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

[Arend Lammertink]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:01 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> 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.

The fundamental problem is that Maxwell's equations are in violation
of the fundamental theorem of vector calculus.

This has gigantic consequences for our understanding of the Universe.
Everything that came after Maxwell will have to be revised,
reinterpreted and realigned to a corrected version of Maxwell's
equations.

>
> > 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.

Look, you can play word games if you like, you can get emotional, all
fine. Part of the game, it happens.

The human mind does not like to be confronted with information that
does not align with one's belief system. This is called cognitive
dissonance and is well known within psychiatry. May be you remember
that as a child someone told you Santa wasn't real and how you
reacted. That's how this works. Our minds simply cannot cope with
information that goes against our belief system. Eventually, though,
the evidence becomes so overwhelming that one has no choice but to
adapt one's belief system to the new found evidence.

At the end of the day, there is no denial that there is something
seriously wrong with Maxwell's equations and there really is no
denying that Maxwell's curl [E] = -d[B]/dt is something completely
different than the curl [E] = 0 we find in the fundamental theorem of
vector calculus.

This really is like having Pythagoras' theorem:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

And then see Maxwell write:

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

Want to deny this? Fine, go ahead. Knock yourself out. But be aware
that math and logic demand you will eventually figure out the obvious,
namely that there is something seriously wrong with Maxwell's
equations and that this is very important and needs to be fixed.

There are many more reasons to show Maxwell is incorrect, btw. Another
one is that because of insisting that charge is a fundamental quantity
that causes the EM fields, circular logic has been introduced to the
model. Let me just cut/paste part of the discussion I had with William
Rice to illustrate that point:

-:-
[The units of measurement of] "[𝗘] and [𝐁] are not the same nor
should they be."

Interestingly, here the discussion changes from mathematical
quantifiability / consistency towards the question of whether or not
it makes sense from a philosophical point of view.

I think we agree the Laplace operator defines a mathematical construct
which also defines a fundamental decomposition of a given field into
two components, namely a rotational part and a translational part.
This is also reflected in the significance of the A-B effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect#Significance

And I think we also agree that solutions to the Laplace equation ∇²𝐅=
0 yields harmonic results and that the units of measurement for the
potential fields are the same in a fluid dynamics model, which would
include a model wherein the aether is modelled as a fluid, in our case
an ideal Newtonian fluid.

I think we also agree that in Maxwell’s equations, there are sources
for the fields, which are the electric charge density ρand electric
current density J, while in fluid dynamics there are no sources for
the field itself.

So far, so good.

That brings us to the Nature of charge and it’s relation to causing
electromagnetic radiation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
“Electromagnetic waves are emitted by electrically charged particles
undergoing acceleration.” Now let’s consider the wave-particle
duality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
“Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every
particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a
wave. […] Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern
physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best
explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is
not without controversy.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
“The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the
electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as
light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic
force (even when static via virtual particles).”

Now let’s substitute this into the sentence about the nature of EM radiation:

“Electromagnetic waves are emitted by (electrically charged) quanta of
electromagnetic radiation (undergoing acceleration).”

So, the next problem is that when you define charge to be a
fundamental quantity that is on the one hand the source for the field
and on the other a property of “charged particles”, you introduce
circular logic into the model.

Given that in the analog case in fluid dynamics there are no sources
for the fields themselves but only sources that can emit disturbances
into the field and the fact that the current definition leads to the
introduction of circular logic, in my opinion it makes no sense to
insist that [𝗘] and [𝐁] should have different units of measurement.

It seems to me that the way out of the conundrum would be to
fundamentally separate the model for the medium from the particle
model that comes on top of it and therefore to remove “charge” as a
source for the fields, completely analogous to the description of the
fields in any fluid-like medium.
-:-



>
> > 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.

When one finds a bug that has so many consequences as this one, one
has no choice but to fix it and then to figure out what the
consequences actually are and how to correct these as well.

Yet another point is that Maxwell does not predict Tesla's
faster-than-light longitudinal wave. Even though there is no
conclusive evidence for these to exist, there are quite a few data
points which, when taken together, leave little doubt in my mind these
actually do exist and do propagate FTL. The evidence includes a/o
"fast light" anomalies discovered with optical fibers, such as by
Stenner and Wang:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Wang%20et%20al%20-%20Gain-assisted%20superluminal%20light%20propagation.pdf
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Stenner%20-%20The%20speed%20of%20information%20in%20a%20fast-light%20optical%20medium.pdf

Another interesting data-point are the Erdmann brothers:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Erdmann%20-%20Experiments%20with%20Faster%20than%20Light%20Receiving%20Antenna.pdf

They misinterpreted their data, because in a Tesla transmitter like
this it's actually the "ground" terminal that's the "hot" terminal,
but they _did_ measure signals arriving earlier than they should,
compared to the wave received by normal antennas. Actually the FTL
wave transmitted by an AM broadcast station goes trough the earth
itself, which is what Tesla utilized. This should all have been
obvious and well understood by now, but it isn't. Virtually no one
understands what Tesla's single wire transmission line is all about
and why the energy flows involved here have a totally different
character than the two-wire transmission line all of our electronics
and communication systems are based upon. Eric Dollard is one of very
few that actually has a clue on what Tesla's single wire stuff is all
about.

>
> > (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.

The design of software has everything to do with the search for a
theory of physics. At the end of the day, one will have to build
simulators in order for the theory to be useful. Simulators for the EM
fields as wel as fluid dynamics are in essence nothing but evaluations
of the (vector) math using discretized approximations and that goes
for all field simulator software, as far as I can tell.

In other words: programming of simulation software is just an
expression of the same math in another language, so the same design
logic applies.

And you get the same consequences as well. When you do not properly
layer you software/math, you are creating more problems than you
solve.

>
> >> 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.

At least Mike does think about what the fields actually describe,
thinks about what that means and considers the dimensionality (units
of measurement) of the fields involved. The foundation of his analysis
is the use of the charge-mass qm rather than q as the unit of
electromagnetism, which teached him quite a lot.

However, because the introduction of the quantity of charge as a
fundamental quantity introduces circular logic, it is clear that the
real answer is to start out with the use of mass m, rather than the
charge-mass.

>
> > 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.

Are you still living with the illusion that abstract fields rather
than the real fields of force as defined by Laplace yield anything
resembling actual understanding?

Freeman Dyson explained very nicely how it came to be that abstract
fields are the false prophet of modern science:

"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 fields just *have* to propagate trough the medium one way or the
other and when one wipes that fact under the rug, one creates a heck
of a lot of problems which prohibit actual understanding of what is
really going on.

>
> > 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.

Yep, Occam had a point.

And it is based on reality, the reality that longitudinal waves as
demonstrated by Tesla actually exist and propagate a lot faster than
light. There may not yet be conclusive evidence, but that's a mere
question of time. Tesla already established a much faster propagation
speed than that of light, with a "mean velocity of about four hundred
and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second",
as early as 1905:

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-787412-art-transmitting-electrical-energy-through-natural-mediums


>
> > 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.

Think what you want, but if a guy like Tesla claims to have
transmitted waves with a speed vastly exceeding that of light, it may
be a good idea to pay attention.


>
> > 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.

Nope, not at all. Probabilistic methods are very useful and made a lot
of progress possible, despite the obvious flaws in Maxwell's
equations.

But one has to be aware of what one is actually doing and one cannot
consider a fundamental randomness as a cause for certain events to be
a factual description of reality. It may produce accurate results,
sure, but one cannot have nothing acting upon something and therefore
probabilistic methods have their limits. The prediction of "spooky
action at a distance", requiring not only a force propagating at an
infinite speed but requiring an infinite magnitude as well, is one of
those predictions that's obviously incorrect.

I know that there are experiments which are supposed to prove the
existence of "spooky action at a distance", but when you look at
these, you will find that the use of spectral analysis in order to
rule out resonances is not even being being considered. In fact, all
what these experiments show is that it's perfectly possible to be an
absolute master at fooling one's self.

Simple logic demands one cannot have a force propagating at an
infinite speed trough a physical medium.


>
> > 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.

Well, he can explain the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the
electron as well:

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

But it's not about authority, it's about what makes sense and about
whether or not the predictions of a model match with observations.

Just look at the properties of the medium. It is characterized by a
permittivity 𝞮 of 8.854 pF/m, a permeability 𝞵 of 4𝞹 x 10^-7 H/m
and a characteristic impedance of 377 𝞨. This matches to the
characteristics of a fluid, and therefore it makes sense to describe
it as a fluid.

The very fact that Maxwell did not do that but introduced Faraday's
law into the model at a place where it just doesn't fit, which I have
proven mathematically, should be reason enough to reconsider just
about anything. Paul's work illustrates doing so yields a number of
results which cannot be explained by current theories, which only
strengthens the argument.

>
> >> 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.

In a good theory, math is used to expresses the fundamental ideas one
has such that these ideas form the basis for a quantifiable theory.
These fundamental ideas should be the master over the math and not the
other way around.  Einstein illustrated this quite nicely:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/EinsteinMaxwellsInfluenceOnTheDevelopmentOfTheConceptionOfPhysicalReality#PartialDifferential

"In order to give his system mathematical form at all, Newton had
first to invent the concept of the differential quotient, and to draw
up the laws of motion in the form of total differential equations -
perhaps the greatest intellectual step that it has ever been given to
one man to take. Partial differential equations were not needed for
this, and Newton did not make any methodical use of them. Partial
differential equations were needed, however, for the formulation of
the mechanics of deformable bodies; this is bound up with the fact
that in such problems the way and the manner in which bodies were
thought of as constructed out of material points did not play a
significant part to begin with.

Thus the partial differential equation came into theoretical physics
as a servant, but little by little it took on the role of master. This
began in the nineteenth century, when under the pressure of
observational facts the undulatory theory of light asserted itself.
Light in empty space was conceived as a vibration of the ether, and it
seemed idle to conceive of this in turn as a conglomeration of
material points. Here for the first time partial differential
equations appeared as the natural expression of the primary realities
of physics. In a particular area of theoretical physics the continuous
field appeared side by side with the material point as the
representative of physical reality. This dualism has to this day not
disappeared, disturbing as it must be to any systematic mind."

Basically, the same point as illustrated by Freeman Dyson above.

The math has become our master in physics and we have no choice but to
make physical insight lead once again, rather than abstract math.

As said, math is like a programming language. With any language, like
for example C++, it's perfectly possible to build a giant mess that's
unmaintainable, yet is functional to a large degree. However, that
does not make it a good idea to reject "best practices" and write
spaghetti code. Sooner or later, you are going to have to pay the
bill. One cannot leave a fundamental bug in the system for over 150
years and expect to resolve the consequences thereof within a couple
of months by one's own. Such requires a dedicated effort by multiple
people, even thousands of people eventually.

Sure, one can kick the can down the road for years (and even decades
in the case of physics), but at some point the artificially introduced
complexity becomes unmanageable and one has no choice but to refactor
the system by using common sense and well established architectural
principles.

And that's where we are now. We've found the bug and we cannot
continue to kick the can down the road forever.

>
> >> 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.

Refactoring / revising / reinterpreting / realigning is just not the
same thing as "throwing away".



>
> >> > 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 should be possible to refactor the SM such that it is based on the
notion of the existence of a real, physical medium rather than the
notion of the existence of a number of abstract fields, for which
there is no explanation of how these are supposed to propagate trough
the medium.

The equations are probably OK to a large degree. It's mainly their
units of measurements which should be adapted to the new model, which
only has three fundamental dimensions:

1) length [m]
2) mass [kg]
3) time [s].

All other quantities can be expressed in these three, which is a
significant simplification.

This should not really be that difficult, it should follow naturally
from the new medium model. It's just a gigantic pile of work.

>
> >> >> 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.

Again: not throwing it away, refactoring and adapting is what I'm calling for.

The math does predict the observations well. It's just that a lot
remains unclear about what it is that's actually being described and
how it relates to the properties and dynamics of the medium.

Eventuallly, it all comes down to what fields are being defined and
how they relate to one another. Rather than trying to guess these
relations after one has created an abstract field, these relations
should follow naturally from the medium model. This way, one can make
sense of what it is that's actually being described and thus increase
one's actual understanding.

>
> >> > 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.

Just not my paint of beer.

I'm focussing on Tesla's longitudinal waves and single wire
transmission line technology. That's the nut I want to crack, because
we need it if we ever want to be able to attach our machinery to the
very wheelwork of Nature.

>
> 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.

The point is that there is nothing that stops us from refactoring SM
by reinterpreting the equations and harmonic "wave functions" within
it to be based on the tangible basis defined by Laplace / Helmholtz.

So, what I argue is that the SM can be a perfect starting point for
constructing a particle model on top of the medium model we have
defined. It's just not a good idea to throw everything away, but it is
a good idea to adapt one's theory to new found information and
insights.

In other words: the SM is what you have to guide you, yes, but that
does not mean one has to take it completely for granted.


>
> >> > 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.

All the better, that means that it shouldn't be a problem to adapt SM
to the new corrected electromagnetic field 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.

Yep, it's incorrect. One cannot violate mathematically proven theorems
and expect to get away with it forever.

But I know it takes time to get used to the idea. Took me years to
accept the idea FTL waves are possible. Eventually, you will come to
the same conclusion as I did: something is seriously wrong with
Maxwell's equations and we have no choice but to fix it.

>
> >> >> 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.

Yep, that's the idea. Refactor, not throw away.

>
> >> > 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.

Yep, agree to that. Hence the argument a particle model is needed
which should be built on top of the medium model by using the SM as a
guideline.

>
> 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.

The point is that because our aether model does not restrict the
resulting field theories, those theories can be adapted / refactored
to incorporate the new found information.

It basically comes down to re-interpreting units of measurements and
aligning them with the three fundamental dimensions within our model:
space, mass and time.

>
> >> >> 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.

Hence the idea to take the SM and adapt it to the new found information.


>
> >> > 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.

You are going too short around the corner.

We have a model for the medium itself that's pretty much worked out,
but there's still a lot of work to do just to extend the model such
that the complete electromagnetic domain is covered, which involves
how to relate the resulting fields to the voltages and currents we can
measure.

Stowe has shown a number of things that can be worked out from this
medium model, which includes a basic model for the electron, which is
already a big step. The rest is up to others, which comes down to
re-attaching the currently abstractly defined fields to the physical
base we have shown and working things out in a logical and consistent
manner. There is not too much wrong with the SM, it just lacks a
proper alignment of the fields it uses to a physical base wherein real
physical fields of force are defined rather than abstract fields of
which no one knows how these are supposed to propagate trough the
medium.

>
> >> >> 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.

Nope, but again, it allows one to rebase the current model from an
abstract field model base onto a base wherein two real physical fields
of force are defined, which are obtained from a fluid dynamics aether
model. These fields being the irrotatinonal [E] field and the
incompressible [B] field for which superposition holds, so can add a
third field [X]=[E]+[B] if one so desires.

>
> >> > 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.

In any case, the effects are not expressed in terms of the real
physical fields of force they should work trough.

The most direct experimental data which illustrates this is the
Aharonov–Bohm effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect#Significance
"In the 18th and 19th centuries, physics was dominated by Newtonian
dynamics, with its emphasis on forces. Electromagnetic phenomena were
elucidated by a series of experiments involving the measurement of
forces between charges, currents and magnets in various
configurations. Eventually, a description arose according to which
charges, currents and magnets acted as local sources of propagating
force fields, which then acted on other charges and currents locally
through the Lorentz force law. In this framework, because one of the
observed properties of the electric field was that it was
irrotational, and one of the observed properties of the magnetic field
was that it was divergenceless, it was possible to express an
electrostatic field as the gradient of a scalar potential (e.g.
Coulomb's electrostatic potential, which is mathematically analogous
to the classical gravitational potential) and a stationary magnetic
field as the curl of a vector potential (then a new concept – the idea
of a scalar potential was already well accepted by analogy with
gravitational potential). The language of potentials generalised
seamlessly to the fully dynamic case but, since all physical effects
were describable in terms of the fields which were the derivatives of
the potentials, potentials (unlike fields) were not uniquely
determined by physical effects: potentials were only defined up to an
arbitrary additive constant electrostatic potential and an
irrotational stationary magnetic vector potential.

The Aharonov–Bohm effect is important conceptually because it bears on
three issues apparent in the recasting of (Maxwell's) classical
electromagnetic theory as a gauge theory, which before the advent of
quantum mechanics could be argued to be a mathematical reformulation
with no physical consequences. The Aharonov–Bohm thought experiments
and their experimental realization imply that the issues were not just
philosophical.

The three issues are:

1) whether potentials are "physical" or just a convenient tool for
calculating force fields;
2) whether action principles are fundamental;
3) the principle of locality.

Because of reasons like these, the Aharonov–Bohm effect was chosen by
the New Scientist magazine as one of the "seven wonders of the quantum
world"."


Note the following from the same link:

"An electric Aharonov–Bohm phenomenon was also predicted, in which a
charged particle is affected by regions with different electrical
potentials but zero electric field, but this has no experimental
confirmation yet."



>
> >> > 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.

Increasing our understanding of the SM is a good thing, certainly.

But if you really want to understand what's actually going on, you
have no choice but to define your fields in such a way that you also
understand how these fields propagate trough a medium characterized by
a permittivity 𝞮 of 8.854 pF/m, a permeability 𝞵 of 4𝞹 x 10^-7 H/m
and a characteristic impedance of 377 𝞨.

>
> >> > 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.

Of course it's necessary to make physical predictions and to recover
the physical predictions made by the SM!

But again, in order to make physical predictions, one's theory will
have to be based on something physical, the aether.

There is just no way one can ever achieve a "Theory of Everyting" if
one starts out by defining abstract fields that cannot be mapped to
the characteristics of the medium we know to exist.

>
> >> > 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.

There is one detail to add:

"if additionally the vector field F vanishes as r → ∞, then F is unique."

>From dimensional analysis in the FD case we learn, on top of that,
what that unique solution is for ANY set of potential fields Φ and 𝐀
as defined by the Laplace operator:

  [F] = 0, the null vector.

If you cannot see the pure power and beauty of this math, you really
need to check your reading glasses.....

>
> >> > 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.

It's just taking the equation that's given and has been mathematically
proven to be correct:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅)

And substitute

∇·𝐅  = Φ, and
∇×𝐅 = 𝐀

Just elementary math....

And again, analysis of units of measurement reveals the solution aka
Laplace's equation:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = ∇(Φ) - ∇×(𝐀) = 0

Really just elementary math, substituting terms and associating them
with a familiar symbol. That's all this is:

-:-
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

-:-

Clearly, [E] defines an irrotational field since it's curl is zero and
[B] defines a solenoidal field since it's divergence is zero.

Rings a bell?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition
"Helmholtz's theorem,  also known as the fundamental theorem of vector
calculus, states that any sufficiently smooth, rapidly decaying vector
field in three dimensions can be resolved into the sum of an
irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal
(divergence-free) vector field; this is known as the Helmholtz
decomposition or Helmholtz representation. It is named after Hermann
von Helmholtz."


>
> >> > 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.

Even though we have not fully worked out the math (wave equations) we
know longitudinal waves are predicted and not only that, they are
predicted to propagate faster than light by a factor of either pi/2 or
sqrt(3). That's what longitudinal waves do, they propagate faster than
transverse waves trough the same medium.

Take that with all the data which supports the idea of the existence
of a faster-than-light wave phenomenon and one can be almost certain
conclusive evidence of the existence of FTL longitudinal waves will
eventually be obtained.

So, the interesting thing is we have a prediction that, once verified,
falsifies quite a lot of existing theories out there because in these
the bug we found has not been fixed...


>
> >> > 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.

Failing to predict of Tesla's longitudinal waves is a serious bug in my book.

>
> >> > 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.

I think it's quite remarkable that when you throw steal balls into the
centre of these magnets, as is shown. the steal balls maintain order
within a certain geometric pattern.  Even addition of more balls does
not result in balls colliding. All what happens is that a new
geometric pattern forms, whereby the particles oscillate for a while.

>
> >> > 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.

Yep, no particle model to speak of. Paul just worked out the basics
for the electron and that's it, but he found some remarkable results,
including an explanation for the Electrons magnetic moment anomaly.

There is a prediction, however: the existence of longitudinal
dieletric waves which propagate faster than light.

>
> >> > 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.

When your model doesn't predict FTL longitudinal dielectric waves, you
are going to have a problem once conclusional evidence emerges which
confirms their existence. Only a matter of time. Tesla has already
done it and one day, someone else will too.