[Physics] Our own peer review / group think process.

[Arend Lammertink]

Couldn't agree more, Mike.

A mailinglist and a wiki are all we need to implement our own "peer
review" process, independent from any publisher or authority
whatsoever.

The absence of a sufficiently open minded quality "peer review" /
"group think" process in alternative physics is exactly why we are
still at the mercy of the publishing companies.

We can change that, but it *has* to be a group effort.

All the best,

Arend.


On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:57 AM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics