the foundation of the standard model. Quantum field theory (QFT) is, as you are no doubt aware, the unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle informs us about the nature of energy fluctuations of a quantum system over small time intervals, while SR provides us with the mass-energy equivalence. Combining the two, we are able to explain the appearance of particles like positrons. QM cannot explain this, we require QFT (SR & QM) to do so.

3) You also state the uncertainty principle tells us of "the impossibility of measuring the velocity and position simultaneously", which isn't true. It is, rather, a ratio of sorts that quantifies the degree of uncertainty among measurements such that the more exactly we measure e.g., spin, the less this measurement will tell us about e.g., velocity.

4) You do point out correctly that general relativity, and therefore gravitation, is a central problem in modern physics and that quantum theory and general relativity are not compatible in how they treat gravitation. This says nothing about special relativity, which is compatible with quantum theory; indeed, when one refers to quantum theory one is referring mostly to relativistic quantum theory, as apart from quantum mechanics there isn't much of "quantum theory' that isn't relativistic.

5) The closest you get to incorporating electrodynamics into your theory is defining your H-particle/H-energy as, it seems, both more than a little ad hoc as well as fairly meaningless. You really don't deal with the work from esp. from Dirac onwards on the development of QED, nor the nature of QFT in terms of the standard model. It seems as if you do not think relevant the extraordinary success of the standard model despite how crucial special relativity is in the standard model. Nor do you indicate how your treatment of special relativity can be aligned with QM. In fact, you define the electromagnetic wave as a particle (or quanta) in equation 5. 1.6, per de Broglie. You even define the mass of a photon in eq. 6.1.2 in terms of the speed of light squared.

6) In general, despite your claim that your interpretation "leads to the wave-particle duality", you do not seem to deal anywhere with the "wave" part of this, other than the use of early quantized wave-packets that you call "waves" despite the fact that they are discrete. Essentially, you seem to take special relativity as it was developed apart from quantum mechanics, deal with it apart from quantum mechanics (excepting certain places where you refer to incompatibilities that either were dealt with decades ago or concern general relativity), fiddle around with a bit (throwing in your H-particle and the early work on quantization that was mostly thanks to Einstein and what he won the Nobel prize for), and completely ignore most of modern physics by acting as if the last ~80 years of work on relativistic quantum physics, the standard model, QFT, etc., never took place.

So we are left with an alternate form of special relativity in which photons and the speed of light c are related in ways that ensure photons aren't light, neither classical nor quantum electrodynamics, an H-particle instead of the positron (and the rest of the standard model), wave-particular duality without the wave aspect, a gravitational field (and its mass) along with a gravitational constant, and in general a lot of confused usage of terms without any upside so far as I can tell.

@Andrew Messing 

STEP BY STEP...

You criticized my theory according to SRT, which means according to Einstein’s interpretation to the Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity. I started my paper by the concept of quantization of SRT by reinterpretation of Lorentz by refusing objectivity according to Copenhagen school. If you review my transformation carefully, you will understand well that the motion of any massive particle is controlled by a wave according to my transformation, that is very clear and very simple to be noticed in my transformation, and to understand that well, review the Zeno’s paradox, and how Zeno’s paradox can be solved according to my transformation. So my transformation illustrates the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, and that very clear and very simple to be noticed in my transformation, and I interpreted what is the Heisenberg uncertainty according to my transformation, where the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle are one thing according to my transformation. According to my transformation, it is required to remove Lorentz symmetry in Lorentz transformation (the reciprocity principle). But at the same time I keep in Lorentz invariance in my transformation, and that is very clear and very simple to be noticed in my transformation. That leads to reach also to the commutation relations in quantum. So 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. Furthermore, according to my interpretation I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the SRT in this paper. My new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations leads also to the wave-particle duality as in quantum theory, and thus agrees with Heisenberg uncertainty principle. My new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation leads to the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent instead of the relative velocity in Einstein’s interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations in the SRT. Now Since my transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and it leads to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Then my transformation illustrates to you how Heisenberg uncertainty is related to vacuum fluctuations. Now can you imagine if the particle is accelerated according to my transformation. It is very clear and very simple to understand that the accelerated particle according to my transformation leads to vacuum fluctuations, because my transformation is vacuum energy dependent. In this case when we talking about acceleration according to my transformation, we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. Which is controlled by Schrödinger equation.

Do you know why in GR the source of gravitation in GR is the stress–energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, It is very simple because of objectivity in the Einstein’s interpretation of Lorentz transformation in SRT. In Einstein interpretation of Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity, in order to keep on Lorentz invariance, you must keep on Lorentz symmetry. Thus because of objectivity it is resulted the continuity in classical physics and in relativity theory of Einstein.

So can you inform me according to Einstein’s interpretation of Lorentz transformation is Lorentz symmetry conserved in all ranges of velocity. According to Einstein’s interpretation 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.

Also, 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?

Most of proponents of relativity say SRT is consistent with quantum theory, why? because SRT describes inertial frames, and it says nothing about accelerated frames. The flaw of Einstein's interpretation of Lorentz transformation in SRT  will be appeared in case of accelerated frames which is equivalent to vacuum in quantum. Because of that GR is not consistent with quantum theory. The problem in SRT.

Most of Proponents of relativity that discussed with me relative to my theory, are given up when they have not to say about my theory, and they become sure I’m right in quantization of gravity, and they became embarrassed to say I’m right, so they preferred to keep silent. So I hope from you not give up discussing, and complete our discussion.

I wait your response related to what I said about my transformation and that related completely to what I proposed relative to quantization of gravity and my equivalence principle, and as you informed about H-particle, and H-energy, which produced normally by the wave-particle duality in my transformation, and that was impossible according to Einstein’s interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations. I have too much to say and I hope to continue discussing.

Dear Azzam K Almosallami:

Actually, I wasn't so much criticizing you account of special relativity as I was you entire approach to modern physics. Your account dismisses some ~80 years of successful research in relativistic quantum mechanics, is incompatible with empirical findings, and lacks anything remotely resembling a coherent theory (e.g., you define photons in such a way that they are distinct from light and define as waves what are particles).

Zeno's paradox was resolved centuries before modern physics.

The central problem with your approach is that it addresses nothing, ignores ~80 years of progress, can't account for the successes achieved by combining SR with QM, and introduces nonsense like your H-particle which is theoretically unfounded and empirically without basis. Your transformations ignore the fact that these are superseded by QFT and the standard model you ignore. It's as if you skipped 80 years of physics, then read some cliff motes, and came up with some elementary algebraic solutions that mean nothing and are contradicted by empirical evidence.

Dear Andrew Messing,

The success of SRT and QFT I illustrated in my previous comment and I informed you why? Also my theory is not affected in this success, do you know why? Because I keep on the Lorentz invariance in my theory same as predicted in SRT. The only difference in my transformation is in the y and z coordinates which is multiplied by the Lorentz factor, and this is not affected with the Lorentz invariance in QFT with SRT. In my theory I only refused the Lorentz symmetry, which is only required in SRT to keep on objectivity. I do not know how you decided my transformation  is in violation with QFT and the standard model. So how you decided my transformation is in violation with QFT and the Standard model. Or you say just by  words!!! 

You said (e.g., you define photons in such a way that they are distinct from light and define as waves what are particles).

This is a false pretences, because my transformation leads to the wave-particle duality. When the train moves, it is a massive object. Have you understood the null vector according to my transformation. I do not know exactly how you understood that??? Do you know the wave-particle duality according to my transformation really? According to your understanding, the particle will be a particle if it is defined according to objectivity in Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation, where SRT says nothing about the wave-particle duality because of objectivity in Lorentz transformation. Because of that Einstein was hating Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Your comments are only by worlds without any physical or mathematical meaning. There is no any violation between my transformation and QFT and the standard model, physically or mathematically. In order to understand how my transformation is agreed completely with QFT and the standard model I asked you a couple of questions I hope to answer about them. 

So can you inform me according to Einstein’s interpretation of Lorentz transformation in SRT is Lorentz symmetry conserved in all ranges of velocity. According to Einstein’s interpretation 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.

Also, 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?

Please do not ignore these questions. 

You talk about ~80 years of progress, so please answer these questions according to  your ~80 years of progress, and there are and more questions, but it is enough these questions now.

If you do not have an answer, I give you the answer according to my theory completely. Relative to H-particle and H-energy I will illustrate to you completely  what they are when we reach to the concept of acceleration according to vacuum fluctuations in quantum. I do not need criticizing by words only! Please talk with me in physics and mathematics  as I talk with you in physics and mathematics.

Lorentz died a year after the infamous Solvey conference. Your interpretations of his transforms are almost a century outdated. Your equations depend upon the very theories you seek to replace. Hence you use of "c" as the speed of light when you laughably define photons in terms of the square of this constant.

As you can't even manage to adequately define light, let alone present anything remotely resembling a theory of electrodynamics, who should take you seriously? You posit some massive conspiracy among physicists rather than the obvious answer: your wrong, you don't know enough about the subject to realize how wrong, and your "solution" introduces countless problems but resolves nothing.

But sure: blame it on the review process.

Dear Andrew Messing,

LOL!

What I found in your comments is only words, no physics and no mathematics. It is appeared even you do not know the  principles of relativity and quantum theory or a theory of electrodynamics. In your previous comment, you informed me Zeno's paradox was resolved centuries before modern physics. This answer indicates you do not know even the Zeno's paradox. You escape to answer the two questions I asked you two times. That means you do not have any information related to physics. It is very strange how you hold the great name of Harvard university. 

I do not know how you decided now my theory violates the theory of electrodynamics. Now you changed, before it was violating QFT. I challenge you if you say how my theory violates the theory of electrodynamics. It is only words from you, no physics...no math!!!

As you have seen the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle in my transformation, you will see also why the magnetic field is perpendicular to the electric field, and what is polarization according to my transformation.

Your method in your comments is same of proponents of relativity, when they have nothing to say, and then they feel embarrassed to continue to discuss. If you are ready to talk in physics and math I'm ready. But only by words, I'm not a poet!

I understand well why some people are angry of my theory, specially my transformation. 

Dear Andrew Messing,

The next step we shall discuss these recent experiments and how they are interpreted and agreed completely with what I predicted in my theory. These experiments are very recent. LOL!

"so he will sprinkle many nations,[c]

and kings will shut their mouths because of him.

For what they were not told, they will see,

and what they have not heard, they will understand."

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 Gyan Chandra Chauthwani,

I really appreciate you comment. My theory is keeping on the constancy of light but that is locally and it equals to the speed of light in vacuum. But globally it is variable depending on the vacuum energy. According to my theory the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. There is no violation between what I proposed in my theory and the invariance of Maxwell equations. Review the link below. All the experimental measurements illustrates the variability of the speed of light...how? It is interpreted completely in my theory without any violation with Maxwell's equations.

What I propose is keeping on the Lorentz invariance and Maxwell's equations. Removing symmetry in the Lorentz transformation is not affected on the Lorentz invariance, and that keeps the laws of physics are same for all inertial frames of reference. Removing symmetry leads to unifying between quantum and relativity, and all the problems in physics are solved, and leads to quantization of gravity in a simple way, and that agrees with all the experimental measurements. As I explained in my previous comments. Symmetry is only to keeping on objectivity which is refused by quantum theory (Copenhagen school). I'm ready to discuss with you about that completely and in details, and I'm really thank you for your polite reply.

Sincerely,

Azzam Almosallami

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

"this is not affected with the Lorentz invariance in QFT with SRT."

QFT is basically defined as quantum mechanics plus SRT. There is no "QFT with SRT" as this is akin to referring to "classical electromagnetism with classical electrodynamics". It's redundant. You address Lorentz transformations as if we haven't had a model combining SRT and QM for many decades (it's called the standard model; you might try Wikipedia).

You define the mass of a photon via the equation m=hv/c2. You justify this by the correct equation for a photion E=hf (or =hv, the frequency), but fail to understand undergraduate level physics where students learn that equations for photons (massless particles) often can't be used for particles with mass, and in a tremendous combination of basic failure to apply simple rationality along with a stupendous misunderstanding of simple physics you then define the mass of a photon via the speed of light squared. How you could fail to recognize that for photons E=pc is alarming in and of itself, but the fact that you define the mass of photons by inserting the part of the inferior formula for energy into the an algebraic manipulation of a particle's rest mass for photons that have no rest mass is breath-taking.

However, such errors, no matter how mind-boggling, are as irrelevant as the paper. You ask questions about SRT and QM as if QFT and the standard model didn't exist, and all the problems/issues you address (other than gravitation) weren't solved long ago.

As you seem not to realize that it makes little or no sense to refer to "QFT with SRT", I imagine you aren't familiar with the subject. As it addresses any possible objections that aren't outright errors in your paper, you might try reading up on it.

You ask for math. But your paper speaks of wave-particle duality (which you don't actually derive, define accurately, or treat correctly), while QFT doesn't deal with waves but fields. The mathematical structure is entirely different and is incompatible with your work. Your little algebraic manipulations of simple SRT formulae hearken back to a time when QM and SRT presented a problem, but that has long since been resolved (at least at the level of your analysis). I cannot get into the mathematics because you are not using the correct mathematical structure. If you would like to discuss the mathematics of QFT, I'd be delighted to do so. As it stands, however, I cannot relate the ways in which your study completely fails to address some ~80 years of physics research and the standard model because the entirety of this work is absent in your paper. You've basically ignored most of modern physics and used some algebra on a few equations from relativity along with some incorrect statements about quantum mechanics, special relativity, and other issues I originally noted in my first response. If you wish to discuss modern physics (the mathematics, theories, etc.) I would be happy to, but I need more than you have supplied, because your paper ignores virtually all relevant modern physics and consists of a selection of equations along with assertions about wave-particle duality that are neither true nor consistent with your own mathematical treatment (nowhere do you give even the basics of the wave-function formulation of QM, yet you claim your work is consistent with/demonstrates wave-particle duality).

Dear Andrew Messing, 

You still criticize my theory according to what you learnt in SRT of Einstein. All of your comments is regarded to define the particles of mass according to the concept of objectivity that Einstein adopted in his SRT in his interpretation of Lorentz transformation equations. While in my paper I refuse this concept. And in order to criticize my paper I hope that you answer my questions I asked you before. So why you refuse to answer my questions in order to continue discussion. Your comment relative to I define the mass of a photon via the equation m=hv/c2 is right, but that only if objectivity in SRT interpretation of the Lorentz transformation is right! (Do you know what objectivity means in Einstein interpretation of the Lorentz transformation...if you do not know I explain that for you).

According to my transformation equations defining the mass of a photon via the equation m=hv/c2 is completely right, and it agrees with the core of the wave-particle duality in my transformation and also in quantum mechanics. So criticizing that according to objectivity in SRT is not true, where I introduce a new modification in SRT by new transformation equations depending on Copenhagen school. Have not you known about the equivalence of mass and energy E=mc^2. Aren't mass and energy change to each other, by pair production, and electron-positron annihilation???? 

Now you can understand the main contradiction between relativity and quantum theory, and why you could not unify GR with quantum field theory.

Now you understand how photon must mediates gravitation not graviton, and there is nothing named graviton. In fact SRT is a big cheat from physicists to the world. 

There is no any proof that objectivity in Lorentz transformation is right. So if you want to criticize my transformation equations, you must examine it how I succeeded in quantization of gravity and all the experiments agreed with what I predicted. The wave-particle duality proved experimentally and you can't deny it. So compare my theory with the experimental results. I challenge you if you find any violations between my theory and any experimental measurements. 

Again in order to continue discussing, and to understand your definition of the particle of mass according to objectivity in the Lorentz transformation in SRT is right, and then my theory is wrong, answer these questions; 

So can you inform me according to Einstein’s interpretation of Lorentz transformation is Lorentz symmetry conserved in all ranges of velocity. According to Einstein’s interpretation 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.

Also, 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?

Also in the recent paper link below

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.

So do not you find this paper agreed completely with my transformation equations and my equivalence principle which related to the questions I asked you and you do not want to answer.

Also relative to the Pond-rebka experiment, have you read it?  In the equivalence principle of my theory, 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) in my paper, 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.

So why you escape to discuss with me about that. All of your comments is old physics. QFT is completely agreed with my theory. But you do not want to discuss with me about that. You stop at one thing how I used m=hv/c^2 while according to my transformation and the wave-particle duality is right, where In this case when we talking about acceleration we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. It is very simple to understand that. I used simple mathematics in my paper, because I need a student in high school understand my theory. When Einstein built his relativity, he is not the man who built the mathematics of his relativity...do you know that??

Have you reviewed eq. (5.1.17) in my paper, simply from it you get by a little bit of algebra E2 = p2c2 + m2restc4.

Do you need more explanation???? I hope to answer my questions I asked you 3 times now.

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

"You still criticize my theory according to what you learnt in SRT of Einstein."

No, I don't. I criticize your theory because SRT in modern physics is obsolete. Hence the standard model. Sure, there are important philosophical and metaphysical issues regarding SRT alone, but you don't address any of these.

"QFT is completely agreed with my theory."

Impossible. You don't use field theory. You don't even really use QM. It's like a child playing with the algebra of simplistic formulae of SRT with a spattering of equations misused from other fields of physics. I'm not interested in playing this game. You can continue to pretend that you haven't ignored the majority of modern physics, or we can discuss how your paper could or could not be consistent with the standard model and QFT.

Andrew Messing

"I criticize your theory because SRT in modern physics is obsolete".

That is really funny!

If you are serious, honest and right in your comment, why do not you answer my questions in front the public or at least one question of them? Why you escape to answer them? This is the fourth time I ask you now.

I think you do not have what to say, you have only words, no physics..no math! This is the method of proponents of relativity when they feel angry and embarrassed!!! They do not want people to know the truth! I told you I used the simple math in order to a student in high school know the truth. Einstein described the unified theory it is very simple, a student in high school can understand it! You do not want people understand the truth...why? Remember it is only time!

You said "You don't use field theory" this is a moronic reply.. That means you do not have any idea about the equivalence principle, and because of that you escape to answer my questions. I really need to talk with you by physics, but you have never said physics, only meaning less words.

Standard model!  I interested in a question:

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?

Can you answer that, it is answered according to my transformation!!!!!

LOLLL

"According to my transformation equations defining the mass of a photon via the equation m=hv/c2 is completely right, and it agrees with the core of the wave-particle duality in my transformation and also in quantum mechanics."

1) It doesn't accord with quantum mechanics. First because it violates the basic postulates of QM (where's your operator for the dynamical variables you refer to? What happened to Hilbert space?). Second because the mass-energy equivalence principle requires a relativistic theory (it assumes SRT is true), while this is the primary motivation for the formulation of QFT, because the extreme variance of energy of a system over tiny intervals of time in QM should, according to the principle you use, lead to equations in which particles like the positron are created. Your formulation doesn't allow for this, it just incorrectly describes photons as having positive mass.

2) Lorenz transformations are incompatible with quantum mechanics. Apart from the fact that QM requires a complex functional space, Lorentz transforms are spacetime transforms, while QM requires that time be separate from space.

"Aren't mass and energy change to each other"

Answer: No. Not in QM.

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

Probably because you don't know your history. Ether wasn't a part of classical field theory, but a postulated medium through which light propagated. There were fields in classical physics (many fields; maybe had you studied undergraduate physics you would have learned something of classical field theory). In the standard model and QFT, gravitation is a particle with spin and expressed (like photons) in terms of fields.

"Are the aether and Higgs fields equivalent?"

No, obviously.

"If not, in which manner are these two fields different?"

One wasn't ever a field, and the other is a particular field within QFT, where (guess what?) everything else is either fields or vacua anyway.

"Can you answer that, it is answered according to my transformation"

The transformation that relies on SRT for a theoretical basis and ignores parts of it at will, and completely ignores QM and QFT? Your transformation is just a modified, untenable "version" of SRT without any quantum physics. You don't express anything in ways compatible with QM (your observables aren't operators, your coordinate space is wrong, you do not use state-vectors, you rely on transforms designed for spacetime when systems in QM evolve over time; as QFT is already a combination of QM and SRT, it removes any possible relevancy from your paper's goal).

Dear Andrew Messing,

At the first time I informed you STEP BY STEP, because I understand the information regarded to my theory are too much, and it is related to all branches of physics. I do not know how I follow you and you escape to answer  my questions to you. I think we must start from this point of view;

AS you said " Lorenz transformations are incompatible with quantum mechanics. Apart from the fact that QM requires a complex functional space, Lorentz transforms are spacetime transforms, while QM requires that time be separate from space."

Isn't my transformation separate by time and space. Why space time continuum in Lorentz transformation in SRt isn't by adopting objectivity? If you do not want to understand my comments to you, and you only want to in introduce what you studied in the university, that is not my problem!

As I told you before according to my 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. Because of that you refuse to answer about all of my questions in order to know how I discuss with you. I told you many times there is no any violation of my theory and QFT, QED, and all the branches of physics, Here the problem is how to understand SRT according to objectivity or refusing objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. If refusing objectivity, then how I understand the time dilation and Lorentz contraction. So as I answer your questions, answer my questions in order to continue discussing. You only repeat what you studied without understanding what you studied and how they related to each other. 

"Isn't my transformation separate by time and space. Why space time continuum in Lorentz transformation in SRt isn't by adopting objectivity?"

There's a bit of a language barrier here, but I think I can address this by answering the different possible interpretations. First, transforms are nothing new. Galilean transforms were around long before Einstein. The particular transforms you use are derived from the transforms unique to special relativity. They are not the actual transforms used by Lorentz, although they bear his name because Einstein's transforms were heavily reliant on Lorentz's and Minkowski's on Einstein's.

Lorentz, and physicists before Lorentz, sought to modify or replace Galilean transforms because they required a system compatible with Maxwell's electromagnetism. However, because they considered light to be a wave which required an as-yet unknown medium through which it propagated, they were unable to produce accurate transformations. It wasn't until Einstein's special relativity and the fact that the constancy of the speed of light that a correct derivation of transformations (i.e., one consistent with empirical results) was possible. The transformations you use can't be assumed to be objective/real independently of special relativity, for the very reason that previous attempts failed (incidentally, Lorentz actually did assume that the speed of light was constant).

Apart from the fact that you rely on special relativity to derive your transforms in order to show that special relativity is flawed, there's the issue of the complete incompatibility between your equations and quantum physics. First, as I said, the transforms you used are incompatible with QM. There are several very obvious indications of how completely incompatible your paper is with quantum mechanics.

1) In QM, the state of any system is represented by a ket vector in Hilbert space. This includes photons. It is absolutely not true that "we know from Quantum Theory that the energy is photons having a rest mass equals to zero" as you state in your paper. For one thing, photons have no rest mass. For another, we don't have rest mass in QM.

2) You refer to observables like energy. In QM, these are represented by Hermitian operators, not values. They "act on" the state-vector. However, not only does your paper lack state-vectors such that you could assert something about the state of a photon (or any particle) in a way consistent with QM, your equations and transforms cannot be consistent with QM because both systems and their observables (like your description of a photon and observables like mass and energy) require Hilbert space which you don't use.

3) QM isn't relativistic. You're describing a relativistic "theory". You could just compare your account to relativistic quantum theory and see how a relativistic quantum theory actually works rather than play around with various equations you take from special relativity and then combine with inaccurate statements about their compatibility with QM, but you choose not to.

"Isn't my transformation separate by time and space."

From your paper: "Equations (6) and (11) represent the measured space-time separation of the light bath inside the moving train comparing to the measured space-time of the light bath locally on the earth surface for the earth observer"

&

"Equation (14) represents the measured speed of light inside the water tube according to the space-time coordinates inside the tube"

You talk about space-time coordinates, QM doesn't admit space-time coordinates. It doesn't really work with coordinates (or rather, the most common spaces, such as Euclidean, Minkowski, Riemannian, etc., are coordinate systems in the sense that the space is defined by coordinates, while QM requires functional space). You refer to space-time, while QM keeps space and time quite separate.

"As I told you before according to my 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."

1) Planck's constant is a constant! It cannot approach 0.

2) The rule of thumb regarding when the quantum effects are non-negligible comes from the ratio of a system's size and its de Broglie wavelength. If the wavelength is near or exceeds the size, quantum effects are non-negligible and classical physics breaks down. If the size is much greater, quantum effects are negligible.

"Because of that you refuse to answer about all of my questions"

I copied and pasted your questions in this and in my last reply as in others. However, many of your questions don't make any sense (and not just due to the language barrier). For example: "Is Loretnz symmetry conserved for all velocity ranges?"

You have continually stated that your paper isn't incompatible with QM, QFT, etc. However, you haven't responded to any of the ways I've shown it absolutely isn't other than to repeat the claim that it is.

dear Andrew Messing,

You said "many of your questions don't make any sense (and not just due to the language barrier). For example: "Is Loretnz symmetry conserved for all velocity ranges?" This question is the core what we must discuss. It is clear from all of your comments you only repeating what you have studied in the text books of physics without understand how the equations of physics work, and what is behind the equations of physics. You are repeating only as a Parrot. Read the question I asked you in the post, and try to understand how it is related to the Lorentz transformation and objectivity. And try to understand how who understand physics well answer this question, if you do not understand this question, and consider it nonsense, then how do you want me to discuss with you?

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

" It is clear from all of your comments you only repeating what you have studied in the text books of physics without understand how the equations of physics work, and what is behind the equations of physics."

I have to use those equations. Ignoring consult work because academic research doesn't pay, most of my study has concerned mathematical and quantum physics, neuroscience, and complex systems. It is true that I don't have to use special relativity in and of itself, but I have to use it as it has been incorporated into various relativistic quantum theories and particular physics. It's also true that my knowledge of general relativity comes entirely from physics literature (mostly journals, though, not textbooks). Most importantly, even were I an undergraduate student studying modern physics as taught to undergrads and had no experience working with any equations from physics other than the occasional and very artificial laboratory experiments, this wouldn't make me any less correct or you any less wrong.

You have once again nicely dodged answering criticisms of your worked (although at least this time you didn't combine this with an untruthful accusation that I was dodging your questions; at best this was just implied).

You are using transforms to disprove the theories that form the basis for those transforms. You have no justification for your mass-energy equivalence principle even had you not misused it apart from special relativity. The transforms and your use of space-time all rest on special relativity. Meanwhile, nothing in your work is compatible with quantum mechanics as I've repeatedly shown (and you've repeatedly ignored challenges and questions as to how your work is at all compatible with QM when you violate the basic postulates and ignore the entirety of the theory other than the earliest work; no state-vectors or wave-equations, no Hilbert space, no operators for the observables you include, just assertions about quantum theory that are not true).

Also, speaking of equations, I've asked you about your complete lack of their use with respect to quantum theory. Your equations are almost without exception either borrowed straight from special relativity, your (theoretically and empirically baseless) manipulations of these, and the proto-quantum theory of Planck's constant and discrete energy "packets". You refer to wave-particle duality but use no wave-functions, amplitudes, or anything other than your misuse of Planck's constant multiple of frequency in your energy equation that you then misuse by plugging it into an equation of rest mass in which you define the rest mass of photons (rest mass for a "particle" that has no rest mass in a paper claiming to be compatible with quantum mechanics despite the fact that rest mass is a relativistic notion and is basically non-existent in quantum mechanics).

Lorentz transforms are completely irrelevant. First because you actually rely on the relativistic, space-time transforms from special relativity, and second because these are incompatible with quantum mechanics. I've asked you to demonstrate how anything in your work is at all compatible with quantum theory, but you've managed to dodge each and every criticism by simply ignoring it or re-asserting your claims as if repetition were evidence.

Your obsession with these transforms that are derived from the empirical and theoretical framework of special relativity so seek to modify without either theoretical or empirical reason are as obsolete as Newtonian mechanics. Special relativity was superseded by both general relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics. But for some reason you're obsessed with one part of it: Lorentz transforms and how you can use them to critique the theory they are based upon with a few algebraic manipulations and your hypothesized "H-particle" nonsense.