Discrete Field Model (DFM) The DFM was constructed to allow testing of the concepts in Albert Einsteins 1952 paper Relativity and the Problem of Space (Translated to English 1954), where he wrote; "The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of 'an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively' to each other."
"This latter idea is indeed 'logically unavoidable', but is far from having played a considerable rôle even in scientific thought." It is a conceptual model of space as consisting of real and discrete quantum fields, related to all mass in the same way as a magnetic field. Each inertial frame of reference, or 'system of co-ordinates', has the real physical representation of a local field in relative motion with all others. It provides a falsifiable model based on Einstein's attempts to formulate a Unified Field Theory in his later years. The model uses the postulates of the Special Theory of Relativity (SR), and data from space exploration and particle accelerators not available in 1905 when SR was derived. The speed of light, and all EM wave propagation in a vacuum 'c', is constant with respect to all of the "infinite number of spaces." The generalised concept of spaces in relative motion conflicted with SR which had removed from space any single absolute quality of motion to achieve equivalence. For GR a background field was essential again and he said "...space without ether is unthinkable." (see GR below). The model uses the limited known field qualities of resistivity, permittivity and 2.7° temperature. (See 'WMAP'). Its development built on the broad work of ex UK NPL head David Whiffen including spectroscopy, superposition and light-mass interaction research. Its stated aim is to test a method of combining locality with reality in a physical process. This has been suggested as a method of enabling the unification of Relativity with Quantum Field Theory (QFT). Einstein said in 1940: "For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation. The field theory, so far, has failed in the molecular sphere. It is agreed on all hands that the only principle which could serve as the basis of quantum theory would be one that constituted a translation of the field theory into the scheme of quantum statistics. Whether this will actually come about in a satisfactory manner, nobody can say." His focus in field theory was mainly on General Relativity (GR). In the 1952 paper he also said; "one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory." The DFM re-appraises the apparent discord between the conceptual basis of GR and SR by considering the assumptions following from the postulates of SR alone. Model The DFM is a dynamic barycentric field model. It tests the proposition that all mass will behave, or be affected, in the same way as an electron or a bunch of protons in a particle accelerator, developing a growing quantum cloud of rapidly and increasingly oscillating spin particles during acceleration through the vacuum chamber. At 7Tev some 10 particles per proton are produced and at close to 'c' the cloud, with help from secondary emissions from collisions with the pipe walls, can attain effective 'saturation' of the accelerator pipe at 10 particles/m . This synchrotron radiation can use up to 6.7 keV of the applied energy per proton at each 'turn' in the LHC. The model says that this both limits maximum speed and meets with the Law of Conservation of Energy as the protons require exponentially increasing energy to be accelerated. It tests an assumption that the physics should be the same at all scales. At the macro scale this leads to the prediction that a galactic dark matter halo will prove to include similar particles, propagated from the surrounding field by motion of the mass through it. These would be generated proportionally to the motion of the galaxy, as a local region of space or 'discrete field', through a surrounding or background field. The planetary bow shock, and the Bow and Termination shocks of the Heliosphere are modelled as the same phenomenon, a dynamic magnetospheric plasma, similar to the bow pressure wave of a ship generating phosphorescence in sea water. (The Earth's bow shock is about 100-1000 km thick and located about 90,000 km from the Earth). A standing wave of oscillating particles leads the planetary bow shock and magnetosphere. Contrary to previous belief, the shock wave is oriented principally on the ecliptic polar, (direction of orbit - see below) with solar massive particle activity acting asymmetrically. Many interplanetary shocks also exist with similar signatures. and the vast dark matter halos of galaxy clusters would also define the boundaries of discrete areas of space. The effective increase in the Fine-structure constant mass with acceleration conserves input energy in accordance with the Law of conservation of energy. The model proposes that 'c' is constant within these quantum particle clouds and considers the consequences of combining reality with the locality of all inertial frames. The model supports the Dark Matter and Newtonian theory for the flat gravitational curve of galaxies. It is therefore not consistent with MOND, and does not have the same issues with observed cluster rotation and observed dark matter flows in collisions such as that of the Bullet Cluster. The field proposed is not given limits, but is consistent with the tensor-vector field of 'Einstein Aether Theory', extending the GR spacetime metric tensor with a dynamical unit time-like vector field. The original additional step is the strict relative locality, and provision of a quantum mechanism of wave particle interaction. (see FM below) This gives each frame a complete quantum reality and real relative motion. Equivalence emerges naturally, free of paradox, as no mass can ever be reached by EM waves at anything other than 'c' in its local frame. It is proposed that there is effectively no Lorentz violation within any inertial frame, but there are "infinitely many" inertial frames, so non invariance at the smallest modulation scale creating the Doppler mechanism during frame transition. FM Frequency modulation of Electromagnetic (EM) waves for FM radio is normally carried out by single oscillators. A similar real physical process for the Doppler shift of all EM waves, including visible light, is modelled, using the dense zone of oscillating particles that forms at the boundary zone of a 'dragged' field around all mass in motion. In a particle accelerator the thickness, oscillation rate and density are closely proportional to velocity through the background field. At close to 'c' the oscillation rate approaches maximum frequency (Gamma). Using the principle that the constancy of 'c' includes the region of space formed by the cloud itself, whatever the relative vector of the discrete fields the waves would be Doppler shifted by FM when they meet the cloud, shock or halo, by exactly the correct frequency, to allow them to remain at precisely 'c' within each new field in relative motion. In FM, the modulated waves can only 'depart' the oscillator at 'c', which is what returns them to original frequency. Moving between discrete fields EM waves may therefore approach an oscillator at a different relative speed but frequency will be modulated to change the speed back to 'c' locally. This seemingly simple logic is the heart of the model and can explain Equivalence within the SR postulates but without the need to dispense with a background 'ether' field. The correlation of frequency, cloud density and velocity is found to be exceptionally close and is described as 'elegantly symmetrical'. As the process would allow a 3rd privileged frame, an observer within it may view the wave velocity changing to produce the Doppler shift that maintains 'c' in each local field. Comparable radiation signature correlations are predicted as similarly symmetrical. Multiple fields in columnar structures would allow such increasingly common phenomena as the observed apparent extreme Superluminal motion of gas jets in Messier 87 and many other galaxies (see below). Signal velocity The model identifies a difference in information contained within an EM wave 'pulse' in motion, and within the observed waves emitted laterally by that pulse. It is proposed that as a pulse crosses an observers view frame he is provided only with limited information, including it's rate of change of position. The pulse signal information is not contained therein, and it propagates to the observer at 'c'. If the same pulse is directed AT the observer, or is part of a wavefront sphere, it will contain that information and will also be observed at 'c'. The DFM logically identifies that rate of change of position, like the edge of a shadow on a curved surface, may be observed at apparently less or more than 'c' from a background frame if the pulse is propagated within a moving medium (a different inertial frame). This is consistent with all Sagnac effect observation without Lorentz violation. It is also cited as similar to the relative separation velocity of galaxies at either end of the observable universe where each is receding at significantly over 0.5c, which does not break invariance or the second postulate of Special Relativity. Equivalence The model considers the situation, related to the equivalence principle, that two astronauts floating in space in relative motion are each equally justified in saying one is at rest and the other is in motion. With a background field/third inertial frame they would be in motion with respect to that field so could not be equivalent. The background 'Aether' had to be removed for SR to explain this. 'c' could only be constant to both by using the mathematical infinity of Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction. This gave rise to continuing controversy over paradoxes and the divide with quantum physics. The adjusted solution offered by the DFM is that, along with all mass, each astronaut has a dense fine structure 'cloak' of oscillators, with their density and frequency varying proportionally to his speed through the field. This invisible oscillating particle layer physically Doppler shifts the light to keep the propagation rate at 'c' whatever his velocity. Any massive body would therefore observe all EM waves arriving as travelling at 'c'. The waves will also have approached him at 'c' with respect to the quantum field they travelled through. An emitter will also emit waves at 'c', but, if in motion through a background field, once in the particle boundary with that field the wave velocity will immediately change to 'c' with respect to that field. This simple balanced symmetrical solution appears to match all observation without paradox. It provides a physical mechanism, adjusting and simplifying SR to allow both SR and GR to work with the quanta. Wave-particle duality is also better explained as the background field allows longitudinal pressure fluctuation waves and wave superimposition at all scales, derived from the Louis de Broglie solution and without needing long term particle conservation, and is consistent with Young's double slit experiment results. Two questions are asked: If any velocity can only be relative, 'light is propagated irrespective of the velocity of the emitter,' and a photon from a Schrodinger sphere wavefront travels across space without meeting any mass; What is it travelling at 'c' 'with respect to'? The same is asked of momentum. If a particle moves in the atmosphere is has momentum. If we remove the planet and all mass from the region how can we tell if it has momentum?, and would it be entirely equivalent to a second nearby particle which was at rest with the planet's frame before it was removed? It is suggested that without the 2.7° third frame 'dark energy' field this is not consistently resolvable. Historical Basis The Fresnel Aether drag hypothesis of an ether 'entrained' by the planet was supported and refined by Oliver Heaviside, George Stokes and others, and anticipated the present Discrete Field Model by almost two centuries. Aether drag was consistent with the Fizeau and Sagnac Experiments, Michelson-Morley, and the later Dayton Miller interferometer results, including the low ether drift rates found. It was argued at the time, well before space exploration, to be contrived, and to conflict with Stellar Aberration, but the understanding of the latter was later proved misguided. The evidence offered against it was the telescope filled with water, which did not account for the field of the telescope ensuring the true focus of the image on the axis would not be affected in either case. The physical mechanism of the DFM supports the ether drag hypothesis. The degree of drift estimated by interferometer experiments has been more accurately studied using a geostationary satellite. Although needing to remove an 'immobile' ether for SR Einstein seemed convinced a real field still existed in space, saying in his 1952 paper; "Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field. ..there exists no space 'empty of field." and also; "the state of the is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places." A background field was an essential basis for GR and it appears that his conceptual thoughts, even without current knowledge, were close to discrete fields 'in relative motion', related to matter, where the connections, or boundaries, were the critical elements. Later Evidence Other evidence appears consistent with the model. The additional time that light would take to traverse galaxies moving away from the observer compared to light lensed around them would explain the exceptionally anomalous Shapiro effect/Einstein lensing light delays of over 3 years. Significantly longer lensing delays are predicted by the model. This is considered as jumping on one end of a bus, or perhaps Einsteins favourite train, walking through it and jumping off the other end. The walking speed never changes, but subject to the vector of the train the arrival time will be well before or after anyone who walked along the track. The Pioneer anomaly, was also experienced by the Voyager programme and is simply explained by the dense shock mass and relative field motion. The additional accelerations of the Flyby anomaly may be explainable in the same way. NASA reports the Voyagers found a dramatic increase in frequency of the solar polarity change wave, as predicted by the model, at the Heliosphere's shock boundary. This was previously considered as simply the termination point of the solar winds. The Wang et al. experiment confirmed the Sagnac effect is applicable longitudinally as well as rotationally. This confirms light travels at 'c' with respect to the inertial frame of the medium it's moving within not the frame of the observer if different. This is described as meaning that if a pulse is sent along a fibre optic cable wave guide fitted to the side of Concord the cable would not have to detach itself to contract in length to avoid Lorentz violation. Such violation is increasingly fashionable in advanced physics The results of the Keating experiment of atomic clocks on jet planes counter rotating the planet, where the clock rates did show variation, would be explainable without the issues of SR domain and incorrect application of the Sagnac effect. It appears the model is logically consistent and has yet to be scientifically refuted in any way but more testing is needed. Lunar Laser Ranging At the end of 2009 unexpected results arose from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. Two papers by NASA's Dan Gezari included a more rigorous analysis of the GPS system data than has previously been given. The results were in clear disagreement with unmodified SR but were as predicted by the DFM modification. The papers thoroughly reconsider and correct the previously erroneous application of the Sagnac Effect as 2nd order. As is sometimes the case it seems this had reflected expectation. The 'anomaly' matched the position change of the observatory during the experiment, clearly confirming the Saganc effect as real and 1st order, and not consistent with the previous most common view of SR. The WMAP mission is cited with others as having confirmed asymmetric background field characteristics consistent with the model (see addition below). Other testable predictions are made. As the shock oscillates and changes only this close dual satellite penetration could give an accurate profile. The most active areas at solar particle frequencies occurred close to the solar plane but radiation profiles varied according to relative velocity with the dense macro condensed particle wave In March 2010 the ESA's preliminary Planck mission CMB release confirmed; "Part of the analysis process involves peeling away the foreground emission arising from a number of 'contaminants' (principally) the cosmic dipole, a signal due to our motion relative to the microwave background." This is focussed on the orbital ecliptic polar shock rather than solar vector and is used as a principal calibration tool. The Synchrotron radiation is consistent with that from the LHC. It's existence is cited by the model as clear evidence of absolute rather than relative motion, through an interplanetary medium or dark energy field. SR Postlates The Postulates of special relativity are followed, with the constancy of 'c' being maintained down to the Planck scale and locally in all regions of space "in motion. relatively to each other." Time dilation due to gravity and the curved space time basis of GR appear not to be affected but dilation due to acceleration and length contraction, not yet observed, are not essential to the model. This would allow removal of potential paradox. The model identifies a subtle difference between acceleration due to gravity and that due to change of rate of motion as the essentially temporary and 'energy building' nature of the latter, not present with gravity. The key Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is apparently not affected. The paradox of the Light clock is explained from two viewpoints. It is suggested the light pulse will behave in one way in a closed box and another if the mirrors are set well apart. A box will form a discrete field which will move with the box. In this case the pulse may be observed through a glass side wall from a third, rest, frame as moving superluminally, but the light reaching the observer with that information moves at 'c' with respect to him. i.e. it does not carry the same signal. If the two mirrors are separated the space between them is in the observers background frame; When the mirrors move off in unison the perpendicular light pulse will be left behind. The mirrors would have to be angled in the direction of travel to keep the pulse between them. The observer would only ever observe the pulse as moving at 'c'. Careful consideration shows this does not breach the Postulates of special relativity. It does modify an assumption which is inconsistent with relevant experimentation. This is often forgotten leading to misunderstanding in simplistic interpretations of Relativity. The specific problem he identified in the Leiden address was that a single 'preferred' velocity was not satisfactory. "Infinate spaces" however, with no preferred velocity, ceased to be an issue. This would allow the unified tensor-vector field, with dynamic local vectors, proposed the model, also consistent with the current 'Einstein Aether Theory'. Other consequences. The model would allow the Unification of special relativity and QFT by providing a physical mechanism conceptually consistent with both. Each would require limited modification of assumptions. It relies on dark matter particles being propagated from a dark energy field by the shock pressure of another field moving through it. It suggests the mysterious oscillating 'photoelectrons', termed 'parasitic', around accelerated protons are a major constituent of Dark matter and are there for good reason, for frequency modulation. This suggests the Higgs Boson may not exist, and that dark matter has already been found. It would throw new light on the dark energy field, and the route to unifying QFT with GR, presently termed Quantum gravity. In identifying the mechanism for apparent Superluminal motion it also points the way to the possibility of superluminal information transfer in the future by use of multiple projected fields within fields, maintaining Lorentz invariance. The unresolved problems between relativity and QFT identified by Einstein are also recognised by present eminent physicists such as Sir Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin, but not all, as science needs stable ruling paradigms. Karl Popper considered it was essential for the survival of humanity that ruling paradigms are challengeable. Despite continued controversy over claimed inconsistencies SR and GR have resisted all challenges, due to the non existence of a consistent alternative theory. The DFM conceptually addresses a basic assumption of SR, and appears to be the first falsifiable physical model which matches observation and may prove to be fully consistent. It's mathematical basis is the simple non relativistic Doppler equation but it opens the way to new mathematical models and more rigorous testing. The model would not overthrow relativity but use 100 years of advances in scientific knowledge to simplify and explain it, assisting GR. It seems to meet the aim of allowing it's Unification with quantum physics by combining the concepts of Locality and Reality. Classic and quantum physics. If proven over time it would seem to open the way to progress for many fields. References and notes <references/>