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

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Ilja,

Good of you to comment, but have you ever heard of the concept of 'Group 
Think'. The peer review process is a pefect example of how to do group 
think. To make progress in anything requires looking beyond what is 
known to what could be. Once you have a framework that appears to 
provide solutions to you questions, you then need to work from that to 
what is observed(generally mathematically in the case of physics). This 
can be difficult when you are working with concepts that have not been 
explored previously, which is why words sometimes have to be used in 
explanations because the mathematics would take too long in the specific 
context. My comments on this site may have been in words, but please see 
my various published papers for the maths.
Cheers
Mike





On 2020-04-27 18:00, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> 2020-04-27 14:49 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 6:18 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Firstly, there is a way to provide a single solution to all the
>>> paradoxes that haunt us due to the over-simplistic foundation that is
>>> the Standard Model.
>> 
>> The fundamental problem with the SM is that it's foundation is too
>> complicated, not that it's too simple!
> 
> Whatever, it is the simplest thing we have which is compatible with
> all the particle accelerator data.
> 
>> Because Maxwell's equations violate the fundamental theorem of Vector
>> Calculus, they are incorrect.
> 
> That's wrong, they violate nothing. To put it simply, one cannot
> violate theorems in mathematics.
> 
>> So, because the SM is based upon the existence of four "fundamental
>> interactions" it is waay to complicated. One has to keep track of four
>> kinds of fields/forces instead of only one, which is what makes it
>> pretty much impossible to make any sense of what you are looking at.
> 
> Do you want to invent nice-sounding fairy tales or a theory which has
> something to do with reality?  In the last case, you have no choice
> but to use the SM together with GR as the starting points.
> 
>> (Mathematical) Modelling is just like programming: one has to find the
>> right abstractions and make sure that any object is responsible for
>> one well defined purpose. Just like we do not implement email on the
>> tcp/ip layer, we should not implement the particle model within the
>> medium model. That just doesn't fly, you introduce all kinds of
>> interdependencies which become unmanagable once the model/program
>> grows.
> 
> The design of software has not much to do with the search for a theory
> of physics. You sound again like one who wants to design a nice
> fundamental theory without caring about any real data.
> 
>>> It uses only one incompressible particle (and its
>>> anti-partner) to provide both an aether-like background and a single
>>> loop structure where the number of pairs of the 
>>> particle/anti-particle
>>> defines whether the loops are normal matter or dark matter. The
>>> background is where the pairs are wholly or partially merged – fully
>>> merged means nothing observable, partially merged and spinning,
>>> vibrating or moving, produces magnetic lines of force and 
>>> gravitational
>>> frame dragging when in strings attached to the loops.
> 
> This is yet another simple dream theory, which has nothing to do with
> the reality described by the SM and GR.
> 
>> You make the thinking error that the medium does not consist of
>> particles in the ordinary sense, particles which adhere to the
>> wave-particle duality principle.
> 
> Forget about wave-particle duality.  This is nonsense from the
> beginning of quantum theory when it was not yet understood.
> 
>> We cannot know the consituents of the medium, because we can only
>> describe it using continuum mechanics fluid dynamics vector theory.
> 
>> The particle model *must* come in a higher abstraction layer in the
>> model, otherwise one creates a complicated mess of all kinds of fields
>> that are pretty much impossible to integrate. Not because it is
>> impossible, but because your basic model sucks. The aether behaves
>> like a fluid and therefore we should describe it as such.
> 
> You start with a vague idea about the ether "like a fluid" which is
> not based on any reality of the SM or GR, and then, even worse, insist
> that it should be described by the most primitive model for fluids.
> 
>> The fundamental idea behind this view is that particle/anti-particle
>> pairs are created randomly without cause, which is a NO-GO.
> 
> This is unproblematic, given that such nonsense talk about such pairs
> being created out of nothing is common popular description nonsense.
> If one simply uses standard quantum field theory, this nonsense
> disappears itself. Or, more accurate, does not even appear.
> 
>> Reflect Tesla: "It might be inferred that I am alluding to the
>> curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of
>> relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that
>> space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no
>> properties. ... Of properties we can only speak when dealing with
>> matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies
>> space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act
>> upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."
> 
> Nice quote.  But Tesla will not help you as a reference to authority,
> you are alone in your job. And if you start with dreams instead of
> existing theories supported by empirical evidence you have lost from
> the start.
> 
>> My statement:
>> 
>> To say that randomness is the fundamental cause for certain events is
>> equivalent to stating that nothing can act upon something. I, for one,
>> refuse to subscribe to such a view.
> 
> The point being?  It means you simply refuse to consider any
> statistical theories?  Your choice, but quantum theory makes only
> statistical predictions.  You can start to replace quantum theory by
> something else - de Broglie-Bohm theory is, in particular, not a
> statistical theory but deterministic.
> 
>> Charge is a property of certain particles and should therefore follow
>> from the particle model and should not be taken as a fundamental
>> quantity.  Paul Stowe showed that it is possible to compute the value
>> for elemental charge, e, from a topoidal topology, which is related to
>> a characteristic oscillation frequency of a particle, in this case the
>> electron. Paul also found a relation between this characteristic
>> frequency and the observed cosmic background radiation and background
>> temperature of about 2.7 K.
> 
> Fine, but Paul Stowe is also no authority.  As far as I know, he has
> failed yet to give a theory which is able to recover the predictions
> of SM and GR.
> 
>>> General relativity rules in the background environment because of its
>>> viscosity. There is a local maximum velocity to all travel through 
>>> the
>>> background, energy is lost in all motion and so no action is 
>>> reversible
>>> and there is an arrow of time. Quantum mechanics exists in the 
>>> tunnels
>>> formed between loops that have been merged, as in a photon, and
>>> subsequently separated in space. The tunnels exclude the background 
>>> and
>>> thus there is no maximum speed limit. The loops randomly move along 
>>> the
>>> tunnel swapping ends continuously, no matter how far the two have
>>> separated in space. The properties observable are the sum of the time
>>> spent by each loop at each end and when sufficient perturbation 
>>> breaks
>>> the tunnel, each loop is stuck at whichever end it then occupied. The
>>> result is non-locality and probability. When two entangled photons 
>>> are
>>> split in an experiment, the photon observed passing through a filter
>>> will not necessarily be the same one observed exiting as they
>>> continually swap between paths.
> 
> Sounds like a theory which exist in verbal description only.  Such
> theories are worthless, nobody will even take a look at them.
> 
>>> On 2020-04-26 14:41, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:16 AM Ilja Schmelzer
>>> > <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> > Well, the idea that there should be only one aether and it's dynamics
>>> > can be fully described by LaPlace / Helmholtz, yields a perfectly good
>>> > chance for simplification, IMHO, because instead of having the
>>> > complexity of having to work with multiple fields of force one all has
>>> > to account for, one can work with only one field. That's a
>>> > simplification in my book.
> 
> No. A simplification should nonetheless recover the predictions of the
> theory it simplifies.  To throw away the theory is not to simplify it.
> 
>>> > So, what does this really reveal?
>>> >
>>> > It reveals that with the use of wave functions, which are *harmonic*
>>> > functions, one is able to describe the physics in such a way that one
>>> > can obtain "quite good agreement between the theoretical computations
>>> > and the results of the experiments".
>>> >
>>> > In other words: what has been shown is that harmonic wavefunctions are
>>> > sufficient to describe the phenomena.
> 
> The point being?
> 
>>> >> It works.
>>> >
>>> > That does not mean it can't be improved upon.
> 
> But throwing it away and replacing it with a trivial theory which has
> no chance to recover any SM predictions does not mean improving.
> 
>>> > The solutions of the Laplace equation are *all* harmonic functions.
>>> > Plenty of room to construct all the complexity one could ever wish for.
> 
> Feel free to construct. Come back once you have constructed, in
> detail, the particles of the SM or some variant of it.
> 
> Restricting yourself to "harmonic functions" is essentially not a
> restriction at all, so, essentially, you have nothing to guide you if
> you don't want the SM itself as the starting point.
> 
>>> > However, as I pointed out, magnetics play a *very* important role as
>>> > well, as shown in the lab by David LaPoint.
>>> >
>>> > So, it's quite a lot of work to re-analyse all those experiments and
>>> > see how the data fits with the new model, which is not even completely
>>> > worked out yet.
> 
> The SM is sufficiently worked out, and I have not seen there anything
> which looks incompatible with good old Maxwell theory.
> 
>>> >> You have not done such a thing.
>>> >
>>> > There is no denying that Maxwell's equations violate the elemental
>>> > math as defined by Laplace / Helmholtz, because curl E != 0 in
>>> > Maxwell.
> 
> That's complete nonsense. From curl E != 0 follows nothing.
> 
>>> > This IS mathematical proof, whether you like it or not.
> 
> No, it is simply nonsense.
> 
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> > As I argued, the bottomline is that SM is (at least partially) based
>>> > on *harmonic* wave functions.
> 
> Whatever, you have to recover it, else you fail.
> 
>>> > Since *all* harmonic wave functions are solutions to the Laplace
>>> > equation, there is no question SM can be revised to fit perfectly well
>>> > within our aether model.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Ok, I can counter that there is no question that the SM can be revised 
> within
> some mathematical model.
> 
> Don't forget, your ether model does not exist yet as a well-defined
> physical theory.  A simple liquid described by some velocity is way to
> primitive to make any nontrivial predictions.
> 
> Or how does it follow that we have, in the SM, three generations,
> instead of four or two?  Can the variants of the SM with four or two
> generations be described by your ether model or not?  If not, fine,
> this would make three generations a prediction of your ether model.
> If yes, if your ether model does not restrict the resulting field
> theories at all, then it is worthless, because it does not make any
> nontrivial predictions.
> 
>>> >> If it is viable.  Your model is not.  It does not predict anything
>>> >> about the elementary particles at all.
>>> >
>>> > Since it is an extention of Stowe's work, it predicts that the
>>> > elementary particle called electron can be modeled as a single vortex
>>> > ring which results in an actual understanding of "the quanta" as well
>>> > as an actual understanding of what "charge" is. It also predicts that
>>> > the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
>>> > temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
>>> > oscillation frequency of the electron.
> 
> If it has only one elementary particle, it is a failure, because the
> SM has much more.
> 
>>> > Whatever you may think of that, one cannot maintain it does not
>>> > "predict anything about the elementary particles at all".
> 
> It predicts the number of particles incorrectly, thus, is falsified by
> all the evidence in support of the SM.
> 
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> > Again, sound waves are harmonic waves. So, there is no reason this
>>> > could not also be revised and realigned to our medium model, our
>>> > aether theory, which allows *all* harmonic functions as a solution.
> 
> To make nontrivial physical predictions, it is not enough to allow all
> functions.
> 
>>> > As shown, these gauge fields do not result in any change of the real
>>> > fields of force they are defined to hook into, and therefore they have
>>> > no physicall effect at all, that is, not along the way they are
>>> > currently hooked up into the model.
> 
> Complete nonsense, the SM gauge fields have well-defined physical 
> effects.
> 
>>> > At the end of the day, there is no reason why the SM could not be
>>> > realigned to our medium model, our aether model.
> 
> Feel free to do it.  Don't forget, as long as you can realign
> essentially all QFTs, without any restriction for the number of
> fermion fields, gauge fields, and so on, you have reached nothing.
> 
>>> >> > There _can_ be only one.
>>> >>
>>> >> No, there can be many, and there are many in my model.
>>> >
>>> > Well, yes, one can invent many, but that does not mean doing so helps
>>> > in increasing your understanding of what's actually going on.
> 
> My ether model is already much simpler than the SM, and predicts much
> of its properties. This is certainly increasing our understanding of
> the SM.  And once the SM describes what is actually going one in
> particle physics, it is increasing the understanding of this last
> thing too.
> 
>>> > We know there is a medium and it behaves like a fluid. All one
>>> > accomplishes by introducing additional fields is that one makes thinks
>>> > unnecessarily complicated.
>>> >
>>> > That's just not a good idea in my book.
> 
> Unnecessary only if you see no necessity in making physical
> predictions, and, in particular, to recover the physical predictions
> made by the SM in your theory.
> 
>>> > How do you intend to explain the MM experiment from that then?
> 
> In the standard way the Lorentz ether is explaining it.
> 
>>> > What Helmholtz says is:
>>> >
>>> > A vector field 𝐅 exists such that:
>>> >  𝐅 = −∇Φ + ∇×𝐀
> 
> No. He says that for every field F there exists potentials \Phi, A
> with this property.
> That give some  \Phi, A  there exists also an F with this property is
> a triviality, all you have to do is to compute the derivatives.  No
> theorem necessary.
> 
>>> > And what I'm saying is that, apart from the negation, this vector
>>> > field 𝐅 is given by:
>>> >
>>> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = ∇(Φ) - ∇×(𝐀)
> 
> Which makes no sense at all.
> 
>>> > All in all it's just a process of debugging. First find the bug, then
>>> > update your model accordingly and then compare the predictions with
>>> > observations. If this fails, find the bug and continue.
> 
> Fine, feel free to start this process. Up to now, you have nothing,
> not even a prediction which could be falsified to identify a bug.
> 
>>> > There is no question that a bug that has been left unnoticed for over
>>> > 150 years takes some time to debug and requires quite a lot of
>>> > refactoring in/of the rest of the model.
> 
> There is no bug in the Maxwell equations, the bug is in your
> understanding them.
> 
>>> > What is shown is that steel balls form geometric structures under the
>>> > influence of a magnetic field under certain conditions and that these
>>> > patterns match to a photo that has been shown and is claimed to be an
>>> > image of an atom nucleus.
>>> >
>>> > There is no denying that these seem to match. What that means is up
>>> > for debate, but it is a fact that the picture shown matches the
>>> > patterns shown in the experiment.
> 
> Some nice 2D pictures seem to match.  That's nothing.
> 
>>> > What we have is a model for the medium and the argument that a
>>> > particle model should be built on top of it.
> 
> That means, nothing.  No predictions, no particle model.
> 
>>> > Of course the medium model itself cannot predict anything about the
>>> > observations made in particle accelerators. We cannot do that without
>>> > a particle model.
> 
> Sorry, I have a model of the medium and predicted quite a lot of
> properties of the SM. This is because I have started from the SM.
> Without starting from the theories supported by a lot of evidence you
> have no chance.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics