Su-CC · Source catalogue

Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 701-715 (2001). The foundation paper of the whole folder. Su postulates Su's local-ether model: the universe holds finite 'local ethers', each at rest with the gravitational potential of a celestial body (geocentric inertial frame near Earth, heliocentric frame in interplanetary space); light travels at c relative to the local ether. Earthbound propagation then depends on Earth's rotation (first-order Sagnac effect, expressed as R = R_t + R_t.v_e/c with v_e the receiver velocity in the Earth-centred inertial frame, ECI) but not on Earth's orbital motion; interplanetary propagation uses the heliocentric frame. He presents as support (i) the GPS Sagnac pseudorange correction (typically about 30 m) used with ECI-frame positions, (ii) a Japan-USA two-way satellite microwave time-comparison error of about 0.3 microsecond (Saburi, Yamamoto, Harada 1976) and a Japan-Korea one of about 40 ns (Lee et al. 1989), both attributed to the Sagnac effect from Earth's rotation, (iii) interplanetary radar echo times computed in a heliocentric frame (echo about 1000 s, uncertainty about 100 microseconds, comparison agreement a few hundred microseconds, about 1 microsecond for spacecraft transponders over months), (iv) the Michelson-Morley null result, reinterpreted: with v from Earth's rotation alone the second-order round-trip effect is about 1e-12 instead of about 1e-8 (pi/3 of fringe amplitude for 10 m path, 0.6 micron light), so 'not exactly zero but currently too small to detect'. He also treats Sagnac loop interferometry (delta tau = (4/c^2) omega.S), constancy of light speed from binary stars, the Krisher 21 km fibre link, Doppler/Roemer/CMBR (receiver about 300 km/s relative to a CMBR 'local ether'), a gravitational index n_g = 1+2GM/(c^2 r) for light deflection and radar delay, and states the matter-wave equation (nabla^2 - (1/c^2) d^2/dt^2) Psi = (omega_0^2/c^2) Psi (eq. 36). Predictions: a cavity heterodyne quadrupole of 62 Hz amplitude at 40 deg latitude for a 3.39 micron He-Ne/Fabry-Perot system (the one reported measurement, Brillet and Hall, showed a term of about 17x2 Hz attributed to a spurious signal; Su says 'too early to make a decisive conclusion'); a one-way-link rotor dipole (eq. 31, about 1.86e-3 deg per GHz per metre); a second-order radar Doppler shift of -2v^2/c^2 for transverse motion (a few Hz for a low-orbit satellite at 10 GHz). Su states plainly that annual stellar aberration is unsolved once Earth's local ether is included. Deep reader's arithmetic reproduces nearly all numbers (Su's 'orbital speed about 100 times rotational' is 64 times; 30 km/s vs 464 m/s); the 62 Hz prediction reproduces; measured/predicted is 0.55. QE addendum (pp.11-12): Su treats the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) as radiated by numerous sources that are 'stationary with respect to each other' (otherwise the directional temperature variation would be more complicated than a dipole), so they 'form an immense local ether which encloses the sun local ether' (chain: Earth local ether inside Sun local ether inside CMBR local ether). He takes the blackbody temperature 2.73 K and a dipole fractional amplitude v/c of about 1e-3, hence about 300 km/s for the receiver relative to this ether, notes that the first-order dipole is 'identical to that in another frame or even to that in the universal ether adopted in the new aether drift' and so cannot discriminate, and proposes that 'a crucial test for the local-ether model can be provided, if the directional anisotropy in the CMBR temperature can be measured to the second order' (eq. 24 terms v_e.v_es/c^2 and u_es^2/c^2). He gives no predicted second-order amplitude, sensitivity or procedure; his closing claim is consistency ('in accord with, or does not deny'), not support. Order of magnitude by the deep reader, not in the paper: (v/c)^2 = 1e-6, about 3 microkelvin on 2.73 K [calc]. The CMBR observations he cites for the seasonal modulation (about 10 percent of the dipole amplitude, 'demonstrated by comparing two observations separated by six months') are refs 41-43 (1977, 1983, 1985).

Key claims

• Electromagnetic waves travel at c relative to a local ether at rest in the geocentric inertial (ECI) frame for earthbound propagation and in the heliocentric frame for interplanetary propagation.
• Earthbound propagation (GPS, intercontinental microwave links, loop interferometers) depends on Earth's rotation through the first-order Sagnac effect but is independent of Earth's orbital motion.
• The Michelson-Morley round-trip effect is of order (v_rot/c)^2 about 1e-12, not (v_orbit/c)^2 about 1e-8, so the null result does not exclude a frame-dependent second-order effect.
• A He-Ne/Fabry-Perot cavity heterodyne at latitude 40 deg should show a 62 Hz peak-to-peak quadrupole beat term driven by Earth's rotation.
• A one-way-link (or Kennedy-Thorndike) apparatus on a turntable should show a sinusoidal phase variation delta phi about 1.86e-3 f[GHz] R_t[m] cos(lat) cos(theta_T) degrees.
• Monostatic radar to a transversely moving target should show a second-order Doppler shift of -2v^2/c^2, differing by a few Hz from the standard formula for a low-orbit satellite at 10 GHz.
• The model does not explain annual stellar aberration once Earth's local ether is included (admitted by the author).
• The CMBR dipole is consistent with a CMBR 'local ether' enclosing the Sun's; a second-order measurement of the CMBR temperature anisotropy would discriminate the local-ether Doppler formula (eq. 24) from the relative-velocity-only form (stated as a test; no size given).

Relevance: Defining paper of the project; every later paper applies or extends this model. Su is the originator, so his characterisations of special relativity and of GPS practice are his own (he hedges: 'these arguments ... may be disputable').

Mainstream conflict: Su's frame-selection rule (ECI for earthbound, heliocentric for interplanetary) replaces the relativity principle with a preferred local frame. The first-order formulas (GPS Sagnac term, Michelson-Gale, loop gyro) are the same expressions mainstream GPS practice uses in the ECI frame [memory, high]; mainstream treats Michelson-Morley second-order effects as null to about 1e-17 level in modern cavity tests [memory, medium]. Su's own text characterises relativity as extrapolating the orbital null to rotation 'without direct evidence'.

Short author biography: born 1955 in Taiwan; B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in electrical engineering from National Taiwan University (1978, 1980, 1985); 1980-82 at the Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu (IC fabrication processes); from 1985 on the faculty of National Tsinghua University, now professor of electrical engineering. Research areas listed: fundamental theories in quantum electromagnetics, electromagnetics, antenna, numerical solutions (antenna, scattering, microstrip, waveguide, resonator), MOS circuits, and fabrication of ferroelectric memory ICs.

Key claims

• Su is a long-serving professor of electrical engineering with a mainstream engineering career (antennas, IC fabrication) who developed the local-ether theory as a side field he calls 'quantum electromagnetics'.

Relevance: Biographical context for the inventor; same biography is repeated in the author boxes of f3c, f4a, f5a, f5b.

Mainstream conflict: none (biographical)

Skipped by text prep as an identical copy of the Eur. Phys. J. C 21 paper; see that entry.

Relevance: Duplicate; adds nothing.

Mainstream conflict: none

arXiv:physics/0211019 v1 (5 Nov 2002); first presented at IEEE AP-S Symp. 2001. Su proposes that the electromagnetic force on a charge should be the same in all frames, achieved with Galilean transformations by naming the frame of each quantity. He postulates augmented potentials: Phi~ = (1/4 pi eps0) Integral (1 + v_es^2/2c^2) rho_v/R dv' and A~ = -(1/4 pi eps0 c^2) Integral v_es rho_v/R dv' (v_es = effector velocity minus source velocity, all in the local-ether frame, retarded by R/c) and a Lagrange-type force law F = q{-grad Phi~ - (d A~/dt)_e}. For mobile charges in a neutralising 'matrix' (metal, magnet) at low speed this reduces to F = q{-grad Phi - (dA/dt)_m + v_em x curl A}, i.e. the Lorentz force law with the current density, the time derivative on A and the effector velocity all referred to the matrix frame; 'identical to the Lorentz force law if observed in the matrix frame as done tacitly in common practice', so Lorentz's law has 'hidden restrictions'. Three extra 1/c^2 terms F1, F2, F3 are written down and estimated as negligible at low speed (copper wire at 10 A/mm^2: drift speed 7.4e-4 m/s). He discusses a cathode-ray tube example and the cyclotron (tentative extension to high speed; says no per-passage acceleration measurement is known to him). No experiments of his own and no new test is named. Deep reader: the algebra of eqs. 8-13, 21-22 is correct; the force law is the Euler-Lagrange equation of a Weber-type velocity-dependent potential (a comparison Su does not make); frame independence is 'by fiat' (each quantity tied to a named frame); F1 is 4.6% of the electrostatic force for a 25 kV electron; F3 contains a term (q Phi/c^2) a acting as a potential-dependent inertia (about 20% for an electron at 100 kV); the Newton's-third-law claim holds only for instantaneous interaction. QE deep read (pp.8-11). (a) CRT with accelerating electrodes moving relative to the deflection yoke (the outline's 'magnetic deflection' prediction): f2a gives no formula, number or experiment for it; it says only that electrode plates are 'commonly stationary with respect to the deflection yoke, although this restriction is not necessary in principle'. The law makes the magnetic force depend on electron velocity relative to the yoke (the matrix), so the fractional change is of order w/u (electrode speed over electron speed): 3.3e-7 for 30 m/s and 5.1e-6 for Earth-rotation speed (465 m/s) at 25 kV [calc]. The deep reader finds special relativity gives the same first-order change (the extra velocity-addition difference is of order u w/c^2, 3e-8 to 5e-7), so as written the prediction does not discriminate. A separate, larger F1 effect (about 5 percent of the electrostatic force at 25 kV) exists whether or not electrodes move; Su says it 'deserves a further study experimentally and theoretically' [read: p.11]. (b) F2 (eq. 28) is exactly the Coulomb force of an equivalent charge density rho_v v^2/(2c^2): for a coil of wire length L, area A and carrier charge density rho, potential on the coil = alpha L I^2/(2 rho A C c^2) (alpha is a current-crowding factor), quadratic in I, independent of current direction, with the sign of the carriers. In the parametrisation of Edwards, Kenyon and Lemon (Utah State University, Phys. Rev. D 14, 922, 1976; superconducting Nb-Ti coil, 701 m of wire, bifilar, liquid helium) Su's F2 is kappa = 1/2. For their coil it gives about -35 microvolts at 10 A and -89 microvolts at 16 A with uniform current [calc], against measured signals of 3-13 mV in earlier runs and tens of mV (74 and 83 mV in single runs) in later ones, with n = 2.02 +/- 0.05 in V proportional to I^n, the sign of the electrons, and persistence in a Faraday-cage variation. EKL conclude the signal 'appears to be a real field effect and is as yet unexplained'. Su's F2 therefore matches the form of what was reported and is 24-320 times smaller than the measured size unless alpha is that large; alpha was not measured. For ordinary copper (1000 turns, 1 mm^2, 10 A) F2 is about 0.1 microvolt (95 nV on 100 pF) [calc]. f2a does not cite EKL. Not read: the 1974 Edwards report, Lemon, Edwards and Kenyon, Phys. Lett. A 162, 105 (1992), and Bartlett and Maglic, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 61 (1990, a reported null test [memory, low-medium]).

Key claims

• A velocity-dependent scalar potential with factor (1 + v_es^2/2c^2) and a Lagrange-type force law reproduce the Lorentz force F = q(E + v_em x B) at low speed when velocities are referred to the matrix frame.
• The Lorentz force law is valid only under hidden restrictions: low effector and matrix speeds, very low drift speed, laboratory frame = matrix frame, Sagnac deviation omitted.
• Three extra force terms F1, F2, F3 exist, all of order 1/c^2; F2 acts on a charge at rest next to a loop carrying steady current.
• A charge at rest beside a neutral steady-current loop feels an extra conservative force F2 proportional to v_sm^2/c^2 (about 7e-8 V/m equivalent field at 1 cm for 10 A in 1 mm^2 copper, deep reader's estimate).
• The force between two charged particles satisfies Newton's third law in the instantaneous (no-retardation) limit.
• For a charge at rest beside a multi-turn coil, F2 predicts a coil-to-shield potential alpha L I^2/(2 rho A C c^2), quadratic in current, independent of its direction and of the carriers' sign (EKL parametrisation kappa = 1/2); for the EKL superconducting coil about -35 microvolts at 10 A for uniform current.
• If the accelerating electrodes of a CRT move relative to the deflection yoke, the magnetic deflection changes by about w/u (outline p.8 prediction; f2a does not size it; first-order the same in special relativity [calc]).

Relevance: Core of the 'electromagnetic' branch: the claim that magnetism can be re-derived with Galilean transformations. The derived force law is the basis for the modified Maxwell equations in f3a and the quantum derivation in f4a.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream: the Lorentz force F = q(E + v x B) holds in every inertial frame with fields transforming under the Lorentz transformation; at low speed Maxwell theory has a Galilean-covariant limit (Le Bellac and Levy-Leblond 1973) giving the same forces in the neutral-current regime [memory, medium]. Su's claim that the Lorentz law 'is not invariant under Galilean transformations' holds only if the fields are kept unchanged between frames. Experimental context for F2 [web: https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Zotero/storage/C6B7H3S5/PhysRevD.14.html ; https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0474]: Edwards, Kenyon and Lemon, Phys. Rev. D 14, 922 (1976), reported a potential on a superconducting coil quadratic in the current (n = 2.02 +/- 0.05), sign of the carriers, 3-83 mV, unexplained by self-Hall, thermoelectric, flux-flow or other conventional effects; Maxwell theory predicts none. Lemon, Edwards and Kenyon, Phys. Lett. A 162, 105 (1992), is cited for a further observed potential difference (abstract of arXiv:1009.0474, not read); a null test by Bartlett and Maglic, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 61 (1990) is recalled [memory, low-medium; not checked]. Su's F2 matches the form of the reported effect but is 24-320 times smaller for uniform current.

arXiv:physics/0208082 v1 (23 Aug 2002). Using the modified Lorentz law (f2a) Su writes wave equations for the potentials and fields in the local-ether frame, with time derivatives of the polarisation current taken in the matrix frame: lap E - (1/c^2) d^2E/dt^2 = grad rho_n/eps0 + mu0 (dJ_n/dt)_m. For a uniform plane wave in a moving uniform dielectric (index n, matrix velocity v_m relative to ECI) he obtains k = (omega/c){n - (v_mx/c)(n^2-1)} and phase speed c/n + v_mx(1 - 1/n^2), the Fresnel drag coefficient, which he attributes to polarisation current, not ether dragging. Applied to: the Krisher et al. 1990 21 km hydrogen-maser fibre link (phase stable over days; a turntable test is predicted, delta phi = (omega/c^2) omega_E R_E |d| cos(lat) cos(theta_T)), the Sagnac loop with comoving medium (index-independent, 4 k0 (omega_I+omega_E).S/c) or geostationary medium (n^2 on loop rate, 1 on Earth's rate; Harzer 1914, Dufour and Prunier 1942 via Post 1967), and Fizeau's flowing-water experiment (delta phi = 2 k0 l (n^2-1) v_f/c). Stated predictions: no Fresnel-type drag in a moving purely magnetic medium (speed c sqrt(mu0/mu) whatever the medium's motion); the phase-speed formula may fail in non-uniform dielectrics; no detection of Earth's orbital motion with fibre gyros. Deep reader: every algebraic step passes to first order in v/c for a non-dispersive medium; one unstated assumption (v_m uniform so that (d/dt)_m commutes with the wave operator, used also for rotating loops); the closed-loop results equal the standard first-order expressions in the ECI frame, so they do not by themselves distinguish the model from special relativity; the genuine stated differences are the turntable one-way-link test (which depends on how clocks at the two ends behave when moved, not discussed by Su) and the magnetic-medium no-drag prediction (no experiment cited).

Key claims

• In a uniformly moving uniform dielectric the phase speed relative to the local ether is c/n + v_mx(1 - 1/n^2), where v_mx is the matrix velocity in the ECI frame (including Earth's rotation).
• The Fresnel drag arises from polarisation current referred to the matrix frame, not from an ether dragged by the medium; Earth's local ether stays stationary in ECI whatever the medium does.
• A wave in a uniformly moving purely magnetic medium travels at c sqrt(mu0/mu) relative to the local ether regardless of the medium's motion (no drag).
• A one-way fibre or free-space link on a rotating turntable should show a sinusoidal phase change of amplitude (omega/c^2) omega_E R_E d cos(lat) at the turntable rate.
• The Sagnac phase in a loop with a stationary dielectric scales as n^2 times the loop rotation rate but with coefficient 1 on Earth's rotation, and no orbital-motion term appears in earthbound fibre gyros.

Relevance: Gives the electromagnetic-wave side of the theory (Fizeau, Sagnac, fibre link) and states two of the model's distinguishing tests.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream: moving-medium phase speed c/n + v(1 - 1/n^2) follows from Lorentz velocity addition to first order and holds in any inertial frame; moving magnetic media are expected to show drag with index n^2 = mu/mu0 [memory, high]. Closed-loop Sagnac formulae are identical to the standard ones. In special relativity clocks carried around a rotor would cancel the first-order turntable term (deep reader's analysis, to be confirmed).

J. Electromagn. Waves Applic. 19(4), 559-567 (2005). Short re-derivation of the moving-dielectric phase speed c_m = c/n + v_mx(1 - 1/n^2) from the polarisation-current wave equation lap E - (1/c^2) d^2E/dt^2 = ((eps-eps0)/(eps0 c^2)) (d^2E/dt^2)_m (left side ECI-frame time, right side matrix-frame time), then Fizeau's flowing-water interferometer: the Earth-rotation (path velocity v_l) contribution cancels around the closed path because its coefficient (1-n^2)+n^2 = 1 does not depend on n and v_l is nearly uniform; the surviving phase difference is 2 k0 l (n^2-1) v_f/c, matching Fizeau's fringe shift. Residual Earth-rotation Sagnac area term is 'difficult to measure unless the loop area is as large as a fraction of a square kilometer' (Michelson-Gale scale). Su states the formula holds only for uniform plane waves, uniform media and first order in speed, and that the model differs from special relativity only at second order or with a large loop. Deep reader: algebra reproduced; no numerical estimate for the Fizeau apparatus in the paper (deep reader's illustration gives about 1e-6 fringe for 1 m^2, assumed values).

Key claims

• Fizeau's fringe shift is reproduced to first order by a polarisation-current mechanism in the Earth-centred inertial frame, without velocity addition or ether drag.
• The Earth-rotation contribution to Fizeau's phase difference cancels over the closed path to first order, leaving 2 k0 l (n^2-1) v_f/c.
• Differences from special relativity would show only at second order in v/c or with loop areas of a fraction of a square kilometre.

Relevance: Concise restatement of the Fizeau part of the program; shows Su's own concession that first-order Fizeau cannot discriminate.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream (special relativity or Fresnel drag) gives the same first-order Fizeau result; no conflict at the order tested. Mainstream also has a Lorentz dispersion correction not in Su's model [memory, high].

J. Electromagn. Waves Applic. 16(9), 1275-1290 (2002). Quantum foundation of the force law. Postulates (eq. 1) {nabla^2 - (1/c^2) d^2/dt^2} Psi = (omega0^2/c^2){1 + (2/(hbar omega0)) q Phi} Psi with r and t referred to the local-ether frame, omega0 a 'natural frequency' and q inherent constants of the particle. With Psi = psi e^{-i omega0 t} and d^2psi/dt^2 dropped this gives i hbar dpsi/dt = -(hbar^2/2m0) lap psi + q Phi psi (Schroedinger's equation 'except the reference frame'). An Ehrenfest-type calculation gives acceleration a = -(q/m0) grad Phi if m0 = hbar omega0/c^2, which Su reads as the physical origin of inertial mass as wave temporal variation. A postulated 'augmentation operator' U = (1/2c^2)(-i(c^2/omega0) grad - v_s)^2 multiplies the potential term and yields the augmented potentials of f2a and the force law F = q{-grad Phi - (dA/dt)_m + v_em x curl A}. Deep-read corrections to the digest: the force law has no 1/c^2 or 1/c prefactors (those sit inside A); U has the factor 1/(2c^2), not 1/(3c^2). Deep reader's findings: algebra from eq. 1 to the force law is correct under Su's ordering; m0 = hbar omega0/c^2 is a calibration (the 2/(hbar omega0) coefficient was chosen so that electrostatics comes out right) and eq. 1 is the Klein-Gordon equation linearised in Phi in a preferred frame; U is postulated, not derived; the ordering q Phi U makes the Hamiltonian non-Hermitian (small effect); <p^2> = <p>^2 is assumed in eq. 31; the reduction (35)-(36) is quoted from an earlier paper; what is Galilean invariant is 'by labelling' each quantity with a physical frame, and in the quasi-static limit it is ordinary relative-velocity invariance. No experiments or data.

Key claims

• Inertial mass equals the natural frequency of the associated matter wave times hbar/c^2 (m0 = hbar omega0/c^2) for a low-speed charged particle.
• A local-ether wave equation with an augmentation operator on the potential term yields the electrostatic force, the electric induction force and the magnetic force, i.e. a modified Lorentz force law, from quantum mechanics.
• The derived force is unchanged when observed in different frames because every position, time derivative and velocity is referred to a named frame.

Relevance: Supplies the 'quantum electromagnetics' foundation: the wave equation from which the force law, mass relation and later speed-dependent results are drawn.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream: the same Schroedinger-level results follow from the Klein-Gordon equation with minimal coupling; mass is an input parameter (m = hbar omega0/c^2 is the Compton-frequency relation), not derived [memory, high]. The preferred-frame wave equation (1) is not Galilean or Lorentz invariant as written; Su intends that.

J. Electromagn. Waves Applic. 16(3), 403-410 (2002). Adds the gravitational index n_g = 1 + 2 Phi_g/c^2 (Phi_g = GM/r taken positive) to the matter-wave equation: {(1/n_g) nabla^2 - (n_g/c^2) d^2/dt^2} Psi = (omega0^2/c^2){1 + (2/(hbar omega0)) q Phi} Psi (postulated). In the weak-field, slowly varying limit, i hbar dpsi/dt = -(hbar^2/2m0) lap psi + q Phi psi - m0 Phi_g psi, from which an Ehrenfest procedure gives acceleration a = -(q/m0) grad Phi + grad Phi_g and force F = -q grad Phi + m0 grad Phi_g with m0 = hbar omega0/c^2. Su concludes that gravitational mass and inertial mass are both equal to the natural frequency (times hbar/c^2) and calls this the origin and identity of the two masses; the same equation with the augmentation operator is said to give electromagnetic forces, 'a unified quantum theory of gravitational and electromagnetic forces' (described in words only; no single equation contains omega0, Phi_g, Phi and U together; the induction/magnetic derivation is delegated to earlier conference papers). Light deflection and radar echo delay are cited to f5b with no numbers. Deep reader: the algebra reproduces (4)->(6)->(13); the identity of masses follows from the postulated form (Phi_g term has no particle-dependent coefficient) together with the definition m0 = hbar omega0/c^2; no new quantitative prediction; no data. QE deep read (pp.4-7): Phi_g enters only through the index n_g, which carries no particle label, so the gravitational coupling is identical for every particle (acceleration grad Phi_g independent of omega0; energy -m0 Phi_g proportional to omega0). The electric term is the one allowed to depend on omega0 (acceleration -c^2 q grad Phi/(hbar omega0)) and, through the augmentation operator U, on source velocity. Su does not allow gravity to differ between particle species or states in this paper, and eqs. 14-15 (electromagnetic force) drop Phi_g, so no combined gravity-plus-magnetic equation is written. The words 'can be different in some other interaction' are not in f5a; they are in the chapter 5 abstract (Investigator download) and refer to the redshift. No gravitational redshift formula appears in f5a pp.4-7.

Key claims

• Gravitational mass and inertial mass of a slow particle are both equal to the natural frequency of its matter wave times hbar/c^2.
• A matter-wave equation with a gravitational index and an electric potential yields Schroedinger-like evolution with interaction (q Phi - m0 Phi_g), giving the gravitational and electrostatic forces as potential gradients.
• The same wave equation with an augmentation operator provides a unified quantum theory of gravitational and electromagnetic forces.
• In the model the gravitational coupling is the same for all particles and states (Phi_g appears only inside n_g); species or transition dependence is not provided for in the gravity equation of this paper.

Relevance: Extends the wave equation to gravity; Su's route to the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream: equality of inertial and gravitational mass is an empirical fact built in as the equivalence principle (general relativity founding postulate); Su derives it from the form of his postulated equation. The Schroedinger Hamiltonian with -m Phi_g is standard in the Colella-Overhauser-Werner neutron literature (cited as ref. 7).

J. Electromagn. Waves Applic. 15(2), 259-268 (2001). Postulates a gravitational index n_g(r) = 1 + 2GM/(c^2 r), so that light has speed c/n_g in the local ether of a body, equivalent to a dielectric of that index. Derives deflection alpha = 4GM/(c^2 b) (grazing the Sun 4.9e-4 deg = 1.75 arcsec, identical to the general-relativity value); a one-way GPS gravitational delay (2GM/c^3) ln[(r_s+r_e+R)/(r_s+r_e-R)] (stated 43-60 ps; deep reader recomputes 42.2-62.2 ps); and a round-trip interplanetary radar delay (4GM/c^3) ln[(r_E+r_P+R)/(r_E+r_P-R)], maximum about 230 microseconds for Earth-Venus (recomputed 232.5). The formulae are term for term the standard weak-field (gamma = 1) results; Su states that the claimed differences from general relativity are the reference frames (geocentric or heliocentric inertial frame) and the use of emission/reception instants, 'although small', but gives no size and proposes no test. He reports a 19.5 microsecond 'disagreement' with a textbook (Kenyon) general-relativity form, which the deep reader attributes to a coordinate-dependent additive term (memory, medium). Deep-read corrections to the digest: the prefactors are 2GM/c^3 and 4GM/c^3 with no factor 1/3. Historical slip in the paper: first confirmation of optical deflection is dated '1917' (the Eddington-Dyson eclipse result is 1919). No measured values are quoted from the Shapiro 1971, Anderson 1975 and Reasenberg 1979 radar papers it cites as demonstrating the delay.

Key claims

• Light speed in a gravitational potential is c/n_g with n_g = 1 + 2GM/(c^2 r), so space need not be curved to explain light deflection.
• Light grazing the Sun is deflected by 4GM/(c^2 R_sun) = 4.9e-4 degrees (1.75 arcsec).
• The extra one-way GPS signal delay from Earth's gravity lies between about 43 ps and 60 ps (deep reader recomputes 42-62 ps).
• The extra Earth-Venus radar echo delay at superior conjunction is about 230 microseconds.
• Differences from general relativity lie in the propagation frame (geocentric or heliocentric inertial) and in reference instants of transmitter and receiver, but are small and unquantified in the paper.

Relevance: Gravity branch: shows that an optical-index description reproduces the standard first-order gravitational light results; used by f5a and f5c.

Mainstream conflict: The index 1 + 2GM/(c^2 r) is the standard weak-field isotropic-coordinate optical analogy for general relativity (PPN gamma = 1) [memory, high], so the numerical results coincide with mainstream; the difference is interpretive (physical index in a preferred frame vs curved spacetime). Published radar tests (Shapiro 1971, Reasenberg 1979) agree with the gamma = 1 coefficient [memory, medium].

arXiv:physics/0608164 v1 (16 Aug 2006); publication status not stated in the document. Adopts the Arp/Burbidge view that some high-redshift quasars are ejected from low-redshift active galaxies and proposes the redshift is gravitational: transition frequencies f = f0/sqrt(1 + 2 Phi_g/c^2), so z = sqrt(1 + 2 Phi_g/c^2) - 1 (eq. 9), finite for any potential (unlike the general-relativity surface-redshift formula). Local ethers are 'exclusive': only the lowest-level one governs an atom, so a fragmenting quasar splits into separate ethers and potentials and redshift falls as mass falls. Cases cited (all from other authors): Arp and Russell 2001 trends, NGC 7319 quasar (z = 2.114, 8 arcsec from the nucleus), Arp 220 companions, NGC 3628 quasars (z = 0.995, 2.15), NEQ3 (z = 0.1935, 0.1939, 0.2229), MCG 7-25-46 (abrupt z = 0.003 to 0.098 with no overlap), NGC 7320 (the cited observers read it as possibly a projection effect). Worked example: 0.7 arcsec at 300 million ly gives about 1000 ly; an assumed density 6e-11 kg/m^3 gives M = 2.7e46 kg, Phi_g/c^2 = 4.2, z = 2.07 (observed 2.114); surface gravity under 1% of Earth's. Fragmentation into equal halves at fixed density gives 1 + z_n = sqrt(1 + [(1+z0)^2-1] 2^(-2n/3)) with z0 = 1.956, compared with the Karlsson (1971) peaks 1+z_n = (1+z0) 1.227^-n; predicted values 6.08, 4.65, 3.53, 2.64, 1.96, 1.42, 1.02, 0.71, 0.49, 0.33, 0.22, 0.14, 0.09, 0.06; Su notes the Karlsson peak 0.60 has no counterpart (possible merger of 0.71 and 0.49) and offers high-z discrepancies as a test. Deep reader reproduces every number; the density is a free assumption (Su: 'a slight adjustment in size or density' improves agreement); no stability analysis (the deep reader's free-fall time is about 270 years, escape speed about 2.9 c, not in the paper); several irregularities in the reference list (duplicate entry, malformed arXiv number). QE tabulation (pp.4-7), all cases second-hand from the cited authors: NGC 7319 quasar 8 arcsec from the nucleus with a V-shaped filament (Galianni et al. 2005); Arp 220 (z = 0.018) with companions z about 0.09 about 2 arcmin away and an H I stream ending on them (Arp 2001); NGC 3628 (z = 0.0028) with an X-ray filament ending on two quasars z = 0.995 and 2.15 (Arp et al. 2002); NEQ3 filament along the line joining its compact objects and the main galaxy and three compact objects z = 0.1935, 0.1939, 0.2229 (Gutierrez and Lopez-Corredoira 2004); the M82 field (clusters A873 and A910 and four bright quasars aligned across M82; Arp and Russell 2001); NGC 383 group with sources on opposite ends of diameters through the central galaxy (Arp 2001; Su flags the tension with axis-aligned ejection himself); MCG 7-25-46, where H-alpha at z = 0.003 stops exactly where H-alpha at z = 0.098 begins with no overlap (Lopez-Corredoira and Gutierrez 2005); and NGC 7320 (Gutierrez et al. 2002), where Su records that the abrupt change 'may be viewed instead as evidence against the connection between the nearby objects and for the projection effect'. Only four cases carry redshifts for both parent and companion. Su's abrupt-boundary argument: because 'the gravitational potential governing the emission is exclusive and unique', redshift is set solely by one potential with no gradient across the interface; this is a postulate of the model fitted to the observation, and the paper gives no test separating it from the projection reading (a sharp boundary is also what unrelated galaxies at different distances would show [deep reader's comment]). Su did no data analysis of his own on these objects.

Key claims

• The intrinsic redshift of quasars is gravitational, z = sqrt(1 + 2 Phi_g/c^2) - 1, set solely by the potential of the object holding the emitting atoms.
• Quasar redshift falls as a quasar fragments and forms stars because its mass and potential fall.
• A quasar 0.7 arcsec wide near NGC 7319 at 300 million ly, with density 6e-11 kg/m^3, has Phi_g/c^2 = 4.2 and redshift 2.07, close to the observed 2.114, with surface gravity under 1% of Earth's.
• Repeated halving of a gravitational-redshift quasar produces preferred redshifts 6.08, 4.65, 3.53, 2.64, 1.96, 1.42, 1.02, 0.71, 0.49, 0.33, 0.22, 0.14, 0.09, 0.06, close to the Karlsson peaks for n = -1 to 2 but with new values 0.71 and 0.49 in place of 0.60.
• Redshift changes abruptly with no overlap at the boundary between two associated objects because only one gravitational potential governs emission.
• Su cites at least ten observational cases of quasar-galaxy association, filaments and abrupt redshift boundaries (NGC 7319, Arp 220, NGC 3628, NEQ3, M82 field, NGC 383, MCG 7-25-46, NGC 7320) from Arp, Burbidge, Gutierrez, Lopez-Corredoira and others as support, and records the projection reading for NGC 7320.

Relevance: Applies the local-ether gravity to an astrophysical problem and ties the project to the Arp / Burbidge discordant-redshift literature; the Karlsson fragmentation prediction is a stated test.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream astronomy reads quasar redshift as cosmological (Hubble law) and treats quasar-galaxy associations as chance projection or lensing; the cited authors (Arp, Burbidge) are minority voices with published ApJ/AJ papers. General relativity gives 1+z = 1/sqrt(1-2GM/Rc^2), diverging at the Schwarzschild radius, whereas Su's formula stays finite; gravitational-stability of a cloud inside its Schwarzschild radius is not analysed [memory, high].

Eur. Phys. J. B 24, 231-239 (2001). From the local-ether wave equation (ECI-frame time derivative) the dispersion relation omega^2 = omega0^2 + c^2 k^2 gives, with particle speed as group velocity, k = omega v/c^2, omega = omega0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), m = m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), hbar omega = m c^2, hbar k = m v: the de Broglie postulates plus Lorentz mass variation, but with v referred to the local-ether frame. For a bound state in a moving atom the minor energy hbar omega~ falls with 1/(mass factor) so transition frequency f = f0 sqrt(1 - v_a^2/c^2) (v_a relative to the ECI frame); with gravity f = f0(1 - Phi_g/c^2 - v_a^2/2c^2). Applications: Hafele-Keating (formula identical to HK's; calculated -40 ns eastward, +275 ns westward, which are HK's published predictions, not independent calculations; measured -59 +/- 10 and +273 +/- 7 ns from memory), GPS clock offset (4.45e-10, 10.22999999545 MHz, 38 microseconds/day; all numbers reproduce and equal the relativistic ECI result), Vessot (Gravity Probe A type) and Krisher spacecraft links, and spatial isotropy in Hughes-Drever experiments (Li, Be, Hg, Ne). Stated prediction: because ground clocks are referred to ECI and interplanetary spacecraft clocks to the heliocentric frame, the frequency-shift formula used for Krisher's 2.3 GHz links differs by a constant -11.5 Hz (= -f0 (30 km/s)^2/2c^2); Su himself says the Krisher data cannot test it because a constant oscillator term is fitted. Acknowledged limit: spin (hyperfine, Zeeman) transitions are outside the wave equation, so the speed scaling for Cs clocks, H masers and nuclear transitions is expected, not derived. Deep reader: algebra of eqs. 4, 6, 14-23 checks; the model agrees numerically with special + general relativity for all near-Earth tests and differs only by the frame assigned to speed. QE deep read (pp.4-6): Su gives one universal formula for every clock transition, f = f0(1 - Phi_g/c^2 - v_a^2/2c^2) + f_ex (eq. 25; closed form f0 sqrt(1 - v_a^2/c^2)(1 - Phi_g/c^2)), with no species- or transition-dependent coefficient, and applies it unchanged to the Cs clocks of Hafele-Keating and GPS, the Rb clocks in GPS, the 1.420 GHz H masers of Vessot et al. and spacecraft oscillators. He derives it only for transitions between states 'of identical spatial distribution but of different spin states' (the hyperfine clock case), standing in for the spin interaction by a modified q Phi term although 'the spin can not be treated by the local-ether wave equation' [read: p.5]. He states 'different dependences of transition frequency on mass or speed caused by some other interactions are not precluded' [read: p.5] with no form or size, and gives no number comparable with clock-comparison tests of redshift universality; the paper cites no such test. Deep reader's calculation (not in the paper, sympy): the speed coefficient is the same for every transition within the model, but the gravitational coefficient is 1 - Phi_g/c^2 for the potential-energy part and 1 - 3 Phi_g/c^2 for the kinetic part of a transition; for an electronic transition between states of different spatial distribution, a Coulomb-bound state with the virial theorem gives a factor about (1 + Phi_g/c^2), i.e. a species difference of about 2 Phi_g/c^2 = 1.4e-9 at Earth's surface (about 1.06e-9 between ground and a GPS orbit) if Su's eq. 24 is extended beyond the case he treats. Su calls those terms 'extra minor contributions' and never evaluates them; the companion redshift paper (ref. 15, 'submitted') is not in the folder. In general relativity the redshift is the same for every clock (local position invariance); clock-comparison limits are of order 1e-6 of the redshift or better [memory, medium; to be web-checked by the reviewers], and Gravity Probe A tested the H-maser redshift to about 7e-5 [memory, high].

Key claims

• Speed, mass and angular frequency of a matter wave obey the de Broglie and Lorentz forms with the particle speed referred to the local-ether (ECI) frame.
• An atom's transition frequency falls as f0 sqrt(1 - v_a^2/c^2) with v_a its speed relative to the ECI frame, an intrinsic quantum property rather than time dilation.
• The Hafele-Keating east-west clock asymmetry follows from speeds measured relative to the ECI frame.
• GPS clocks stay synchronised because their near-circular orbits give equal ECI speeds, and the pre-launch rate offset 4.45e-10 follows from the same formula.
• The frequency shift in interplanetary spacecraft microwave links should deviate by a constant -11.5 Hz at 2.3 GHz from the heliocentric-frame calculation used in the literature.
• Earthbound atomic transition frequencies are isotropic with respect to Earth's rotation and orbit (Hughes-Drever) because the ECI speed of a geostationary atom is constant.
• Su's gravitational redshift (1 - Phi_g/c^2) is universal across clocks as written (eq. 25); he derives it only for spin-flip (hyperfine) transitions and states that other dependences on mass or speed 'are not precluded', without size.
• Reader's calculation, not Su's: applying eq. 24 to an electronic transition of different spatial states gives a gravitational coefficient different by about 2 Phi_g/c^2 (1.4e-9 at Earth's surface) from the hyperfine one, which would conflict with redshift universality at far above the clock-comparison limits (flag for the reviewers: candidate test or internal inconsistency).

Relevance: Central matter-wave paper: gives the speed-dependent transition frequency used by f7 and f8a and the first quantitative contact with clock experiments.

Mainstream conflict: Special + general relativity (computed in a single inertial frame, usually ECI near Earth) give identical numbers for Hafele-Keating, GPS and Gravity Probe A, so these cannot separate the models [memory, high]. Mainstream attributes Hughes-Drever isotropy to local Lorentz invariance. The interplanetary offset depends on whether the Sun's potential is applied to the ground clock; the paper is silent on that [memory, high]. Transition-dependence: mainstream (local position invariance) holds the redshift identical for all clock species; Su's text asserts universality for hyperfine clocks and leaves other dependences open [memory, high for the principle; medium for the quoted test limits].

arXiv:physics/0208084 v1 (23 Aug 2002). Combines Su's second-order Doppler formula f_t/f_r = 1 + u_es/c + (v_e.v_es + a_e.R_t)/c^2 (depends on the receiver's velocity relative to the local ether) with the speed-dependent atomic frequency f = f0 sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) into a resonant-absorption condition (eq. 11): the lab-velocity cross term v_0.v_t appears in both the Doppler and quantum parts and cancels. Ives-Stilwell: from lambda_R = 6618.808 A, lambda_B = 6507.253 A, lambda_0 = 6562.793 A, theta = 0.075 rad (attributed to Mandelberg and Witten 1962) Su gets v_t^2/c^2 = 7.26e-5 and 7.24e-5; deep reader reproduces 7.264e-5 and 7.238e-5 (0.36% gap, at the edge of last-digit rounding) and notes special relativity gives the same result. Ammonia masers: f_r/f_0s = 1 - (v_t^2+v_0^2)/2c^2, independent of v_0 (null beat frequency, Cedarholm et al. 1958). Mossbauer rotor: second-order deviation (v_r^2 - v_t^2)/2c^2, independent of lab velocity, identical to the standard rotor formula; Su cites Hay 1960, Champeney 1963, Turner and Hill 1964 as demonstrations but quotes no data; Kundig 1963 is not cited. Stated predictions: at third order the Mossbauer rotor shows a counter-orientation anisotropy through (v_rt.v_0 - v_r v_rt) u_0/c^3 (deep reader estimates about 1e-18, far below the Fe-57 line width of 3e-13); the v_0^2/c^2 term in Ives-Stilwell and maser frequencies (about 2e-12) breaks Galilean relativity at higher precision. Admission: formula f0 sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is verified only for electronic states; assumed for the nuclear Mossbauer transitions.

Key claims

• The Doppler shift between two atoms and the speed dependence of their quantum energies cancel in the resonant-absorption condition so that results are independent of laboratory velocity to second order.
• The Ives-Stilwell hydrogen-beam wavelengths give v_t^2/c^2 = 7.26e-5 from the difference and 7.24e-5 from the sum of the shifted lines.
• The ammonia-maser output frequency is independent of beam direction and Earth's motion, f_r/f_0s = 1 - (v_t^2+v_0^2)/2c^2.
• A Mossbauer rotor's frequency deviation is (v_r^2 - v_t^2)/2c^2, independent of counter orientation, to second order.
• At third order a Mossbauer rotor should show a directional anisotropy in frequency deviation depending on counter orientation relative to the ground.
• Galilean relativity and spatial isotropy fail at higher order through terms such as v_0^2/c^2 and the third-order rotor term.

Relevance: Shows how the model reproduces the classic second-order 'relativity' tests (Ives-Stilwell, maser, Mossbauer) and where it predicts departures.

Mainstream conflict: At second order the results are identical to special relativity, which Su acknowledges for eq. 17; Ives-Stilwell and rotor tests are standard confirmations of relativistic time dilation [memory, high]. Special relativity predicts no orientation dependence at any order for a rotor in uniform translation.

arXiv:physics/0208085 v1 (23 Aug 2002). From the free-particle local-ether equation (same form as Klein-Gordon) Su derives omega^2 - c^2k^2 = omega0^2 and the de Broglie/Lorentz relations with v in the ECI frame, so earthbound particles moving east have the highest ECI speed, heaviest mass and shortest wavelength. For electrons (7.4e6 m/s at 1 A; deep reader 7.27e6) the effect is negligible; for 1 A neutrons (about 4e3 m/s, ten times Earth's equatorial rotation speed) it is noticeable. Bragg condition with laboratory velocity (eq. 21): m(v_p + v_0.t) d cos theta' = n pi hbar. Worked example from Staudenmann, Werner, Colella and Overhauser 1980 (pyrolytic graphite, d = 6.708 A, n = 4, lambda = 1.134 A, v_p = 3490 m/s, latitude 38.63 deg, v_0 = 362 m/s, beam due south): predicted Bragg angles +20.48 (west) and -19.11 deg (east), 1.37 deg apart versus the standard 19.76 deg; measured crystal-rotation angles 19.14 and 159.63 deg; Su writes 'the agreement is not good quantitatively'. Deep reader: arithmetic reproduces; under Su's assumed zero the measured asymmetry has the opposite sign, with the other zero it agrees within 0.03-0.11 deg; the zero-independent separation (140.49 deg) gives theta_B = 19.755 deg, matching the standard 19.761; the wavelength 1.134 A appears to have been derived from the same two readings under the standard Bragg law (inference); an offset of 0.6 deg in the rotation zero would produce the same pattern. Matter-wave Sagnac: delta phi = (2 omega0/c^2)(omega_I + omega_E).S, identical to the standard 2 m Omega.S/hbar (neutron loop 1e-3 m^2 gives 2.3 rad); distinctive claims are failure for fast loop rotation (no threshold) and no orbital term (mainstream also predicts none as the sidereal rate already includes it, deep reader). No new data.

Key claims

• Earthbound matter-wave wavelength depends on direction: eastward particles have the shortest wavelength because velocity is referred to the ECI frame.
• The neutron Bragg angle depends on crystal orientation relative to Earth's rotation; for 1.134 A neutrons from pyrolytic graphite the predicted angles are +20.48 deg west and -19.11 deg east, about 1 deg difference between symmetric orientations.
• The matter-wave Sagnac phase is (2 omega0/c^2)(omega_I + omega_E).S with no term from Earth's orbital motion.
• The matter-wave Sagnac formula fails for high rotation rates and low particle speeds.
• Double-slit fringe period for neutrons and atoms depends on setup orientation relative to the ground.

Relevance: Matter-wave branch with the most concrete laboratory prediction (neutron Bragg anisotropy) and the only direct comparison with published neutron data, which the author calls quantitatively poor.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream non-relativistic QM is Galilean invariant: the Bragg angle depends only on the neutron velocity relative to the crystal, with Earth's rotation entering only through much smaller Coriolis/Sagnac terms of order Omega_E L/v_p [memory, high]. The Sagnac phase formula is standard.

Europhysics Letters 60(1), 1-6 (1 Oct 2002); received 12 Feb 2002, accepted 4 July 2002. Treats a four-slab silicon neutron interferometer by classical elastic collisions with moving lattice planes (v_2 = v_3 = v_1 - 2(v_1 - v_lattice).n n) and phase = k.l with k = m v/hbar and v in the ECI frame. Rotation: delta phi = 2 m omega_E.S/hbar; gravity: g.(l_2hat - l_1hat) l_1 l_2 m/(hbar v_p); both identical to the standard Colella-Overhauser-Werner and Sagnac neutron results, independent of laboratory velocity (so 'complying with Galilean relativity'); the two experimental geometries of Staudenmann 1980 and Littrell 1997 give eqs. 7 and 8. Su criticises the Hamiltonian derivations (canonical momentum parallel to the path implies a tacit collision; Earth-rotation effect treated as a function of space) and notes Dresden and Yang (1979) as a precedent using moving lattices. Orbital motion: the omitted orbital 'Sagnac' effect, if it existed, would be about 1/365 of the rotational one; no such fringe has been reported; some experiments assume it null by 'local Lorentz invariance'; the local-ether model predicts a null orbital effect and presents the rotation-yes/orbit-no asymmetry as a test. Deep reader: algebra correct (SymPy); no experimental numbers in the paper; agreement with the Hamiltonian approach is asserted by citation, the end formulas coincide with the standard ones; unstated assumptions (no energy-phase term, fixed path vectors, unperturbed transit times); the roughly 1% COW gravity discrepancy in later neutron work (memory) is not mentioned.

Key claims

• The neutron-interferometer rotation phase 2 m omega_E.S/hbar and gravity phase follow from classical collisions with moving lattice planes plus k = m v/hbar with v referred to the ECI frame.
• The phase difference is independent of laboratory velocity and so complies with Galilean relativity.
• Earth's orbital motion produces no Sagnac fringe in earthbound interferometers, while Earth's rotation does.
• The Hamiltonian treatments of the Colella-Overhauser-Werner experiment tacitly assume a collision that rotates the gravity-induced momentum along the path.

Relevance: Peer-reviewed (Europhysics Letters) application of the model to neutron interferometry; repeats the rotation-yes/orbit-no prediction.

Mainstream conflict: The results coincide with the standard COW and Sagnac neutron formulas (they are the formulas Su matches), so no conflict in outcome; the mainstream view is that Earth's orbital free fall gives no first-order Sagnac term and the sidereal rotation rate already contains the 1/366 orbital part [memory, high].

arXiv:physics/0506211 v3 (2 Jan 2006). Derives de Broglie relations from the Klein-Gordon dispersion (group velocity), then describes Compton scattering as scattering of the incident wave from a space- and time-varying permittivity created by a 'mixed state' c1 Psi1 + c2 Psi2 of the electron (initial rest state and final state of energy m c^2, momentum m v); the density cross term e^{i(Delta-omega t - Delta-k.r)} makes the scattered wave carry omega_s = omega_i - Delta-omega, k_s = k_i - Delta-k, with direction set by phase matching k_s = omega_s/c like an end-fire array. Algebra then reproduces the Compton shift Delta-lambda = lambda_C(1 - cos phi). Also offered for Bragg and Raman scattering. Predicted 'direct radiation' at wavelength lambda_rad = lambda_C/(gamma-1) = lambda_i lambda_s/Delta-lambda (low intensity, no strong angular dependence); deep reader's examples for 70 pm x rays: 7 nm at 45 deg, 2.1 nm at 90 deg, about 1 nm at 180 deg. Deep reader: the algebra is correct, but the sums of frequencies and wave vectors are supplied by assigning the final state (omega, k) = (mc^2, mv)/hbar and by the phase product, so the energy and momentum balance is built in and the relations coincide term for term with Compton's collision equations; the coefficients c1, c2 and the transition dynamics are not calculated; no intensity, cross-section, polarisation or numerical example in the paper; no experiment cited for the specific mechanism (plasma frequency downshift and Raman are analogies). The paper says conservation laws 'can be viewed as a consequence of the scattering'. No test design for the direct radiation. Not dependent on the local-ether frame (Su notes the ECI vs geostationary frame makes no difference here).

Key claims

• The Compton wavelength shift follows from interference of waves scattered from a mixed matter-wave state without explicitly invoking energy and momentum conservation.
• Compton scattering demonstrates the wave nature of the electron and the de Broglie postulates for high-speed particles rather than a corpuscular picture of light.
• Compton scattering of 70 pm x rays should be accompanied by weak direct radiation of wavelength lambda_C/(gamma-1), a few nanometres, depending directly on the electron mass variation.

Relevance: Extension of the wave-based reinterpretation program beyond the local-ether frame; carries a distinct (untested) prediction.

Mainstream conflict: Mainstream treats Compton scattering as a photon-electron collision with conservation of energy and momentum, and quantum electrodynamics also gives the cross-section; Su offers a wave-interference alternative that recovers the shift formula. No experimental conflict claimed beyond the proposed direct radiation [memory, high].

Nine-page outline and abstract of Su's online book 'Quantum Electromagnetics - A Local-Ether Wave Equation Unifying Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetics, and Gravitation' (2005, http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw). Sections: Introduction (magnetic force arises from neutralised conduction current, so velocities can be referred to the neutralising matrix); local-ether model of wave propagation; classical local-ether electromagnetics (modified Lorentz law and the modified Maxwell equations: div E = rho_n/eps0, curl E = -(dB/dt)_m, div B = 0, curl B = mu0 J_n + (1/c^2)(dE/dt)_m with matrix-frame derivatives); quantum theory of electromagnetic and gravitational forces (augmentation operator, Schroedinger-like equation, gravitational index, F = -q grad Phi + m0 grad Phi_g); speed-dependent mass and wave properties (hbar omega = m c^2, f = f0(1 - v^2/2c^2 - Phi_g/c^2), Hafele-Keating, GPS, Ives-Stilwell, ammonia masers, Mossbauer rotor, Davisson-Germer, neutron interferometry); summary. The summary section lists the experiments the model 'accounts for' (Sagnac in GPS, intercontinental link and Michelson-Gale; round-trip Sagnac in interplanetary radar; Michelson-Morley null; Kennedy-Thorndike; Roemer, CMBR; Fizeau; solar light deflection; Pound-Rebka; Hafele-Keating; Hughes-Drever; Ives-Stilwell; Davisson-Germer; neutron loop) and the predictions: quadrupole anisotropy in Michelson-Morley phase and cavity heterodyne beat from the round-trip Sagnac effect; one-way-link rotor with strong first-order terrestrial anisotropy; transverse Doppler shift in radar tracking of low-orbit satellites; relative-motion effects in magnetic deflection; various index dependences in Sagnac interferometry; stronger second-order effect in atom-radiation interaction; quantum origin and transition dependence of gravitational redshift; gravitation-induced stellar downshift dependent on star mass; constant frequency-shift deviation in interplanetary links; terrestrial anisotropy in matter wavelength and Bragg angle. References: 14, all by Su, 2001-2005. Digest only; the individual papers are in this folder. QE deep read (pp.4-9): p.8 lists 11 predictions after splitting the first sentence (outline gives no numbers for any). Su's own wording on p.5 calls the quantum origin of the gravitational redshift a 'discrepancy' with general relativity; on p.8 it is relabelled a prediction. Folder papers derive 7 of the 11 fully (Michelson-Morley quadrupole and cavity beat: EPJC 21; one-way-link rotor: f3a, EPJC 21; low-orbit transverse Doppler: EPJC 21; Sagnac index-dependences: f3a, f3c; interplanetary constant deviation: f6; neutron Bragg anisotropy: f8a) and one only in part (redshift transition-dependence: f6 'not precluded'). Four are not derived or sized in any folder paper: (i) magnetic deflection with relative motion between yoke and accelerating electrodes (idea from f2a pp.8-9, not worked out; p.8); (ii) a 'stronger second-order effect' in atom-electromagnetic-radiation interaction (no equation; the candidate source is arXiv physics/0208083, ref [8] p.9, not read in depth; p.8); (iii) transition-dependence of gravitational redshift (p.5, p.8); (iv) a gravitation-induced stellar downshift depending on the mass of the star (no formula, star or number; p.8). Items outside the p.8 list but stated elsewhere in the folder: Moessbauer-rotor third-order anisotropy (f7), no drag in a purely magnetic moving medium (f3a), no Sagnac term from Earth's orbit, the quasar preferred redshifts (f5c), and the CMBR second-order test (EPJC pp.11-12).

Key claims

• The local-ether wave equation unifies quantum mechanics, electromagnetics and gravitation and accounts for a long list of experiments commonly ascribed to relativity or de Broglie waves.
• Maxwell's equations hold with time derivatives and neutralised current density referred to the matrix frame, so electromagnetic force is the same in all Galilean frames.
• Predictions listed include a cavity/Michelson-Morley quadrupole, a one-way-link rotor dipole, a radar transverse Doppler shift, a gravitational downshift depending on star mass, and Bragg-angle anisotropy in neutron diffraction.
• The p.8 prediction list includes a gravitational redshift whose 'quantum origin and transition-dependence' are predicted (p.5 calls the quantum origin a 'discrepancy' with general relativity); no formula for the transition dependence is given in the outline.
• A gravitation-induced stellar spectral downshift depending on the mass of the star is predicted (outline p.8; no formula, star or number).
• In magnetic deflection an effect of relative motion between the deflection yokes and the accelerating electrodes is predicted (outline p.8; not sized in the outline or in f2a).
• In the interaction of atoms with electromagnetic radiation a 'stronger second-order effect' is predicted (outline p.8; no equation, size or comparison given).

Relevance: Programme summary of the whole project; useful as a map of which paper supports which claim. The deep read maps each of the 11 predictions to the folder paper that derives it, or records that none does.

Mainstream conflict: As for the individual papers: replaces relativity with Galilean transformations plus a preferred local frame; the chain of consequences is stated here without derivation (the derivations are in the cited papers).

One-page web summary of Su's book and theory: a local-ether wave equation with a natural frequency unifies quantum mechanics, electromagnetics and gravitation; leads to speed-dependent frequency, wavelength and mass; with the electric scalar potential and the augmentation operator to a modified Schroedinger equation, a modified Lorentz force law, and modified Maxwell equations; with the d'Alembert operator refined by a gravitational potential to gravitation and identity of gravitational and inertial mass. Light-ether is 'local' and moves with each body's gravitational potential; all quantities referred to their frames stay unchanged under Galilean transformations. The long list of experiments accounted for (the same as the book summary) and a closing statement that the theory predicts effects of Earth's motions providing tests. Duplicates the text of outline.pdf's abstract and summary.

Key claims

• A local-ether wave equation accounts for a wide variety of experiments and predicts effects of Earth's motions that would test it.

Relevance: Shows how the author presents the whole theory to a general audience.

Mainstream conflict: As for the project: see claims.md.