[Physics] Aether theory discussion. Was: Re: Why is a new beginning in physics necessary?

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Ilja,

Good to talk to you.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Ilja Schmelzer
<ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2016-12-13 14:23 GMT+01:00, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Ilja Schmelzer
>> Exactly.  Any new theory should at least predict the observations
>> being made equally well as the existing theories.
>
>>> Similarly, I think that those who do not know the SM have no starting
>>> point for future development of physics.
>>>


SM: Standard Model  (Maurice requested to define acronyms when used)


>>
>> 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".
>
> Not clear enough.  Of course, I don't have to be able to compute the
> experimental
> results myself (all those scattering amplitudes and so on).
>
> But I have to be able to recover, in some limit or some approximation,
> the whole
> theory.  Which includes/requires such things as the recovery of the
> equations.  So,
> to recover only some verbal ideas is far from being sufficient.
>

Yes, and that's why I need smart people like you to give me a hand and
figure this out, and once we are where we want to be, we can publish a
proper scientific paper.

In the modeling of electrotechnical phenomena, having an accurate
visual model for the electron, as well as the equations to describe
them, is of phenomenal importance.

Well, N6KPH taught me long ago, NOT to use a digital computer!

So, how about an analog computer, as he used to study longitudinal
wave propagation trough a coil?

May I present our first "live" dynamic model for the electron,
simulated with an ANALOG computer, normally the exclusive domain of
Electrical Engineers and Radio Amateurs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8

It is totally doable to describe this mathematically and include it in
our model.

As you can see in the analog simulation, although simulating only half
a vortex ring, is that the propagation direction of a vortex ring is
aligned with (what would be) the rotation axis of the toroid. That
would also be the direction of the electrical current trough a wire or
antenna.

So if we imagine the analogically simulated half vortex ring to be a
complete ring, it is entirely plausible that a net rotation around the
toroid (a coil winding) would be present, and thus it is entirely
plausible a net aether rotation *around* a conductor carrying a
current would be the result and thus produce a magnetic field as is
being observed experimentally.

And that would mean we have solved the "90 degree" problem, whereby we
observe the magnetic field [B] to rotate *around* a wire.

In other words:

Given the observed propagation direction of a vortex ring on the
surface of a relatively dense medium (water), compared to the less
dense medium (air) above, it can be expected that electron c.q. vortex
ring carried currents on the surface of a wire cause an aether
rotation *around* the wire, *perpendicular* to the propagation
direction of the electrons c.q. vortex rings carrying the electric
current trough the wire, the direction of the electric current.

With this, it is also entirely plausible we can calculate the
elemental charge, e, of the electron, as Paul already suggested and
explain how the Lorentz force actually works.


>> 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.
>
> Of course, if your point is to recover quantum mechanics, you don't have
> to care about the details of particle theory, or QFT, which is only
> one particular
> example of a quantum theory.

QFT: Quantum Field Theory

No, but what I'm saying is that *if* we can model the electron, which
I claim we can now, we have taken a tremendous step already.

What I'm arguing is that once we understand the electron, we can
expect to be able to eventually work the rest of them out to our
satisfaction.

So, now we are considering the results of our ANALOG simulation of the
electron, I think we made a major step forward now.

>
> But you have to recover all the mathematics of quantum theory.
> That means wave functions, Schroedinger equations, operators to describe
> probabilities of measurement results.  So, some diffuse verbal "understanding"
> of some particular experiment is not sufficient.

Hey!  I'm an Electrical Engineer!  I'm happy with the analog
simulation result, so I can see if I can figure out how to make an
antenna for longitudinal waves and perform that moon-bounce experiment
I always dreamed of doing....


>
>> 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.
>
> It may naturally extend, or not.  So you have to show, explicitly, that
> it does.  A vague hope that it extends does not count.
>

Well, if it doesn't, it's incorrect as is, and we have to find the bug
and fix it.

It's that simple!

There is no other way, but to start somewhere and follow the leads,
until you've either figured it out, or figured out why you did not.
Either way, a lesson is learned and knowledge gained.



>> 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.
>
> This is a point were I prefer silence, simply because I'm not an
> experimenter.  Note that the mainstream does not agree.  And the
> mainstream claims that with the Maxwell equations everything is fine.
>

Well, they're wrong. Sorry about that.

> Not that I would think that it is completely impossible that the mainstream
> fakes experimental evidence and suppresses outsiders in this domain too.
> But I leave this to experimenters in this domain.  And, for my own research,
> which is purely theoretical, I simply assume that what the mainstream claims
> about experimental support for its theories is fine.
>


IMHO, it's not fine at all. You can consider reading my analysis of
Aspect's experiment below, which I think illustrates pretty well what
I mean by that.

Because we are now very close to understanding the electron and have
solved the "90 degrees" problem in principle, we can reasonably expect
the odds of this leading to a break trough to be better than 50%..

>From that point of view, Quantum Mechanics would essentially become
deterministic. So, what to think of claims that "entanglement" has
been experimentally proven?

A while ago, I checked Aspect's experiment, the first reasonable one,
as far as I know:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/QuestioningQuantumMechanics

RRiiiiight.

And then the "fast light" stuff:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/FastLight

When you consider their data and their experiments from the
(w)a(e)ther analog computer's point of view, would you have any reason
to expect this "fast light" phenomenon to be anything BUT a
longitudinal dielectric pressure wave, propagating at theoretically
maximum speed of 1.73 times the speed of light?

> As the zero hypothesis.  Everything else needs additional confirmation.
>
>> 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
>
> Note that adding longitudinal waves to QFT, which can be done simply by
> adding a small mass to the photon, would not change anything in the derivation
> of the Bell inequalities.

Well, this is what I concluded then:

-:-
Either way, the point is that the whole experiment is designed to
differ between two hypothesis:

1. Quantum entanglement with "spooky action at distance";

2. a completely a priori deterministic process.

However, when you have photons, electromagnetic waves, interacting
with a "polarizer", then one should at least have an idea about how
this interaction takes place. And one should ask the question whether
or not the polarization process is completely random, or that it might
introduce some kind of conditionality that is not being accounted for.
-:-

The data I have seen so far, is pretty much useless. May be some more
data can be found in archives or on the internet?

Based on the data we have, we can only make a wild guess on what might
actually go on in these experiments. Had it been known at the time
that longitudinal dielectric waves are a vital part of our theory, and
at least the *possibility* had been considered, it is not far fetched
to believe these "fast light" experiments could very well have lead to
a confirmation of the existence of longitudinal dielectric waves and
would thus have invalidated the fundamental "randomness" of Quantum
Mechanics.

>
>> 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.
>
> No.  The ether model and its connection with the fields of the standard
> model of particle physics is not at all an attempt to explain or modify
> quantum theory.   It takes quantum theory as it is, in agreement with
> its minimal (Copenhagen) interpretation.
>

So, where's your "noise generator"?

You can't do that!

Aether physics is completely deterministic. Fundamentally, there is no
"noise", because everything resonates in harmony and therefore
deterministic. Fundamentally, every effect has a cause, transmitted
trough the medium, which thus causes an effect in a logical,
predictable order.

The whole "probability" thing has to do with having to resort to
statistics in order to come up with somewhat of a theory which at
least pretty much predicts the observations. How do you explain
Young's experiment, without considering the possibility of
longitudinal dielectric waves, as Tesla discovered and utilized?

Well, we just make our best guess, which would be "statistics", which
arbitrarily introduces uncertainty into the model.

>> 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.
>
> You obtain gauge freedom in a natural way if your abilities to observe
> reality is somehow restricted.
>
> In my approach the "gauge freedom" is not a real freedom, the gauge
> follows some natural equations of motion and is as well-defined in reality
> as everything else.
>

So, in essence, you introduce harmonic freedom instead of "random" freedom?

The moment you do that, you fundamentally introduce "predictability"
to the model, while disregarding "randomness".

You cannot go from a fundamentally harmonic aether theory, and
therefore fundamentally deterministic, to a "statistical" model,
without introducing "noise" or "randomness" somewhere along the path.


> We simply have restricted possibilities to check, by experiments,
> how these gauge "degrees of freedom" really behave.  Such a human
> inability to observe something which is really defined, by the fundamental
> equation which we can only guess, is not problematic at all.

The experimental proof, is  a problem most people have. So, what I do,
is to go and see what experimental data we have on, for instance,
"fast light" (sorry, "raw" data)

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/FastLight

Okay, they do this and this and that, and see such and such.

I ask the question: "Could I explain that?"

Intuitively: yes, pretty much.

Young's experiment?

Intuitively: yes, I'm certain.

Free Energy?

Well, not really, at least not yet. "Free energy" is still hidden
behind the curtain in our aether theory. Really understanding
magnetism and electrostatics, to start with, is required in order to
fully explain "free energy". I am beginning to make some progress
there to be able to do some measurements which would either confirm or
reject my theory  on that stuff.


>
>> In other words: IMHO a realistic and consistent aether theory should
>> *not* exhibit gauge freedom.
>
> In some sense, I agree and my theory is in agreement with this.

Good!

>
> But the requirement to recover, in some approximation, the gauge
> theories used today in the SM remains.

Yes, of course!

So, my proposal would be to start with a basic hypothesis:

All of space is filled with a fluid-like substance called aether,
which can, in first approximation, be modeled as an ideal,
frictionless, compressible fluid in continuum fluid dynamics
approximation.

>From there, we can re-derive Maxwell's equations by application of the
Laplacian / Helmhotz decompostion of the aether flow velocity field
[v]. This exercise show that there is a term dA/dt in the definition
for the electric scalar potential field Phi, whereby the units of
measurement do not match the other terms in the equation and should
thus be deleted.

That's where we are now.

Next is to solve the "90 degree" angle problem we encountered, which
we already know how to do.


Next could be to tackle Young's experiment. Since we have a principal
model for the electron now, we should be able to get a long way with
explaining Young's experiment. We may encounter problems, but
eventually we should be able to either explain the experiment or to
reject the theory so far.

Another possible next step would be to consider how we could use the
(partial) vortex tube (like in our analog simulation) as sort of a
fundamental building block, and see how that would hold up as a basis
for particle physics, by considering Mike's work and that of Arto
Annila, from the University of Helsinki:

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/000288.html

The images Arto included in his paper clearly suggest the vortex tube
is a suitable model to base particle physics on:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/atomism.pdf

In other words: sufficient experimental data left, which we can use to
refine and continue building our model.

Best regards,

Arend.


P.S. @Arto, @Paul, @Koen:

You can find the rest of this discussion in the list archive:

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/thread.html

If you're interested in participating in the discussion, you can subscribe at:

http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics