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

[Tom Hollings]

Arend, here is something in contradiction with the standard model. Go to : -http://problemswithrelativity.com/#lorentz  

The fourth paragraph, starting "Imagine now a space rocket..." describes how faster than light travel can be achieved, using nothing esoteric - Just a standard reaction motor (with an unlimited supply of fuel, perhaps a Bussard ramjet).

In my opinion, the SM aether is simply the matter in space, gas if you like, but very rarefied, but a fluid medium all the same. These gasses are of different densities, and differing velocities, lower density the further away from stars etc, and higher densities near them.

Tom Hollings




> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics