[Physics] Why is a new beginning in physics necessary? *

Tue Dec 13 17:23:56 CET 2016

*Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
is insanity - Albert Einstein*

Obviously the observational data that has been gathered through decades of
research in particle physics are all useful and any future physics has to
be built upon those observations. But if we continue to collide Hadron head
to head, and expecting that someday a genie particle will emerge and
declare that I am the cause of Gravity, then I am sorry that it is not
going to happen ever.

My views on some statements in below email is as follows:

*Quote*: And this theory(SM) has sufficient observational support to
survive time.

*Unquote*: Ability to survive time, based upon observation support is not a
gurantee that every aspect of the theory is correct. I mean how long we
have believed that earth was flat and speed of light is infinite.

*Quote*: Say, Einstein knew that inertial mass and gravitational mass are
equal in Newtonian gravity, and used this as a starting point for developing a
completely new theory.

*Unquote*: There is lot of difference between two properties being measured
equal and actually being equal. Let's take the example of weight and height
of a person. If body mass index of everybody was same, then it was very
easy for us to know the weight of a person by measuring the height. It is
known that both as per Newton and Einstein, gravitational and inertial mass
were measured same. But 400 years later, it is very difficult to actually
know, what did they actually believed. I don't think there was any need to
use two different terms , if they were 100% sure that Gravitational and
Inertial Mass are fundametally the same.

*Quote*: I would say one does not necessarily need to understand the whole
SM, but one does need to understand it's basic assumptions, it's "starting
point". For Quantum Mechanics, this "starting point" is Young's dual slit

*Unquote*: I agree.

*Quote*: Nonetheless, to have a chance to find that better theory, one has
to *know* the SM, and to use it as a starting point.

*Unquote*: The word 'know' here is very subjective. There is no objective
definition of 'know'. When an artist observe the ocean waves, the
undulating patterns is great work of art and beauty, its indicative of
weather forecast for a fisherman, surfers love them for different reasons,
and it's mysterious to a physicist due to turbulence. What matters is the
unique perspective through which we observe natural phenomenon that leads
to new discoveries.  Insisting that there is only one possible way of
knowing the ocean, is not correct. New perspective cannot be built upon
existing theories, but surely they can be correlated for shared and better
understanding.

On 13 December 2016 at 17:23, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Ilja Schmelzer
> <ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 2016-12-10 18:42 GMT+01:00, Master Inventor <mdaniel at masterinventor.com
> >:
> >> My point in all this is that physicists have been operating in a fog
> since
> >> the  war and have confined themselves to playing with safe toys, like
> >> particle accelerators, that will never create useful new physics.
> >
> > Useful or not, the accelerators have given us the actually most
> > fundamental theory, namely the Standard Model of particle physics.
> >
> > And this theory has sufficient observational support to survive time
> > in the same way as former theories of established physics - as
> > approximations of some better theory.
>
> Exactly.  Any new theory should at least predict the observations
> being made equally well as the existing theories.
>
> >
> > Nonetheless, to have a chance to find that better theory, one has to
> > know the SM, and to use it as a starting point.  There is no
> > alternative - the physicists who have found new theories have always
> > known the actually established theories too. They were open to modify
> > them, even to modify their basic postulates, but nonetheless existing
> > theory was the starting point.
>
> I agree.
>
> >
> > Say, Einstein knew that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal
> > in Newtonian gravity, and used this as a starting point for developing
> > a completely new theory.  Without knowing Newtonian gravity, he would
> > not have had this starting point.
> >
> > Similarly, I think that those who do not know the SM have no starting
> > point for future development of physics.
> >
>
> I would say one does not necessarily need to understand the whole SM,
> but one does need to understand it's basic assumptions, it's "starting
> point".
>
> For Quantum Mechanics, this "starting point" is Young's dual slit
> experiment, which established the wave-particle duality principle. So,
> if you understand that experiment and can find a better, more
> satisfactory explanation for that single experiment, you can in fact
> come to new foundation for Particle Physics, without having to
> understand or consider the whole particle model that has been
> developed upon the assumption that the currently accepted explanation
> for Young's experiment is correct.
>
> So, if you come up with a better explanation for Young's experiment,
> this should naturally extend all the way along the path particle
> physics has followed in it's considerations.
>
> At the level of Young's experiment, we now have two competing points of
> view:
>
> 1) Longitudinal dielectric waves are not possible, except in a plasma.
> So, the interference patterns observed with Young's experiment must
> explained by considering the distribution of "photons" and/or
> "particles" within the system, which we can do using probability
> distribution functions. We call these "wave functions". What we find
> is that by using these *statistical* "wave functions", we can indeed
> describe this experiment very accurate, so we consider the use of
> these statistical methods to give us the best explanation we have of
> physical reality.
>
> What's more, this method also predicts the existence of "spooky action
> at a distance", also known as "entanglement". And so, physicists
> designed and executed experiments in order to confirm this rather
> strange prediction. And, lo and behold, in 1981 Alain Aspect *appears*
> to have actually succeeded in experimentally confirming this
> "entanglement" phenomenon:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Aspect.2C_1981-2
>
> 2) There is sufficient experimental data available, which strongly
> suggests longitudinal dielectric waves are possible, and theoretical
> consideration suggest these would propagate at a speed of sqrt(3)
> times c. Therefore, Young's experiment can be explained by considering
> how to describe the information currently described by a statistical
> model, from a compressible fluid-dynamics aether model which predicts
> these longitudinal waves to also exist. The experimental data which
> supports this view can be found in two "raw" pages on my site:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/LongitudinalMoonBounceChallenge
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/FastLight
>
>
> So, if option 2) is correct and we can develop a theory with which we
> can describe Young's experiment adequately by considering both
> longitudinal and transverse wave types to be present, then we should
> be able to reconsider the "wave function" currently used in particle
> physics and thus integrate the newly found knowledge in the standard
> particle physics model.
>
> In that case, however, we must also be able to explain at least
> Aspect's experiment, or at least be able to establish that Aspect's
> experiment is in fact inconclusive. So, that's what I did, too:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/QuestioningQuantumMechanics
>
>
>
> >> P.S. The 8 geometric dimensions do not answer the question as to the
> >> existence of the aether,  nor have I addressed how electric, magnetic,
> >> gravitational and other fields interact with the dimensions.  It will
> take
> >> generations of scientists to work that out.
> >
> > I do not think so.  The first ether theory in agreement with the SM of
> > particle physics already exists, and is even published in a mainstream
> > physics journal.
> >
> > See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/ for details.
> >
>
> -:-
> The aim of this lattice model is to obtain all fermions and gauge
> fields of the standard model of particle physics (SM), together with a
> Lorentz metric for gravity.
>
> Here we give some introduction into the model for interested laymen.
> If the text below is, nonetheless, too much math for you, try this.
>
> This picture is not simply some symbolic representation of something
> which cannot be represented in the usual three-dimensional space, as
> we know it from illustrations for general relativity and, especially,
> string theory. The model really is that simple — a three-dimensional
> lattice, consisting of three-dimensional elementary cells. These cells
> oscillate around their average positions in our usual
> three-dimensional space. A cell may moved, rotated, and stretched in
> different directions.
>
> Intuitively, this model seems far too simple to describe such a
> complex set of fields as the SM. Nonetheless, all observable fields
> have a place in it: Fermions appear as oscillations of the lattice,
> the gravitational field combines density, average velocity and stress
> tensor, strong and weak gauge fields appear as different types of
> deformations: of the material between the cells, and the lattice
> itself. Last not last, the EM field is a combination of above types of
> gauge fields.
> -:-
>
> Let us first note that this model fundamentally describes a
> compressible aether, since each cell can move, rotate and stretch in
> different directions. However, this model also allows for "gauge
> freedom" and based on that freedom, one can define the plethora of
> imaginary fields currently used in the standard model in an attempt to
> re-connect the statistical and imaginary "wave function", needed to
> explain Young's experiment, to a base in physicality.
>
> However, i would argue that when you start out with an aetheric base,
> modeled as a lattice of elementary cells, whereby all parameters of
> each individual cell are deterministic, one does something wrong when
> one arrives at the conclusion that such a model exhibits "gauge"
> freedom.
>
> I mean, if all the parameters and thus energy and (rotational and
> translational) momentum of *all* elements are known, all energy
> contained within the system is accounted for, so there can be no
> "gauge" freedom, which allows an arbitrary amount of "gauge" energy to
> be added to or subtracted from the total energy within the system.
>
> In other words: IMHO a realistic and consistent aether theory should
> *not* exhibit gauge freedom.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arend.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
> Goor, The Netherlands.
> W: http://www.tuks.nl
> T: +316 5425 6426
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Ilja Schmelzer
> <ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 2016-12-10 18:42 GMT+01:00, Master Inventor <mdaniel at masterinventor.com
> >:
> >> My point in all this is that physicists have been operating in a fog
> since
> >> the  war and have confined themselves to playing with safe toys, like
> >> particle accelerators, that will never create useful new physics.
> >
> > Useful or not, the accelerators have given us the actually most
> > fundamental theory, namely the Standard Model of particle physics.
> >
> > And this theory has sufficient observational support to survive time
> > in the same way as former theories of established physics - as
> > approximations of some better theory.
> >
> > Nonetheless, to have a chance to find that better theory, one has to
> > know the SM, and to use it as a starting point.  There is no
> > alternative - the physicists who have found new theories have always
> > known the actually established theories too. They were open to modify
> > them, even to modify their basic postulates, but nonetheless existing
> > theory was the starting point.
> >
> > Say, Einstein knew that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal
> > in Newtonian gravity, and used this as a starting point for developing
> > a completely new theory.  Without knowing Newtonian gravity, he would
> > not have had this starting point.
> >
> > Similarly, I think that those who do not know the SM have no starting
> > point for future development of physics.
> >
> >> P.S. The 8 geometric dimensions do not answer the question as to the
> >> existence of the aether,  nor have I addressed how electric, magnetic,
> >> gravitational and other fields interact with the dimensions.  It will
> take
> >> generations of scientists to work that out.
> >
> > I do not think so.  The first ether theory in agreement with the SM of
> > particle physics already exists, and is even published in a mainstream
> > physics journal.
> >
> > See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/ for details.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Physics mailing list
> > Physics at tuks.nl
> > http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161213/f9580cd1/attachment.html>