[Physics] Aether theory discussion

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2016-12-19 17:42 GMT+01:00, Nainan <matterdoc at gmail.com>:
> Instead of solving all problems of ‘standard model, ‘quantum mechanics’ and
> many other contemporary theories by a new theory, wont it be simpler to
> discover a particulate material universal medium that fills the entire
> space outside basic 3D matter-particles and solves the problem of ‘action
> at a distance through empty space’?

No, this gives you nothing according to Popper's criterion of empirical content.

Which is that a theory should be preferred as having more empirical content if
it predicts measurable results which another theory does not predict.

Now, mainstream physics has collected with their particle accelerator
experiments
a large amount of various experimental results, and all these results are nicely
predicted by the SM.

So, you have the following choices:

1.)  So what, I don't care about experiments at all.  The SM predicts
what particle
accelerators observe, my theory doesn't, but I don't care.   This
would be simply
anti-science.  With this choice, you can start doing astrology, it
would be even more popular.

2.)  Ok, my theory has somehow to predict all these experimental
results too.  Let's see.
I don't care how the SM does it.  I start with my theory and will do
this from the stratch.

Feel free to do this, I wish you success, but I think that there is no
hope for this. You simply don't have the power, the time to do this.

3.)  I develop my ether theory in such a way that it gives, in some
approximation, the SM.
Then I do not have to care about all these experiments, this job is
done already once by the SM.   All I have to do is to extract the SM
out of my ether model.

This is my way, and I have succeeded.  At least roughly.  The model
gives all the fermions, all the gauge fields, all the charges of all
the fermions, and some qualitative properties of the masses.  But not
all the masses.