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

Thu Dec 15 02:49:56 CET 2016

" For Quantum Mechanics, this "starting point" is Young's dual slit"

For a non-QM explanation of the double-slit experiment read my very short paper,

"A plausible explanation of the double-slit experment"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271076090_A_Plausible_Explanation_of_the_double-slit_Experiment_in_Quantum_Physics_by_Constantinos_Ragazas 

Constantinos

kostadinos at aol.com

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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/20161214/edfefae7/attachment.html>