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

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-04-25 18:36 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> Today, both relativity as well as the standard model are being pretty
> much considered as "unalterable givens".

The physicists would be happy to find something which is in
contradiction with the SM, but up to now they have failed to find such
things.  The SM is essentially a phenomenological theory, its
development was not guided by theoretical ideas but by the experiments
with all those accelerators.

So, there is no good chance for simplification of the SM.

> However, we must not  "forget their earthly origins" and realize they
> are products of the human mind and therefore subject to human error.

Of course, but the origins are, first of all, the experiments with
particle colliders.
And they have quite good agreement between the theoretical computations and
the results of the experiments.

> I agree with you that "all the SM fields as well as gravity have to be
> ether fields", but I disagree with the way these fields should be
> integrated.

It works.

> The fundamental idea is that a medium called aether exists and it
> behaves like a fluid.
>
> A logical consequence thereof is that there is one one medium and
> therefore only one (set of) field(s) suffices in order to describe
> it's dynamics. There can be only one!

That's nonsense. The ether can have a quite complex structure, thus, a
lot of different properties beyond its velocity.

> And therefore, gravity *must* be a force that is the result of either
> waves trough the aether or a steady state flow within the aether.

Gravity must, first of all, described as something which gives results similar
to GR.  Else, you will fail to predict all the results of observations
and experiments which have been used to test GR.

> Tom van Flandern pointed out the following:

I doubt that van Flandern has some point. I had take a short look at
one discussion with him, and it seemed to me that his opponent, a GR
guy, had the better arguments.

> And since it cannot be a Herzian electromagnetic wave, the only other
> possibility left is that it is a longitudinal "Tesla" wave, the kind
> of wave not currently described by Maxwell's equations, the equations
> which I've shown to be in violation of elemental math.

You have not done such a thing.

> The propose existence of no less than 2^48 different fields is a
> violation of the fundamental idea of the existence of a physical
> aether which behaves like a fluid and therefore there can be only one
> field, as defined by the Laplace operator and culminating in two the
> closely related vector flow velocity fields [E] and [B] with a unit of
> measurement in [m/s].

So what?  Your one-field ether is unable to make any of the many
empirical predictions made by the SM.  Instead, my ether model gives
the SM fields.

> Occam demands a model with only one fundamental field definition
> should be preffered.

If it is viable.  Your model is not.  It does not predict anything
about the elementary particles at all.

> Yep, we need it to obtain the elementary particles from the waves of the
> ether.

This is not a problem at all, because it is standard QT in quantum
condensed matter theory. There are usual sound waves and the quantum
effects (discrete energy levels) give energies similar to those
associated with particles.  These quasi-particles are named "phonons".

That means there is nothing to do but to apply standard quantum
condensed matter theory.

> And we need to explain what "charge" is as well. It is not hard to see
> that vortex rings can be combined into complex structures, which share
> attributes both associated with waves as well as particles:

Such vortex rings are hardly sufficient to give all the SM gauge fields.

>> Universality: The old ether was a medium for the electromagnetic field. It
>> was assumed, that, except the ether, there are also other things in the
>> universe, like usual matter and gravity.
>
> Yep, and that's why the old ether model has to go. There are no other
> things in the universe but the aether, so things like matter and
> gravity *must* be described as the result of some kind of phenomena
> that can occur in a fluid-like medium, like waves and vortices.

Why you think the ether has to be fluid is beyond me.

> There _can_ be only one.

No, there can be many, and there are many in my model.

>>Length contraction caused by the ether: As well, ether effects lead to a
>> contraction of moving rulers. Thus, relativistic effects are described in
>> a way similar to the Lorentz ether.
>
> Mostly agree, as long as it's clear that the Lorentz transform should
> not be applied, no matter what. We *have* to stick to absolute space
> and therefore Galilean coordinate transforms.

Sorry, but you are free to use whatever coordinates you like.  It is
elementary differential geometry to rewrite all the equations in other
coordinates.

BTW, in my ether theory there is absolute rest, thus, no Galilean
invariance too.

>> Speed of light as the speed of sound of the medium: The speed of light in
>> the vacuum is the characteristic speed of waves in this medium, similar to
>> the speed of sound.
>
> Disagree. Besides the familiar "transverse" wave, there is also a
> longitudinal wave, which propagates at either pi/2 or sqrt(3) times
> the speed of light.  Speed of light is not a universal constant, but
> follows from the local properties of the aether. Hence no application
> of the Lorentz transform.
>
>
>>
>> > In fluid dynamics, we have both incompressible flow as well as
>> > irrotational flow:
>>
>> And we also have flows which are neither incompressible nor irrotational.
>
> Those are theoretical simplifications that have their place in theory,
> but not in reality. No incompressible fluids nor materials exist.
>
> One cannot have something physical that is rotating and also has zero
> curl/rotation. See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ???????
>
> All I did was to take the terms one finds in the Laplacian, elemental
> math, wrote them  out and labeled them as follows:
>
> -:-
> The Laplacian IS the second order spatial derivative
> of ANY given vector funtion 𝐅, the 3D curvature if you will, and is
> given by the identity:
>
>  ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅)
>
> The terms in this identity can be written out as follows:
>
>  𝐀=∇×𝐅
>  Φ= ∇⋅𝐅
>  𝐁=∇×𝐀=∇×(∇×𝐅)
>  𝗘=−∇Φ= −∇(∇⋅𝐅)
>
> And because of vector identities, one can also write:
>
>  ∇×𝗘= 0
>  ∇⋅𝐁= 0
> -:-
>
> This math establishes a Helmholtz decompositon of any given vector field 𝐅:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition

The formula given there for the decomposition is

F =-\nabla \Phi + \nabla x A

means

\nabla  F = -\nabla^2 \Phi instead of  \nabla  F =  \Phi

>> 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.
>
> This is established by modelling the gravitational force as
> experienced on the surface of a planet as being caused by longitudinal
> waves.

You cannot establish something by modeling.  You can construct some model.
Then, this model makes some predictions.  Then you have to compare the
predictions with observation and if this fails, the model has to be thrown away.

> And it can be shown in the laboratory that the other two so-called
> "fundamental interactions" can also be fully accounted for by EM
> forces:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk
> Don't mind the narrator too much, focus on what is being shown.

Nonsense. What is shown are nice pictures at best, they cannot tell us anything
if not supported by theoretical considerations.

> Again, the fundamental idea is that there is only one aether and
> therefore only one field as defined by the fundamental theorem of
> vector calculus.
>
> This is not speculation, this is logical thinking.

No. This is simply a much too primitive model which fails to predict anything
about the observations made in particle accelerators.

> The conclusion is what really matters:  we want "flat spacetime" and
> not "curved spacetime".

What you want is irrelevant.  Except for your personal wishful
thinking, of course.