[Physics] About Schmelzer's ether theories

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2016-12-17 1:46 GMT+01:00, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
>> 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.

I have already  figured it out, and already published a proper scientific
paper.  So, there is already an ether theory which explains many properties
of the standard model.

So, it makes much more sense if you take a look and learn about this
already almost finished, in any way already published ether theory. Note:
It has already reached much more than all those other proposals, because
it gives as GR (general relativity) as the SM (standard model of
particle physics),
thus, for above theories of modern physics we already have adequate ether
theories, and, moreover, they have been published in mainstream journals.

This is, of course, not yet acceptance by the mainstream, but at least
it meets the first straightforward objection of any mainstream physicist
against an ether theory, namely "ok, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal,
when we can continue to talk about it".

>> 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.

>From my point of view, not.  I have already a model for all the fermions and
gauge fields of the standard model together.  Why do you think it makes sense
for me to look at a yet unfinished and unpublished attempt to model an electron
only?

> 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....

If you are happy with this, fine.  But don't wonder if nobody else cares.

Take a look at my ether model, see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/ for the
model which gives the SM, and http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/ for the
ether theory of gravity, and do this having in mind  that these are
already published ether theories, which, taken together, cover all
of experimentally established modern physics.

Learning it, and thinking how to improve it,  makes much more sense
than developing your models for a single electron.

> 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.

Actually, you have another way.  Learn the already almost established,
at least already published ether theories.  And try to improve them.
Or to find weak places.

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

There is a lot of experimental support for quantum theory, and in particular
for entanglement too.

> 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.

No.  This is not the point.  Because for quantum theory,
there is also the dBB (de Broglie-Bohm) interpretation
which is completely deterministic, but equivalent, completely
equivalent, to quantum theory.  So, there is no experimental
possibility to distinguish these two.

> 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.

This is not really the question.  See
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php
for what is the Bell thing really about.

> 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?

Your longitudinal waves with 1.7 c would not help anyway, modern
experiments give lower bounds for the velocity which would be
necessary to explain it of order 10 000 c.

>> 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.

No.  My ether model can be considered as a classical theory, then, it
would be, of course, completely deterministic.  But one could, as well,
consider a quantum variant of the same theory, which would be
probabilistic in its predictions.

But it has, with dBB, also a completely deterministic interpretation,
where the "noise generator" is simply our inability to prepare exactly
the same states many times for repetitions of the experiments.

>> 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".

Not sure what you mean with "harmonic freedom".

But, as usual in all known physics,  there is classical theory, which is
deterministic, and quantum theory, which is probabilistic, but which allows,
with dBB, to be interpreted as fundamentally deterministic too.

> 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.

I don't have to introduce it.  I simply apply the standard general formalism
of classical mechanics (with Langrangian or Hamiltonian formalism) and
standard methods to define a corresponding quantum theory known
as "canonical quantization".

> 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)

I leave the job of doing experiments and explaining them in the light of
existing theories to professional experimenters, which have professional
modern equipment to do such things.

Even more, I also leave the job of developing a phenomenological
theory - a theory which does nothing but to allow to compute the numbers
one obtains in all those experiments - to the mainstream theorists.  They
have given GR with some dark matter and SM, and claim these two theories
are nice, supported by all the observations we have.  Fine.  I take this
as the starting point.

> 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.

This is a nice belief, but nothing more, and not even a starting point
for developing a theory.

The starting point should be the established phenomenological
theories, GR and SM, together with their equations, and the
general rules of quantum mechanics. And then one can think
about how all these strange fields with no known physical meaning
at all may be interpreted as describing some properties of some
ether.

This is the way I have worked, and where I have been successful.
Not only developing a model, which gives all the fields of SM and
GR, but even publishing this theory in mainstream journals, thus,
receiving some partial acceptance (that all this is not completely
crank science) from the mainstream.