[Physics] Compatibility with and/or the properties of the Standard Model (SM)

[Arend Lammertink]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Arend,
>
> You obviously have not read my paper.

Well, I glance over your "Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Equations
Reinterpreted in Mechanical Terms"  and noticed you still take charge
(q) as a fundamental quantity as well as using the speed of light, c,
all over the place.

Those are mistakes, fundamental mistakes.

Both "charge" as well as the speed of light should follow from the
medium model and since there are fundamental differences between
longitudinal waves and transverse waves, there are actually two
different wave progagation speeds, which relate to one another by a
factor and neither of these speeds are Universal constants, they
depend on the (local) properties of the medium, like mass density and
compressibility.

> It shows that you only need one
> particle/anti-particle, one composite system (loops) and two forces to
> described everything we observe. This is the simplest possible system
> that could ever be envisged.

You seem to mis the fact that Maxwell's equations can be shown to
violate the elemental math as established by Laplace and Helmholtz.
What you have is like having Pythagoras theorem:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

And then see Maxwell write:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2 + db/dt

That's how obvious it is that Maxwell's equations are incorrect, so
you can't build upon this base, it is mathematically proven to be
incorrect.

Note that the Laplace operator already defines a fundamental
separation into two fields, two fields of force, which are
fundamentally related to one another via the Helmholtz decomposition,
the fundamental theorem of Vector Calculus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition

-:-

 ∇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
-:-

Note that because of the latter two identities, this IS a Helmholtz
decompositon!

So, this is like Pythagoras' theorem and then Maxwell writes:

∇×𝗘 = -∂𝐁/∂t,

which is obviously wrong since ∇×𝗘 should be equal to zero.


So, it seems to me that instead of having a "particle/anti-particle"
as the base to define the "two forces"  that are needed in order tobe
able to "describe everything we observe", one could just as well take
the two forces as defined by the corrected Maxwell equations and work
your way up from there.

So, what I'm saying is that your system is NOT "the simplest possible
system that could ever be envisged[sic]", BUT it can become so by
realigning / revising what you have to Laplace / Helmholtz, the
fundamental theorem of Vector Calculus. It's called "fundamental" for
a reason.

> Its 'only' complexity lies in the need to
> mathematically model the interactions between the
> particles/anti-particles in one loop with those in another loop.

This is artifical complexity, which has been introduced to the model,
because of leaving behind the idea of the existence of *physical*
fields of force that *have* to propagate trough the medium one way or
the other. It is because of abstracting away from this idea that one
introduces all kinds of problems that are extremely hard to fix,
because the very notion of how these forces are supposed to propagate
trough the medium is lost. That's just not a good basis to build your
particle model upon.

In my background article about the reasoning and history that led to
this all, you find a rather interesting quote by Freeman Dyson:

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

"Maxwell's theory becomes simple and intelligible only when you give
up thinking in terms of mechanical models. Instead of thinking of
mechanical objects as primary and electromagnetic stresses as
secondary consequences, you must think of the electromagnetic field as
primaryand mechanical forces as secondary. The idea that the primary
constituents of the universe are fields did not come easily to the
physicists of Maxwell's generation. Fields are an abstract concept,
far removed from the familiar world of things and forces. The field
equations of Maxwell are partial differential equations. They cannot
be expressed in simple words like Newton's law of motion, force equals
mass times acceleration. Maxwell's theory had to wait for the next
generation of physicists, Hertz and Lorentz and Einstein, to reveal
its power and clarify its concepts. The next generation grew up with
Maxwell's equations and was at home in a universe built out of fields.
The primacy of fields was as natural to Einstein as the primacy of
mechanical structures had been to Maxwell."

> The SM
> is too simplistic because it does not consider fermions to be composite
> particles. If you do not start with what actually exists in nature, you
> cannot expect any mathematical model to generate the right results.
> Mathematics alone, built on logic, without a physical foundation to
> build on is broken eg 'This sentence is untrue.'.

Yep, math, the application thereof to physics and a proper *physical*
foundation go hand in hand.

So, I agree with most of what you say here. I just disagree with what
is the proper "physical foundation to build on".

What I argue is that because the aether actually exists in nature and
it behaves like a fluid, our "physical foundation to build on" should
by a fluid dynamics model of the medium that should be described using
the fundamental theorem of vector theory.

Two more quotes from my article, this time by Einstein:

"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to
this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was
as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm
foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." (P.
A Schlipp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher – Scientist, On Quantum
Theory, 1949)

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and
order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly
speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will
discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it
has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum
Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although
I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a
consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see
whose instinctive attitude was the correct one." (Albert Einstein to
Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')

So, study the "fundamental theorem of vector theory" and you will find
that "firm foundation" to build upon, that "tangible basis" Einstein
has been searching for the rest of his life.

I know it's hard to accept and get used to, took me years to accept
the possibility of the existence of faster than light "Tesla" waves,
but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelming one has no
choice but to accept the obvious. Once you've crossed that
psychological barrier, there is no turning back.

Cheers!

Arend.