[Physics] Hidden Variables Forum

[Arend Lammertink]

And there are others as well, like:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php

http://www.energeticforum.com/



On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Ilja Schmelzer <
ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Zoltan Losonc writes:
> > I would suggest to Arend, to convert this email list into a forum.
>
> At least for some alternative theories, which fit under the umbrella
> of "Hidden Variable Theories", I have already created a forum at
> http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/
>
> I have to admit that, even if it is open to various alternative
> approaches, I'm interested only in such approaches which are
> compatible with modern physics.  In particular, the theories I propose
> there have general relativity and the standard model of particle
> physics as limits.
>


Let me offer you another perspective on GR and the standard model, as I
shared with someone the past few days:

-:-

You may be interested in the paper by Dr. C.K. Thornhill, who argues that
the "constant c"  is demanded by the Lorentz transform:

http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

Actually, c is not in Maxwell's equations, but in the wave equation derived
from those.

With my paper, we have two views on the modeling of what I consider to be
compressibility of the aether:

1) time is compressible, because c is constant (relativity);
2) the medium is compressible.

Of course, I would argue that option 2 is the correct approach and that
because Maxwell's equations describe an incompressible medium and connect
the E and B field incorrectly, it is "Maxwell's hole" which eventually led
to the idea that c must be constant, while time is being considered to be
compressible.

I've also written an extensive background article, explaining my reasoning
and much more:

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

Paul Stowe has shown that both the relativistic energy relation (E=mc^2) as
well as the Quantum Mechanics one  (E=hf) can be derived naturally from an
aether paradigm:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237 (eq 3 and 4)

>From our model, we can also resolve wave-particle duality naturally. The
equations we have now, are trivial to work out for longitudinal "sound
like" waves as well as transverse *surface* waves, which would be the near
field.

Since magnetism is fundamentally associated with curl or rotation,
electro*magnetic* radiation by definition involves vorticity, so the
simplest form of electromagnetic radiation would be expanding vortex rings.

The next one would be a dual torus configuration, which looks like this:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif

And this would be my explanation for why electromagnetic radiation, such as
photons, is found to be quantized while at the same time it has properties
one would normally associate with a wave, such as a rotation frequency.

>From this, I would argue that Young's dual slit experiment can be explained
by proposing that the energy contained in these "vortex" structures, or
particles/photons,  converts from "vortex"  propagation mode into
longitudinal mode, which gives you the interference pattern.

-:-


I believe a lot of insight can be gained by considering the good old Aether
hypothesis, which promises to offer the long sought for unification of
physics....





>
> So, they are "alternative" mainly in the philosophy which is used,
> what is rejected is the positivism of modern physics, the "shut up and
> calculate" ideology, what is, instead, allowed and supported are
> classical hidden variable approaches.
>


I would argue that the proposal of hidden variable theories in and of
itself suggest there is something amiss with the current standard model,
most notably the rejection of the existence of longitudinal waves. There
are a number of sources which suggest these do exist and also that they
propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times c.

IMHO, hidden variable theories are essentially an attempt to make up for
the loss of information in the model, while the most natural way to regain
that information is to consider longitudinal waves as a real phenomena. Big
advantage of such an approach is that it is testable, for instance by
repeating Wheatstone's 1834 experiment with modern equipment or by
performing a longitudinal moonbounce.

Another subject of discussion in this regard would be "fast light" or
"anomalous dispersion", which appears to involve longitudinal waves as
well.  I started writing an article about this a while ago, which is not
finished and thus not ready for easy consumption, but contains some
interesting links for further reading:

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

Best regards,

Arend.




>
> Ilja Schmelzer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161019/c17cd5df/attachment.html>