[Physics] Discussion 'new beginning in physics necessary'.

[Arend Lammertink]

Dear Nainan,

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Nainan <matterdoc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Arend Lammertink,
>
> Thank you very for your comments. I believe that substance (stuff) provides
> a real entity with objective reality and positive existence in space. It
> cannot exist without its substance.

At least one can model it that way, by considering "substance" to be
an ideal fluid, consisting of tiny marbles of "mass" or "fundamental
substance", which would be the model I happen to use. :)

> That is the substance, itself, makes the
> entity, however small it may be.

Exactly!

Since I started with a model, whereby the "substance" consists of tiny
marbles, each with a mass m and a velocity [v],  I currently model
substance of consisting out of those simple marbles, which you can
each see as "a real entity with objective reality and positive
existence in space".

Now most of the modelling is done on the "entities" level, at the
level where we consider the "substance" to behave like a fluid.   So,
what I'm also saying is that, eventough I use your view as a starting
point, the "substance" model _could_ be refined further in case we
were to find out that we're indeed living in a simulated of
holographic Universe.


> Entities, you suggested (vortex rings,
> waves as well as that of discrete and distinctly distinguishable entities,
> etc.) are all structured entities much larger than the basic substance. They
> are dynamically structured from substance.

Exactly!

And that is *why* we can use continuum mechanics math to describe
these entities, without being forced to fundamentally define what the
substance is actually made of...


> My proposal is about the basic
> substance (matter) that forms all real entities, you mentioned.

Well, that's what I have now. And it seems to me, this is exactly what
you also have:

"Only one type of basic matter-particle - 'Quantum of matter' -
derived from this assumption is required to explain all of physical
reality in universe. Quanta of matter form the all-encompassing
universal medium that pervades entire space, outside 3D
matter-particles. Author explains a wide array of physical phenomena
from origin of 3D matter to gravity and subatomic interactions to
cosmological events, using but simple mechanical interactions of
quanta of matter. "

I also work with a "Quantum of matter" as the fundamental "molecule"
which makes up the medium.

In other words: the foundation of both of our models is 100% in agreement. :)


> Any
> structured entity would not qualify for smallest part of substance at the
> most fundamental level. Unless we know this, how can we probably develop a
> logical theory?  Starting a theory with fundamental assumption of a
> aether-like entity would not solve the problem. Similar attempts were made
> in the past and lost.

Have you ever seen a consideration, which leads to the (alleged)
discovery of an inconsistency in Maxwell's equations, caused by the
improper modelling of "charge" c.q. the unwarrented addition of a term
to the definition of the scalar potential field Phi (i.e: the
"Voltage" with respect to "frame ground") ??

Have you ever seen an analog computer simulation of the electron,
which shows you how this "entity" is structured and how it propagates
along the surface of two media with a significantly different density?

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

> Wisest method, I believe, is to start from a single
> most fundamental assumption and then continue to develop a theory without
> any further assumptions.

Wholeheartedly agree! See my post on the "aether theory discussion" thread:

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/000308.html
-:-
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.

[...]

>
> 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 shows 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.
-:-

> And this is possible!!!

Definitely!

Best regards,

Arend.