[Physics] Mathematical proof Maxwell's equations are incorrect?

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-04-24 22:34 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> Ok, let's start with two possibilities of describing the fields within
> an aether paradigm:
>
> 1) a basic fluid dynamics model for the aether (start with an ideal
> Newtonian fluid) and on top of that a particle model;
>
> 2) Maxwell's model, with a/o a vector potential field that has not
> been uniquely defined.

I don't see a reason why to bother about age-old variants of ether
theories constructed at a time when people have not known the standard
model of particle physics.  All the fields of that model as well as
gravity distribute with the same characteristic speed c.  So, if c has
its origin as a sort of speed of sound of an ether, than all the SM
fields as well as gravity have to be ether fields. Such a model
exists, see https://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter for the SM fields and
https://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/ for gravity.

> In fluid dynamics, we have both incompressible flow as well as
> irrotational flow:

And we also have flows which are neither incompressible nor irrotational.

The fluid dynamic model of the ether has the velocity of the ether
defined by the gravitational field as v^i = g^{0i}/g^{00}.  It is
neither incompressible nor irrotational.

>  𝐀=∇×𝐅
>  Φ= ∇⋅𝐅

???????

> Now to answer the question: it seems to me that with a little more
> puzzling, we can work out a complete theory that fits like a glove,
> were it not for Faraday's law. And as I argued in my reply to Daniel,
> IMHO there are ample reasons to introduce Faraday's law somewhere else
> in the model.

In other words, you want to speculate about some ether theory, but
have not even fully worked out formulas for this. Even if successful, the
result would be worthless because a viable ether theory would have to
cover the whole SM together with gravity, and not only the EM field.

But you present this as if there is a problem with Maxwell's theory.
There is none.

> There is no argument that the application of the Lorentz transform is
> what changes "flat spacetime" into "curved spacetime":
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>
> "Minkowski's geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital
> to Einstein's development of his 1915 general theory of relativity,
> wherein he showed how mass and energy curve flat spacetime into a
> pseudo-Riemannian manifold."

Nobody has to care about what motivated Einstein. If he would have
guessed GR meditating about the Kamasutra GR would be fine too.

> The point is:
>
> 1) The Laplacian defines some kind of derivative;
>
> 2) Locically, therefore, something should exist where the Laplacian
> defines the derivative of.
>
> Just think of integration: finding an Integral is the reverse of
> finding a Derivative.

So you want to claim that for every function f(x,y,z) there
exists some F(x,y,z) so that \nabla^2 F = f, and think for
this theorem it is sufficient to say that this is a second
order differential operator?  LOL.

But don't worry, it exists, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson%27s_equation

> Or to put it the other way around: if a derivative exists, it's
> reverse should also exist.

No. Once the square of a real number exists for all real numbers,
the inverse, the square root,  should exist too?
No, it exists only for nonnegative reals.

> Elsewhere, I made this argument:
>
> Gauge theory is built on the principle that you can add curl-free
> components to the vector potential field [A] and divergence free
> components to the scalar potential field Φ. Vector theory learns that
> doing so results in the null vector for the resulting force.
> Therefore, we can conclude that gauge theory yields no force and
> therefore no physical effect at all. It should thus be rejected and
> therefore QFT should be revised.

????????  If you add them to some potential, the resulting force
does not change.  a + 0 = a, for arbitrary a,  not 0.

> What follows if it appears that what came after the origins is even
> bigger nonsense?

Whatever follows, you cannot show this by showing that the origins are
nonsense.